 Good morning and welcome to the 30th meeting of session 6 of the Equalities, Human Rights and civil justice committee. We have no apologies this morning. We're joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government,him sponge. We're also joined by a number of MSPs who have lodged amendments at stage 2 and others who can join us throughout the a we have a full public gallery. You are all very welcome. I welcome everyone who is participating in the meetings today and those who are observing, either here in the room or online. We have made good progress with our consideration of stage two amendments last week and I hope that we will manage to conclude consideration today. However, we still have a large number of amendments to dispose of, tend to allow as much debate as is needed for each amendment. However, as with last week, I would ask members to be as concise as possible and keep the points that they are required to make in relation to their amendments. As we did last week, we will take regular comfort breaks throughout the morning as required. Our sole agenda item today is to continue with our stage 2 consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland bill. Members should have a copy of the marshaled list and groupings for debate with them. If votes are required today, I will call members to vote yes first, then call members to vote no, and then for any abstentions. Members should do so by raising their hand. Clerks will collate the vote and pass them to me to read out and confirm the results. Can I remind Cabinet Secretary's officials that they cannot speak during this stage, but they can communicate with the Cabinet Secretary directly? So, we move straight in to the points after section 13, so I call amendment 21 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 21 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This is a probing amendment, and it makes clear that a GARC does not change the status of a person as a parent under the 2004 act. There is currently no provision regarding the status of parenthood in the current bill. Section 12 of the 2004 act states that the fact that a person's gender has become the acquired gender does not affect the status of the person as the father or the mother of the child. If GRC's issue under the new Scottish system changed the definition as mother and father, that could create confusion on official documents of their child and also has cross-border implications. I am hoping that the Cabinet Secretary will tell me that this amendment is not necessary. Section 12 will still apply to GRC's issued by the Register General for Scotland in which case I shall withdraw it. Thank you. I call Tess White to speak to amendment 135 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 135 is the main amendment, which seeks to place a duty on Scottish ministers to encourage public understanding, not just of the act's provisions but the effects of the act more widely. Amendment 142 requires that Scottish ministers must prepare and publish a report on how this requirement has been fulfilled, no later than six months after the day after royal assent. 142, during stage 1, we heard evidence raising question marks over what it means to live in an acquired gender, whether name changes will be required, what it means to make a false decoration, whether GRC's will be recognised by other jurisdictions in the UK and elsewhere. Whether there is a pathway to detransition in the bill, what the bill means for the operation of the Equality Act 2010 and what the implications of the bill will be for single sex spaces and women and girls. That is just the tip of the iceberg, convener, and committee. The number of amendments lodged at stage 2 is indicative of just how little clarity this bill provides on key provisions. One stakeholder described the Scottish Government's own understanding of the bill as flawed. Colleagues, at stage 2, of course, is seeking to improve the bill's clarity, but it remains the case that the public needs to understand what this act does once it has passed and what it does not, and how it affects people, especially women and girls, how people can use it and what the penalties are for misuse. I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 137 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the committee. The amendments 137 and 138 are simply to seek clarification of the situation. We heard last week from the cabinet secretary and from a number of other members that the changes proposed within this bill do not affect what happens in regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. That simply seeks to clarify that situation and to give a way forward if that becomes an act. All of us will be aware that article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights leaks out all protected characteristics. Amendment 137 simply seeks to state, as I think has been stated previously, that nothing more changes in regard to that. I hope that the cabinet secretary can give some clarification over that. That seeks to look forward in regard to any regulations that will flow out when this becomes an act. Again, it simply asks that there is no contradiction between article 9 and any regulations that are laid before Parliament and that, if regulations are laid, in regard to article 9 and affecting article 9, the affirmative procedure would be used so that the committee and Parliament can scrutinise them clearly. I hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to clarify that those amendments are necessary simply to bring clarification rather than to change anything specifically. I call Fulton MacGregor to speak to amendment 111 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning to cabinet secretary and to colleagues. I would just like to say that the outset of my amendment here is a problem one. Prisons are clearly an area of concern for many people in respect of this bill. I know that a lot of colleagues share this. I do not believe that prisons are the place for women at all, apart from the most serious of situations. Of course, that is a wider discussion. For example, I appreciate the new custody suites, the women's custody suites that the Scottish Government has brought forward. Clearly, for those who are housed in prisons, it is vital that they feel safe. I want to put in record my grateful thanks to Murray Blackburn MacKenzie for suggesting the amendment in its initial forum following the stage 1 debate where I spoke about it. Its initial amendment was to say that possession of a gender recognition certificate shall have no bearing on allocation decisions made with respect to housing on the prison estate, but the legislation clerks got back to me on that, feeling that that was not within the scope of the bill and hence why the amendment that is in front of colleagues today is for an avoidance of doubt one. The amendment simply states what the SPS have already told us, what they already do and what everyone wants to be the case that trans prisoners are risk assessed as to make sure that they are housed in the most appropriate facility for the safety of other inmates and, of course, the trans person themselves. I do want to put in record my thanks to the equality and human rights commission in Scotland to Scottish Trans, the equality network and colleagues from across the chamber for the support and for understanding my intention, which is an attempt as we bring forward legislation to make the lives of trans people easier, to bring reassurance to an area where there have been genuinely held concerns. I know that, in speaking to the Government that the avoidance of doubt amendments are not great and I know that there are some concerns about that and I know that also the Government are keen to hear a later amendment from Pamdunkine Glancy today that may actually cover the intention of what I am trying to achieve here, so I do look forward to hearing that. Therefore, based on all that, I am not inclined to press at this time, we will hear the debate on Pamdunkine Glancy's amendment, but I do encourage the Cabinet Secretary and the Government to consider further improvements in this area and others ahead of stage 3 so that the bill can command as widespread support in the chamber and with the public as well as possible. As others have said, a later group of amendments deal with the interaction of the bill with the Equality Act 2010. Amendments in that group seek to clarify that the bill does not change all or part of the Equality Act 2010 and I will state now that I propose to support one amendment stating that, for the avoidance of doubt, the bill does not modify that act and there are specific circumstances, I believe, it would justify that. However, in general provisions simply state for the avoidance of doubt something that is very clearly the case, add nothing of value to legislation. On amendment 21, the bill amends specific sections of the 2004 act. It does not amend section 12, which states that the fact that a person's gender has become the acquired gender under this act does not affect the status of the person as a father or mother of a child. As we are clearly not changing this part of the act, amendment 21 is entirely unnecessary and I do not support it. I do not support Tess White's two amendments 1, 3, 5 and 1, 4, 2, which seek to introduce a duty for ministers to take steps to promote understanding of the bill and report on this within six months of royal assent. The Scottish Government has conducted two of the largest public consultation exercises ever undertaken for a Scottish bill and we have published impact assessments, explanatory notes and a policy memorandum and further information is available on our website. The committee has also conducted a public consultation and taken evidence producing a thorough and very detailed report. We have engaged with stakeholders and will continue to do so as part of our implementation work should the bill pass. Of course, we will be engaging with users in designing the application process and national records of Scotland will provide guidance on the process and effects of obtaining a GRC. In Christine Grahame's amendment 71 agreed last week, it also ensures that all necessary information will be available on the national records of Scotland website. I also support Jeremy Balfour's two amendments, which state for the avoidance of doubt that the bill does not alter the effects of article nine of the European Convention of Human Rights while also requiring regulations on the interaction of the bill with article nine. As the committee knows, acts of this Parliament cannot alter the effect of the ECHR. This amendment brings ambiguity, not clarity and it is not clear what sort of provision could be made in regulations under amendment 138 or who that provision would be addressed to. Turning to Fulton MacGregor's amendment, as the committee has heard in evidence, the Scottish Prison Service already used comprehensive individualised risk assessments to determine how trans prisoners are managed, whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate. I am happy to repeat today that, for the sake of the record, adding provisions to the bill that simply state for the avoidance of doubt that is very clearly the case does not generally add value to our laws. Therefore, I do not support amendment 111, but I have given reassurance and have emphasised again the Scottish Prison Service's comprehensive individual risk assessment process. Rachael Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 21. I will start by withdrawing amendment 21. I am sympathetic to Fulton MacGregor's amendment and on the impact of prisons. It is possible that the concerns that we have within the amendment would have reduced the risk within the prisons. The cabinet secretary indicates that that is dealt with by the Scottish Prison Service, but we still have concerns with the number of individuals that are seeking to acquire a GRC and the numbers that possibly will increase by 10 fold. I am sympathetic to his comments that Duncan Glancy's amendment may address that, but we will have to see how the cabinet secretary responds to that. It may be that if that is not the case, we could possibly have a discussion and work together to seek and address the concerns that he and I both have on this one. The member has sought permission to withdraw amendment 21. Is that agreed by the committee? That is agreed. I therefore call amendment 22, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 121. Graham Simpson to move or not moved. I therefore call amendment 99, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAll to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 72, in the name of Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 126. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Question is amendment 72, be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 73, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 126. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Question is amendment 73, be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 133, in the name of Jamie Greene, in a group of its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 133. Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for allowing me to attend this morning, and I will move my amendment. I would like to start by, first of all, I did watch last week's proceedings from afar, and I wanted to reflect on some comments made by Michael Marra. I think he made the point rather eloquently and quite respectfully. Even as someone who is supporting the general principles of the bill, he acknowledged that whilst it is already possible to attain a GRC, this bill does change the process by which that is achieved. It simplifies the process, which actually is the whole point of the legislation to make the process less degrading and humiliating and intrusive. However, he also made a very valid point that whether we like it or not, that simplification of the process does remove steps that currently exist that may be seen as some as potential safeguards and barriers to individuals with malicious intentions. Whilst that risk, I hope, remains low, it remains nonetheless. My stage 1 comments in the debate made the point that we face a bit of a conundrum, that how do we go about such simplification of the process and the removal of barriers without removing safeguards, be they perceived or actual? Mr Marra proposed a method that added some gravitas to the process of self-declaration and understood that that was rejected by the committee. I have approached this issue slightly differently. If there is any concern that an individual may use this new, simplified process as somehow an easier way to change their gender and to do so for all the wrong reasons and the reasons that people fear, then there clearly remains a need to reassure people that the by-product of this new process is not simply a reduction of safeguards or the removal of deterrents. That is my amendment. Amendment 133 tries to find what I think is a sensible balance, which acknowledges that, by default, the new process is easier, but it also sends a strong message that abuse of that new system simply will not be tolerated. What it does, convener, is that it creates an aggravator, which effectively will deliver a harsher punishment and sentence on those who use the GRC process to enable them to commit other serious crimes. Effectively, a criminal offence is aggravated if it is proven that the offence in question is connected to the fact that an individual has fraudulently obtained a gender recognition certificate. It does not change sentencing guidelines, however. Yes, I would. I just wondered in your very comprehensive amendment where you used or where it is referred to fraudulently obtained what you think would need to be shown in court, because you will be aware of some considerable debate around the provisions in the bill that say that it is fraudulent if you can show that someone has done it for the wrong reasons, as you say. I have some concerns that the bill does not set out what the court would need to show, given that the declaration itself is quite a simple process. I would be really grateful if the member could outline what, which is a good amendment, but what do you think would need to be shown in order to show that it was fraudulent in the first place? I thank Ms McNeill for that helpful intervention. I think that you make a good point. It is already my understanding that perhaps the cabinet secretary will address this using the assistance of her team around her, that it is already an offence to obtain a gender recognition certificate fraudulently, so there already is a bar that has been set in the eyes of the law. My understanding is that that bar would remain so, but perhaps that is something that could be clarified either through further guidance after the bill passes or through further clarification in the amendment itself. As we go into stage 3, I will be very happy to amend this amendment should it pass further to clarify that matter. However, you are absolutely right that the individual court cases are very individual and we should be as clear as possible, so I am happy to work with the Government if that helps and any other member. I do want to be clear on what the amendment does not do. It does not alter in any way the general principles of the bill or the process for obtaining a GRC, or should it act as a deterrent to anyone who wants to go about that process for good reason? It does not exclude anyone from obtaining a certificate, nor does it set any preconditions or requirements that one has to meet to obtain one. I lodged another amendment at 1.34, which the committee will know that I drew ahead of the deadline, because it tried to go into a little bit more detail as to the types of offences where an aggravator would be most suited, for example those committed of sexual offences act, human trafficking, abusive behaviour, sexual harm and domestic abuse. I felt that there was some merit in that, but I understand there may be some technical difficulties that the cabinet secretary may explain to me. I am happy to again work with the Government if we feel that this could be strengthened to be more specific or if this general approach is good enough in the eyes of the law. Similarly, aggravators have been used commonly in other pieces of legislation, for example the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018, and more recently members may be aware of the fireworks and pyrotechnics bill, which the Criminal Justice Committee passed introduced an aggravator for offences of assaults against emergency service workers. There is some precedent in that. The whole point of an aggravator is simply to act as a deterrent, as is the case with this. I would ask members of the committee to support it, because I think that it will introduce what is a much-needed counterbalance to address some of the concerns voiced over this new process. I will be voting against this amendment. There is no evidence from other jurisdictions that operate similar gender recognition arrangements that gender recognition is being fraudulently applied to facilitate the commission of offences. In any courtroom setting, a judge can always take all circumstances into account when deciding on sentencing, so there is no need for this or any specific aggravating factor to be included. As Jamie Greene has just said, he hopes that this would act as a deterrent. That is not an appropriate thing, in my opinion, to put on the face of this bill. Where a person has fraudulently obtained a GRC, they can already be prosecuted and sentenced for this in addition to any other offence, so I do not believe that that is necessary. Attaching aggravation to the application for and awarding of a gender recognition certificate is deeply problematic. Last week, I mentioned that, in principle, I would support this amendment. It is important to emphasise that Jamie Greene's proposed amendment applies to fraudulently obtaining a GRC. As the committee knows, the bill already includes offences of knowingly making a false statutory declaration or including other false information in an application for a GRC. I think that this is really important for the Government to clarify because we have had a lot of talk about fraudulently requesting a declaration, but at no time has the Government set out what it would need to show in court. Give us an example of what it would need to show, given that the process is already quite a simple process that you apply, you wait three months and you can also reverse it as well. I am interested in the legality of it. If it is in the bill when some people think that it should not be or it should be, it is a matter of law. I think that the Government needs to be clear. What would the court need to show in order to prove its fraudulent in the first place? It would always depend on the circumstances of the case, but, for example, if it could be shown that the person had no intention of living in the acquired gender and were, in fact, obtaining a gender recognition certificate in the full knowledge that they were not, that could be shown and the evidence would be gathered and presented to the court. In the very unlikely circumstance that Jamie Greene's amendment would deal with, where someone sought to obtain a gender recognition certificate fraudulently, had no intention of living in the acquired gender, then went on to commit an offence, and the aggravator would show the seriousness of that, not just in terms of making a false declaration but then going on to commit a crime with having obtained a gender recognition certificate under false pretenses. As I said at the beginning, the circumstances of each individual case may be very different, but that is one example of where that evidence would be shown, and then the court would obviously have to look at the circumstances in the case and decide on that. Cabinet Secretary, on the basis of that, would you then look to create a definition of living within the acquired gender? We discussed that last week, and I gave a number of examples of how someone could show that they were living in the acquired gender, and they were quite extensive. They already exist under the 2004 act, so they were not changing anything in terms of those various ways that someone could demonstrate. That remains the same. However, what we are talking about here is that someone has committed an offence, and it can be shown that they did not live in the acquired gender, had no intention to, and there are various circumstances of how someone lived their life and proof that could be led. What we are talking about here in Jamie Greene's amendment is an aggravator, so the person will be in court because of the crime that they have committed, and if it can be shown, in addition to that, that they had falsely obtained a gender recognition certificate, the aggravator, in my view, would be appropriate because of the seriousness of doing that. As Jamie Greene alluded to, he sends out a very clear message that that would be a very serious offence indeed. I want to address Maggie Chapman's comments. First of all, I want to be clear that the purpose of the amendment is not to inhibit or deter anyone who trans people to make good use of the new process. The member will understand that it is a new, simplified process of shadow support, and I appreciate that others do not. However, in no way is that the intention. For that reason, it is clear that an aggravator will only be used when an offender comes to court for having committed other offences, as is rightly the case. The concept of an aggravator is very commonly used in law in Scotland. As a deterrent, that is the whole point of it, and I want to be clear about that. I think that the cabinet secretary used the phrase, which is an important one, and that is the seriousness of committing such an act. If someone has fraudulently obtained a DRC with the intention of accessing spaces or people that they should not be in and then goes on to commit a further crime, there are a number of crimes that I am interested in that may fit into this amendment. Such acts will be viewed very seriously by judges and courts, and you will, effectively, be given a more harsher punishment and sentence. That is the point of an aggravator itself. At the end of my remarks, I would have put on record that there is some further consideration around the use of the word connected, which needs to be clarified. The member is willing to work with us just ahead of stage 3 on the final word that may require some additional tweaking. It was just to ensure that Jamie Greene is happy to do that. Thank you. I presume that that is 22 to be 1, as the cabinet secretary was speaking about. Of course, I am not a legal drafter. That was done with kind help, but very short notice issued by the parliamentary team, given the tight deadlines that we had. I would prefer to move that and ask committee members to vote on it. Yes, of course, there is ample opportunity to tie it up ahead of stage 3, and I will have to work with the Government on that. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. We will go straight to the vote. All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those against. There are no abstentions. That is 6, 4 and 1 against. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Amendment 14, in the name of Sue Weber, is already debated with amendment 2, Sue Weber to move or not move. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour, please vote. All those against. That is 1, 4 and 6 against. That amendment is therefore not agreed to. Section 14 is therefore agreed. Amendment 135, in the name of Tess White, is already debated with amendment 21. Tess White to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour and all those against. That is 3, 4 and 4 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 1, in the name of Brian Whittle, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Brian Whittle to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for allowing me to speak in the amendments to the bill. I would like to say from the outset that I, along with every other MSP that I know in this Parliament, is in full agreement that every person should be treated equally irrespective of colour, creed, religion, sex or gender. However, I do not think that you can create equality for one sex of society by creating inequality in another. What I am looking for here is, I am sure that what we all want is for everybody to have equal and fair access to all aspects of society, including sport. My amendments are on the impact of sport, as the bill that is currently drafted—the impact on sport as the bill is currently drafted—will be significant. Those issues are already happening within sport, and the bill that is currently drafted will just accelerate that issue. The committee did deem sport important enough to include in its investigation, but it did not take any evidence from sportswomen instead of deciding that trans activists and men would suffice. I think that that speaks to a global issue where women participants are being warned not to speak out when confronted by the prospect of competing against trans women, silencing those who are most impacted by it. My amendment 1 puts a responsibility on the face of the bill for the Scottish Government to report on the impact on sport of the act. Those amendments would require the Scottish Government or the Register General to publish information, guidance or reports on the operation or impact of the provisions of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Act when it is implemented. There is a precedence here, and the reason why we need that is that it worries me because sport is not set up to deal with it, and we can only have to look not too far into the past. We look at the instance of Castro Semenya, who was an Olympic 800m champion and she was intersex, and sport just did not know how to deal with it. It dealt with it appallingly. Castro Semenya herself was treated appallingly, and that still happens. I was looking at the equality and human rights commission and what they said, and they are highlighting several areas where the effect of the bill's provisions on the operation of the protections from sex discrimination in the equality act is unclear and have urged further consideration before legislative change is made. There is an additional requirement to publish information and guidance and to publish reports on the impact of the legislation, and some of the examples that they give are on the trans community and also in sport. That data could usefully assist in ensuring the effective implementation of the act and in monitoring its impact and practice, and they are recommending that those amendments should be considered. If you look at what happens currently in sport, all that I am asking here is to register and understand the impact of the act on the participation of transgender people in sport. Sport already does that. We already know how many people participate by age, by sex, by disability—although I have to say that I hate that categorisation, obviously the Paralympic categories. We need to make sure that we are protecting women specifically in this act and also trans people. Sport is trying to look at how we deal with that. I notice that, in entering competitions now, there are three categories—men, women and non-binary. However, there is no way for non-binary categories to participate. They still have to choose whether to compete as men and women. It is hugely important that, in this instance, we continue to do what sport always does, to measure what is happening in sport, to understand where the categories are and to understand the impact of the act, because, as I said, sport itself is struggling to deal with us. I would ask the members to vote for this amendment, which I moved just now, and for the protection of women and of the trans community. Pam Goswell, to speak to amendments 76 and other amendments in the group. I want to be clear that, although I recognise that improvements to the gender recognition process would be beneficial for trans people, the proposed law is a let down for women and girls and faith communities and for children who require the protection of the law. I believe that such a balance of interests comes from balanced, well-considered legislation, as it stands, this bill does not get that balance right. My amendments 76, 80 and 81 seek to address concerns that a self-declaration model may exacerbate existing problems with section 22 of the 2004 act. Amendment 76 creates a requirement on Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a report on a review of the impact of this act on patients where knowledge of the biological sex of the health professional carrying out the medical examination or treatment is required, including on religious grounds. Women of faith and faith groups have expressed concerns that this legislation could interfere with their religious beliefs, but this debate has been polarised. Some Islamic scholars and organisations told me that they were too afraid to come to this committee. We should all be extremely disappointed that this Parliament is the people's Parliament, but people did not feel comfortable expressing themselves here. Hence why today I am the voice for all women and girls. For example, for many religious women, particularly in Islamic faith, it is religious law that they shall not let another man touch or see their body, therefore feeling more comfortable using the services of female GPs and carers and other medical professionals. We must ensure that this bill is truly compatible with those women's religious rights. That goes further than just women of religion, but it affects women and girls more broadly. In my region, parents and women have stopped me in the street explaining how frightening they are for their children. A constituent of mine also raised concerns about what that would mean for an elderly woman in a care home and whether she could be guaranteed a female carer to wash her and dress her. Those concerns stem from the expected increase in the number of GRC holders and the lack of clarity surrounding section 22. I just want to clarify, with the effect of this amendment, should it pass be that all healthcare professionals in any capacity would have to disclose their transit entry to both their patients and their employers at every and all opportunities? No, it is protected under the Equality Act, but I think that it is just about the fact that the religion itself, normally when somebody goes in, and I know from my own mother as well, that we can ask for if we see in front of us a male or female, you can actually ask and say that could I see a female doctor. If one is present at the time, fine, if not, they will put an appointment for the next day or the week after, which is acceptable. We are not asking for special attention, we are asking what goes on right now that just to carry this on. However, if we have more GRC certificates out there, how will we know that trans person is biological man and there will be more people in our services and spaces? As of yet, there has been no statistical modelling done to forecast the number of GRC applications that we can expect, meaning that I have little confidence in the accuracy of the Scottish Government's prediction of 250 to 300 applications per year. Either way, we know that the loosening of eligibility criteria will see an influx of applications and as a much larger group of GRC holders compared to now. Secondly, we know that the service providers are already unclear on section 22 on what means in practice. Therefore, should the Scottish Government truly wish to make women with concerns feel safe and their rights respected in amendment 80 and 81, I ask that they consider whether a criminal offence for disclosing someone's status as a GRC holder remains proportionate and whether it considers there should be further exceptions to section 22 in light of the bill's provisions. I am of course in favour of amendment 150 and 156, which seeks to review the operation of section 22 of the act 2004 and the subsequent reporting requirement. Given the concerns raised with me about the impact of the bill on the areas such as health, justice, women and girls and children, I lend my support to amendments that seek to review the impact of the bill such as 1, 136, 143, 148, 144 and 155. In addition to that, a concern for many parents is the decoupling of legal and medical, so I also support amendments 139 in the name of Sarah Boyack and 140 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which seeks to review gender identity healthcare services. I recognise the need for more medically sound professional care and shorter waiting times. I am also in favour of the impact assessment of the act outlined at amendment number 146 and the review of the act as outlined in amendment number 145 and expect the review to be laid before Parliament. I sincerely hope that the cabinet secretary will have the empathy and understanding to recognise that, with the new lax rules for obtaining a GRC, it is unreasonable to suggest that criminal offence for disclosing someone's status as a GRC holder remains proportionate. It is also the case that, even through the number of GRC holders, will rise substantially without expanding the exceptions under section 22, it will increase the likelihood that a woman will have a medical examination and the light carried out by a biological man. That is something that, if possible, she could have the choice over. I would like to hear how the cabinet secretary intends to work with us to address concerns facing women, women of faith, girls that have been raised. Jamie Greene, to speak to amendment 136 and other amendments in the group. The whole section is rightly about the impact of the bill on certain groups and places, as has been discussed by Brian Whittle and Pam Gossel who make some very valid and interesting wider points about people's choice and understanding. That is what a lot of that comes down to. I know that Fulton MacGregor has amendment 111 around the issue of prisons. As we both sit on another committee with a shared interest in this, I hope that many colleagues can work together on that. The reality is that it remains a fact that there are trans people in our prisons in the custodial estate. It is hard to say at any given time how many, or where they are, or why they are in custody, because more than often such incidents are reported simply in the media outlets or in social media. In fact, we are often asked, as MSPs, to comment individually on those cases. It is difficult to pass judgment on the decisions that are made by the Scottish Prison Service without the full details of the individual or the facts around their case, but it is a reality that the LGBT communities, like any other minority, commit crime, as they do in any other community. The difficulty that we are facing is how and where individuals should be held in custody. People are rightly concerned about the potential impact of their presence in places and buildings that have traditionally been same-sex or binary spaces for hundreds of years through no one's fault at all. The task of that juggling act is the grave responsibility of both prison governors themselves and the duty of the Scottish Prison Service through the contract or self-operate institutions. That does not, in my view, however, mean that there should be no transparency either in the practice or the policy or the guidance around it, if there is any. With my justice hat on, it is those concerns that I seek to gain some clarity on. My amendment 136 simply aims to gather information about the impact of the act on Scotland's prison population by requiring the Scottish Government to publish a report on how, if at all, the act has impacted the placement decisions of transgender people within the prison estate. Members of the committee are aware that the SPS has made it clear that decisions on the housing of transgender prisoners are made on a case-by-case basis, looking at the potential risk of where that prisoner should be held. That is broadly self-explanatory. I cannot imagine those decisions for governors to make, but at the core of my amendment is to ensure that the safety of all prisoners, ensuring that they are housed appropriately and, as the SPS said, according to their needs and security, not just themselves but those around them. I am happy to take an intervention from the member. I am very grateful to the member for giving me an idea. He highlights on a critical element of that. Just as much as it would be wrong to simply place a prisoner in one state rather than another purely on the basis of self-decoration, it would also be wrong to never consider what which estate they should be in. It is very easy to understand that trans people will be particularly vulnerable in either state. The critical point is exactly what he just pointed out. It is a nuanced and balanced and individualised assessment that prisons have to make. Indeed, what we should be seeking to ensure is that the prison service is enabled and empowered to continue to make that balanced decision making and a risk assessment prisoner by prisoner. I wonder whether you agree with the emphasis that we need to make there. I do agree. I know that other committees have given a great deal of thought to that. It is complex and difficult, and often the nature of some of the offences that some of the individuals are held in custody for rightly give rise to very public concern, which is often shared with us. For that reason, I support amendment 111. I know that the cabinet secretary has asked the member not to move it, but I think that it would be helpful. We could build on it ahead of stage 3 to make it clear that—yes, of course—autonomous decisions are made by governors and the prison service, but there is a general feeling that those decisions have to be in the interests of everyone. What I am not seeking to do is any prescriptive measures in this amendment. What I am asking for is data, and the reason that I am asking for that is because we have frequently in the past tried, with great difficulty, to get clarity on either the policy guidance decisions around where people are housed or who is housed where. Often, the response to that is given as reasons for confidentiality, and that data is simply not available. I have asked a number of written questions and oral questions to both the prison service in evidence sessions and the General Justice Committee, and information has been far from forthcoming. I do not think that there is any particular cause of concern for that, but without good information we cannot make good decisions. Just to close, I think that what I am trying to do is improve transparency on the data, even if the numbers are small. In particular, to address concerns that others have rightly raised, if the volume of people coming through the system is much greater and that has a knock-on effect on the transgender prison population, the Government has a good grasp of what is happening in the bigger picture. I understand that the Government is willing to accept a number of amendments that place additional reporting requirements on it as a result of this act. I think that that is helpful. I think that this amendment will be helpful. It casts absolutely no judgment on the policy of where people are housed, nor does it interfere with the independent decision-making that is made by Governors or the SPS. However, what it does is allow for ministers and Parliament to get sight of the bigger picture—a bigger picture that we currently do not have sight of—so that we can answer the right questions and so that, hopefully, the right questions can be answered. I am not sure who it was that was covered. Thank you, Jamie Greene, for taking the intervention. Obviously, there are a number of different aspects that we are all looking at here. Do you think that, if the Cabinet Secretary advised that the Government would be looking at a catch-all amendment, that we could bring all those elements together as one in terms of the data collection and the reviewing of that particular reform? I think that the format in which the amendments pass at this stage or others is not the point. However, whatever your views on the overall general principles, the bill is trying to improve and strengthen the bill, and reporting requirements are extremely important. They are often rejected by Government ministers and the legislation, so I am pleased to get a feeling that, in this instance, the Government accepts that there is a need for more data and clarity as the bill progresses. I would be happy to work with any member or the Government at stage 3 on either individual reporting amendments or a catch-all requirement. As long as it happens, and that is in black and white on the face of the bill, that is the main thing. We, or indeed the next Parliament, can question Government ministers on the impact of the legislation in the hope that it addresses some of the concerns that people are raising of the potential impact of the legislation. I do not always share those potential concerns, but I do appreciate that it exists and that it is important that we future proof the bill in that way. Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 139 and other amendments in the group. Just to set out that this amendment would require Scottish ministers to carry out a review into the impact of the bill into gender identity healthcare, and the overarching aim would be to have a review for the gravity of the cast review in England, but it would enable Scottish ministers to consult on the remit of the review. It would require them to do that, but subsection 3 would require any review to consider how access and provision to gender identity healthcare can be improved. It is basically on the back of the evidence that the committee heard, on the provision of trans healthcare, including the cast review, which is currently taking place in England. Amendment 139 would not seek to delay the bill, which I understand was called for by minority committee, but my amendment seeks to strike a balance to ensure that a review does happen in line with point 289 of the committee's stage 1 report. I have spoken to a number of constituents who shared opinions both foreign against elements of the bill. However, I hope that this is an amendment in an area in which we can get broad support. Ensuring that anyone who goes through the GRC process and wants to receive gender identity healthcare must be able to do so. In an earlier grouping last week, I mentioned the current waiting times at gender identity clinics. There are currently significant delays for trans people trying to receive treatment from clinics, and the bill could increase the number of people trying to access a service that would exacerbate the demand on that service. I believe that that issue needs to be monitored. In implementing the bill, we also see the Scottish Government taking steps to ensure that the consequences are fully understood and that services for trans people adapt to meet the needs as they change. I note that there is a similar amendment at amendment 140. It is slightly more narrowly focused, so I hope that Rachel Hamilton will be supportive to my amendment, because I think that it is more beneficial. I think that it sits alongside Pam Duncan Glancy's amendments 1456 and 147. It is aimed at ensuring that this important legislation has a commitment to having a review, and I have suggested within two years of royal assent to ensure that the implications of the bill, the changes that it brings around in society, are carefully monitored and that the strains that we already see on support and healthcare are addressed, properly reviewed, monitored and acted upon. I would leave the Scottish Government the capacity to decide the detail of that, but to at least commit to doing that review. There has been much discussion during the bill about the relationship between GRCs and healthcare, and I think that it is unrealistic to assume that for some perhaps many of those receiving a GRC, we will not see that as relevant to what they are entitled to from NHS Scotland. I very much welcome Sarah Boyack's comments and her amendments. I think that mine is slightly different, because currently there is no provision in the bill that recognises the likelihood and its potential impact on healthcare for trans people, and this is what this amendment seeks to do. Specifically, we are calling on the Scottish ministers to conduct a review on whether a bespoke healthcare pathway needs to be created for those applying for a GRC if any issues experienced by people applying for a GRC in relation to healthcare have arisen, and what further steps could be taken to improve healthcare for trans people. We believe that that can help to address important issues such as the issues that Sarah Boyack talked about being the long waiting times, which can reasonably be expected to increase should the process of obtaining a GRC become easier and be expanded to a larger segment of the population. A part of the reform of this legislation that the SNP, I believe, has turned a blind eye to, sadly. I accept that there might be other ways of recognising this point. I am open to any proposals from the cabinet secretary to approach this differently, but I do not think that we should legislate here and walk away without making some provision for the potential impact and demands for health services already creaking at the seams. Regarding improving healthcare for younger trans people, we believe that the publication of the cast review will offer important insights, and that is why we had originally called for the legislation to be delayed. We know that it is naive to assume that there will be no spillover effects into demands for healthcare from a greater increase in GRCs, as I said. Although the SNP cannot make a silt purse from a sow's ear, I urge you to support or consider at least my amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Tess White, to speak to amendment 143 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have four amendments in this group. Amendment 143 creates a duty for Scottish ministers to carry out a review into the operation of the act. Focusing on three areas where we know its provisions will have an impact. Educational establishments, the health system and the criminal justice system. There is also potential for unintended consequences of this legislation that we may not be able to foresee at this stage. Reports on these areas every two years will help to facilitate post-legislative scrutiny, something the Scottish Parliament needs to do much more of, especially in relation to the operation of this bill. Moving to amendment 144, this modifies section 15 of the bill to include a duty on the registrar general to report the number of applications for a gender recognition certificate on an annual basis where the applicant has previously obtained a GRC. The Scottish Government has emphasised that the process for detransitioning under the new system will be the same as the process of self-identification, meaning individuals seeking to detransition will be caught in the data on the generic number of applications and GRCs. However, without a specific pathway to detransition in the bill, the challenge is that it will be difficult to capture figures on those people who choose to detransition under the new system. That will make post-legislative scrutiny more difficult. Existing section 15 of the bill creates a new duty on the registrar general to include information about gender recognition alongside the number of births, deaths and marriages in Scotland each year. That is a provision drafted by the Scottish Government, and it is information that the Scottish Government clearly wants to capture. Amendment 144 simply modifies section 15 to include in the report the number of applications made to the registrar general on an annual basis, where the applicant has previously obtained a GRC. Turning now to amendment 148, which goes hand in hand with amendment 155. Amendment 148 creates a duty on Scottish ministers to transparently consult with women and girls on how and how often the Scottish Government should report on the impact of the act on this demographic and requires that regulations should be made setting out the details of such a report. For the avoidance of doubt, it also includes a requirement that any data collected for the purposes of a report should record the sex as recorded at birth. Amendment 148 states that this consultation should take place within six months of royal ascent, but the reality is that the Scottish Government should have started this process long before the bill becomes law. Women and girls have felt marginalised at every turn during this process. They have been treated as an afterthought, told by Scotland's own First Minister that their concerns about the bill's proposals aren't valid, and they have been vilified on social media for asking legitimate questions about the operation of this bill in relation to single sex spaces and the safety of women and girls. Just last week, in this very committee, we saw women's freedom of expression shockingly denied for simply for wearing suffrage colours, the symbol of women's hard-won rights. I make this point to the committee because, in 2018, before the introduction of this bill and the public discourse surrounding it, female MSPs from all parties stood together proudly on the steps in the garden lobby, draped in the colours of green, white and purple. We are already seeing the unintended impact of this legislation on women and girls, and it hasn't even reached stage 3. That's why amendment 148 is so important. Crucially, amendment 155 delays the commencement of section 2 until regulations required, setting out plans for reporting on the impact of the operation of the act on women and girls have been made by Scottish ministers. I regret that these provisions are necessary. The Scottish Government should have managed this process far better, but I nevertheless urge the committee to support them. I will support many amendments in this section because review and impact is key. Like my colleague Jamie Greene, I may not always share some of the concerns, but it is incredibly important that we properly scrutinise the impact of this legislation. I will support amendment 145 on section 2 in Clare Baker's name, as I think that it is rightly more comprehensive than number 76. I will abstain on 148 and 143 because I would ask the member to consider that the timescales are quite short after royal assent, and against 155 because it would delay the act and trans people have waited a long time for this. Otherwise, I support the amendments in this group. Conventional amendment 145 aims to ensure that Parliament considers how the process outlined in the bill is working, including in terms of the role of the Registrar General and section 22. It also requires ministers to consider whether there should be provisions for non-binary people, as we know not including them has been a concern for many. Amendment 146 ensures that we consider properly the impact unintended or otherwise of the act. Scottish Labour knows that people have concerns, including on how the act interacts with the protections and the equality act, the disclosure of protection information and in other areas. Some have also raised concerns about the impact on gender identity healthcare, as we have already heard. The amendment requires the Government to look at all of this. Lastly and importantly, some people are concerned that legal challenges will be brought in relation to the bill and the equality act. The amendment seeks to monitor that as well. In short, the amendment is designed to scrutinise many areas of concerns in the bill so that, should they come to pass, Parliament can address them. Clare Baker, to speak to amendment 156 and other amendments in the review. Thank you, convener. Both of my amendments this morning, 156 in this group and 151 in the next group, focus on the operation of occupational exceptions and the impact of the bill on practice and decision making. Amendment 156 in this group seeks to ensure that there is clarity over the interaction of section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which makes the disclosure of protected information related to an individual's trans status, a criminal offence and less it is to prevent a crime. So it is how that interacts with schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010, which allows occupational exceptions, based on both gender reassignment and sex, when it has a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This supports the provision of same sex services where it is proportionate and legitimate. That is what the current law facilitates, but the current lack of clarity is leading to confusion over how the law is interpreted. This confusion exists both for providers of such facilities and for users who are unclear about what they can or cannot expect or what they are entitled to ask for under existing equality legislation. So this bill is significantly changing the process by which someone gains a GRC, making it more accessible and less intrusive for individuals. I support reform of the process, but I also believe that we must fully consider the implications of that. It is expected to increase the number of people who hold a GRC, and by simplifying the process and introducing a process of self-id, this does have the potential to broaden the cohort of people who hold a GRC. So at the heart of this amendment is the importance of information sharing where a proportionate and legitimate right to deliver a same sex service is being exercised. In the 2019 consultation on the draft gender recognition reform bill, the Scottish Government highlighted a situation that requires clarity. The consultation said that some people in an organisation, for example its HR department, may know about a person's trans history, but those taking the decisions on staff deployment, for example the line managers, may not. The consultation went on to say that when there is a legitimate case to use the general occupational exception, it would be appropriate for information about a person's trans history to be shared in a strictly limited, proportionate and legitimate way. However, it is not clear how this broad statement can be made in relation to section 22 in the 2004 act, which makes it a criminal offence to share protective information. That has led to confusion among employers and in public bodies. For example, a Scottish health board in an FOI said that unless the petitioner consented to exclude them from carrying out female-only care, it would be a breach of section 22 of the gender recognition act and a criminal offence. There are also restrictions under the equality act 2010 around requiring staff to disclose their gender identity and staff selection on this basis. I am not sure where to start with the inaccuracies in this statement. A health board can exclude on the basis of gender assignment, regardless of whether or not someone holds a GRC. It can exclude someone from delivering female-only care under the 2010 equality act. The tension is with a lack of clarity around the effect of section 22, which is having a chilling effect. It suggests that public bodies believe that section 22 prohibits information to the extent that prevents them from delivering female-only care, although the Government consultation from 2019 says that information can be shared. The amendment seeks a requirement on government to review the operation of the interlinked acts in light of the legislation before us. This touches nicely on the point that Pam Goswell raised around patients' own rights and requests in healthcare environments. She raises a valid scenario that we perhaps had not thought about. Is not the problem here, though, as the lack of consistency and guidance and understanding of the rules? Would the member agree that what would be very beneficial is if the Government were to commit to producing and publishing quite comprehensive guidance to public services and public services, specifically not just private employers, around what can and cannot be done and the circumstances in which decisions can be made? It is that lack of consistency which is causing some issues for some folk. I very much agree with the member that that is why I have amendment 151 in the following group that is about guidance. That is specifically a better review to try and get clarity around how those interact. The amendment would require the Government to review the operation of section 22 to consider whether criminal offence remains relevant and whether further exemptions within devolved powers are necessary to ensure the effective operation of schedule 9 of the equality act. As the then Scottish Executive introduced exemptions through the gender recognition disclosure of information Scotland order in 2005, I believe that that is within the powers of the Scottish Government. I would like to stress here that the expectation is that any further exemptions would still only apply to a limited set of circumstances. My amendment also requires the Government to state if they do not take action to explain the reasons why. I welcome the discussions that I have had with the cabinet secretary on the amendment. The amendment is a redraft version of the 150 in order to provide a clear and competent amendment, which I hope to find support from members this morning. Let me start by saying that I agree with members that it will be important to review and report on the legislation. I am content that we have a requirement in the bill. There are several amendments that have been lodged in relation to the operation and impact of the bill across a number of areas. We need to consider carefully in what areas it is possible and appropriate for information to be gathered and the most suitable timescales in order to ensure the effectiveness of any review. I am happy to undertake to review the operation and effect of the bill and consider that the best approach will be to have a single review that covers a range of suitable areas, some of which are covered by amendments already lodged. I agree with the timescales in some of those amendments that this should be three years after the new system is established to allow for the system to bed in and for data to be collected. I will therefore seek to coalesce a number of reporting requirements in some of the amendments tabled into a single provision for post-legislative scrutiny at stage 3. In line with that approach, I can support some of the amendments in this group with a view to further work at stage 3. Others I do not support, but I will consider all of those issues in developing a proposal for stage 3. Therefore, I support Pam Duncan-Glans's amendment 145 in principle, as it would place at a duty on ministers to initiate a review of the act within three years of commencement, which is an appropriate timescale for ensuring an effective review. I will use that as the basis and include other items at stage 3. However, I cannot support her amendment 146, which is to broad a requirement reporting on the impact of the bill on the equality act 2010 on healthcare and prisons. As I said at the outset, we need to consider carefully what is possible and appropriate for information to be gathered about and reported on. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. Can you explain why that information cannot be gathered and why you believe that it is not possible to get it? Some of the information would be very small in numbers and therefore it would be very difficult to collect. Some of the information is just not collected, some of it is and some of it is not. It would be potentially disproportionate to set up whole new systems of trying to collect information, so we would want to, where possible, base the collection on information, on quality information that is already collected. However, as I said, I am happy to continue discussions around particular areas, but it has to be proportionate. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I take the point about it being proportionate and nobody wishes to publish information about individuals when we are talking about small numbers. I appreciate that that is a concern, but I also think that when we are talking about the impact of the act on those areas and particularly on how it interacts with the equality act, it is really important that we fully understand that, because there are a number of concerns about the interaction. If we do not assess the impact of it, people with concerns will never know if their concerns come to pass. People without concerns will never know if they were right to not have concerns. It is incredibly important that we do all that we can to collect information on that so that the public can have confidence in what is trying to be done here. As I have set out, I want to try to do all that we can. It has to be proportionate, it has to be possible, so the information has to exist in some form for us to be able to collect that information. However, I am happy to continue to have those discussions around what could be included in that stage 3 amendment that would try to pull in as much information as possible. However, I also do not want us to commit to collecting information that we just do not think would be available, but I am happy to continue to discuss if that would be helpful. I also support Jamie Greene's amendment 136, but, as I think that this would be better incorporated into the wider review after three years, I would seek to incorporate it into post-legisitive review at stage 3 if Jamie Greene was minded to be content with that. Amendment 156, in the name of Claire Baker, places her duty on ministers to review the operation of section 22 of the 2004 act, including whether the criminal offences remain appropriate and if any further exemptions are necessary. Under section 22 of the 2004 act, it is a criminal offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person. Protected information refers to either a person's application or their gender prior to obtaining a gender recognition certificate, and it is vital and important that a person's rights to privacy is protected in this way. We are not amending the 2004 act in relation to section 22. There are already several exceptions to the criminal offence in section 22, such as where the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime. We can make further exceptions by way of regulations, but only where an exception relates to devolved matters. Amendments 80 and 81, in the name of Pam Gosell, are similar to those proposed by Claire Baker, but there is no requirement to publish a report of that review or any timescales. Therefore, I do not support those amendments. However, as I said, I agree that it is important to review legislation. I can therefore support Claire Baker's amendment 156 in principle, but we would seek to work with the member. As the amendment has drafted, it raises several issues, including the limits on the power of ministers to make an order under section 225 of the 2004 act, which does not relate to devolved matters. The addition of the words within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament does not solve those issues in itself, so we will need to be amended at stage 3, if the member is happy to work with us on that. Turning to Brian Whittle's amendment, the bill makes no changes to the rules for trans participation in women's sport, whether professional, amateur or in schools. As Brian Whittle is more than aware, governing bodies set their own policies on trans participation under the Equality Act 2010, and we have seen many of them doing that. The UK Sports Councils, including Sport Scotland, published guidance for transgender inclusion in domestic sport back in September 2021. In addition, it is not clear that the information is currently obtainable. I am very grateful for the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. Sport is already gathering this. As I said, there are many sports now where, when you are entering into a competition, they ask for male-female non-binary. It is actually really simple to gather this information, and it is incredibly important. As I said, sport is struggling massively with that across the globe, from sport to sport even. If you look at the implications and tracking field, you are not sure what they are doing, but then you have cycling who, at one point, were accepting trans women into women's sport and then changed their mind on that. We have rowing who are currently accepting trans women into sport. At the moment, the sport does not know what to do. It does not know how to deal with it. It is not just national governing bodies, as I will go on to say later on. We are talking about teachers and coaches across the world and in this country who do not know how to deal with it. It is really important that, as the bill progresses, we understand the implications of sport. As it is currently drafted, the Quality and Human Rights Commission acts that it changes the quality act in certain circumstances. It is really important to gather this information until we can understand how to act on it for the benefit of all. As Brian Whittle rightly said, the policies have to be for each governing body because each sport is different, and each approach from each governing body will be appropriate to the sport concerned. We have seen that in some of the announcements that governing bodies have made. What I would offer to Brian Whittle, because I am not clear that the information is obtainable, he is saying otherwise. I will not support amendment 1, but I would be happy to have further discussions with him about whether there is something that we could capture within the wider review criteria that we are going to bring forward back at stage 3. Amendment 76 would require the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a report on a review of the impact of the act on patients requiring knowledge of biological sex of health professionals, including on religious grounds. I should say that I met a range of religious leaders and bodies as part of the faith and belief forum as part of the consultation on the bill. The Scottish Government expects everyone to be treated fairly, unequally and with respect when seeking healthcare. NHS staff make every effort to ensure that the privacy and dignity of all patients are maintained in Scottish hospitals and healthcare more widely. I set out in the patient's rights charter that the needs, preferences, culture, beliefs, values and level of understanding will be taken into account and respected when using NHS services. When considering preferences, health boards must also consider the rights of other patients, medical opinion and the most efficient way to use NHS resources. In short, NHS will try to meet people's needs, but it is Pam Gosol who recognises that that is where possible, because she can think of situations, not least in an emergency situation, where it may have to be the presenting doctor that has to intervene in an emergency. It is where possible. It is not clear how the information Pam Gosol sets out in her amendment could be collected or published or how the bill would impact on this area. I therefore do not support this amendment. It was on the comments that you made over Pam Duncan Glancy's 146 amendment. The Scottish Conservatives are very sympathetic to this amendment. Pam Duncan Glancy would have thought very carefully about the drafting of this amendment, so I would like clarity on what is currently not collected in terms of this data and what is potentially could be very simply collected. It is quite important in terms of 146F that states and asks for information on legal challenges, because we know that there are confusions around section 22 privacy provisions. It is important that this Government makes good legislation to understand the impact of those legal challenges. Is there any way, cabinet secretary, that you could possibly have a discussion out with—I am not sure whether Pam Duncan Glancy is going to withdraw or press this amendment—but is there any possibility that you could have a wider conversation with us about what cannot be done in the sense of this amendment and what can be done? In response to Pam Duncan Glancy earlier, I said that I was happy to continue to discuss what the art of the possible is here, as long as it is proportionate and doable, but some of the numbers that we are talking about here are tiny. That is one of the issues about whether information would be obtainable. As I said to Pam Duncan Glancy, I am happy to continue those discussions as we try to coalesce the various aspects that I am sympathetic to around an amendment at stage 3. I just want to say that even a tiny number can be impactful in certain circumstances, so it is important that we do not put a number on things because that one number, even if it is one, could possibly have unintended consequences and be quite significant and severe. It is also important that we do not identify a person when it is a tiny number. I understand that, and that is already with the protections. Thank you for your response, cabinet secretary. Just to clarify what you have just said in emergency situations, our religions allow that if a doctor at that time was male or female, our religious settings allow that. They are allowed to operate on us. However, when you go into a doctor's surgery, the religion does not allow that because you can have a choice and you can ask. In emergency situations, it is very different if you knew, and it is good to hear that you have spoken to the organisations that you spoke to with organisations that came to me, and they could not tell you because they were scared of Parliament and the Scottish Government, and they were scared of this act coming out. I come from that background and they have voiced it to all the organisations. We actually even had an organisation in here in a private setting, which voiced it as well. Good for them to come in and voice that, but others were so scared. I spoke to people on my own consultation just a few days ago, and they said, thank God that your phoning is in your speaking to us because we feel that the actual legislation that is going through now, they have not heard our voices. That is where Islamic scholars came forward as well and major organisations. I am just putting that on the record here, that this was said to me by those organisations and emergency situations are very different. What I am asking for is a very different situation. On that point, as I said, the NHS through the patients rights charter will try to exceed to someone's demands and needs. However, there will be some circumstances, due to perhaps a very small specialty where it is a very small number of NHS professionals that exist, that it is not always possible. Pam Goswell herself recognised where possible. That is what the NHS would try to exceed to on her. Second point, the faith and belief forum of various religious leaders from various faiths was a very full and frank and open discussion and no one had any qualms about giving me their view both in favour and in opposition to the bill. That is absolutely right and proper. Sorry, cabinet secretary, just a brief intervention. You say that there are practices in place that you can ask for a doctor and if the doctor is available. Obviously, those practices are happening and I must thank the NHS that they really go out their way to really accommodate for all diverse religions. Can you clarify? I am sorry, if my mum walked into Dr Surgeon and did not know if the person was a biological man, but seen a female, obviously trans-female. Sorry to get that right. My mum would not ask because she does not know. How do we protect the rights for trans people but also have that balance for those people from religious backgrounds? How can you ask for something or how can somebody provide something if you do not know anything? Sorry, if you can clarify that please. It would be for the NHS to manage that situation and I do not believe that NHS professionals would want to put themselves in a position of giving medical support to someone who does not want them to give that support. Those would be situations that the NHS would manage and do manage. You cannot legislate for something like that situation so it would be for the NHS to manage that situation. As they do at the moment, they manage difficult situations where someone may not want someone managing their care for a whole variety of reasons, whether that is right or wrong, but people do make demands around their own requirements and the NHS, as you have said yourself, will try to accede to those demands where possible, where that is doable and reasonable. They do that on a day-to-day basis and we should enable them to continue to do that in the way that they do. I do not support amendments 139 and 140. I said last week and will reiterate it again that applying for and receiving a gender recognition certificate and clinical decisions about gender identity healthcare are separate issues. This bill is about the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. A gender recognition certificate is not required in order to access gender identity healthcare and there has never been a requirement for someone to have undergone surgery or any other medical treatment to obtain a gender recognition certificate under the 2004 legislation. What I can say is that I am aware that the cabinet secretary for health, Hamza Yousaf, has written to the committee, setting out all of the actions that his officials and the NHS are taking in order to address some of the concerns about gender identity healthcare, not least some of the waiting times that have been mentioned earlier, but it is for the health service to resolve those issues, rather than in a bill that is about the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Thank you, convener. I just wanted to get a clarification on what Pam Gosha has asked. Is the Scottish Government consulted the faith groups because what Pam said is that I support that because a lot of the time when a religious person goes into the hospital unless they are in an emergency situation. If it is an emergency situation, anyone can see that, but if you have a choice, you can ask for it, but you did not make it clear or it is my understanding. If a faith group has been consulted, I would like to know who has been consulted. As I said earlier on, I met with the faith and belief forum, which is a forum of religious leaders across many faiths. During that discussion, some expressed support for the bill and some expressed that they did not support the bill. It was a free and frank discussion. If the member wants, I do not know whether we can say who was at that forum. I do not think that it is if they are happy for that information to be shared, then I am happy to say which organisations I met. Just on your second point, the choice matter is under the patient's rights charter that patients will have a choice. Clearly, that will be dependent on the availability of a female doctor in some specialties that might not be possible. There is always a caveat of where possible for all the reasons that we have talked about. Sorry, I did organise a roundtable meeting with the faith groups. I had people from every faith and their view was that they had not been consulted. Of course, I just wanted to put it on record that I had over 60 people from every single religion and they have been told that they have not been consulted. As I have said, I met with the faith and belief forum, which has representatives of various faiths on it. Not every religious leader was in that forum. It was representative on behalf of it. I am happy to come back to the member with more information of who I met. It was a bit of a while ago now, so I cannot remember off the top of my head, but I can come back with information if he would find that helpful. Another small number of folk who would like to intervene is Daniel Johnson, Carnarums and Pam Gossel. While you are quite correct that you do not need to undergo medical or surgical transition in order to attain a GRC, although I note that the bill is looking at the process, as a practical effect it will or should increase the number of people in possession of a GRC, so that has the practical effect of what is currently a very rare situation or circumstance is going to become that much more likely. While that may well be a matter for the NHS, if by both an explicit or implicit intent this bill is about expanding the number of people in possession of a GRC, surely greater consideration needs to be given to actually how that is going to operate in practice in the situations that Mr Chowdry and Ms Goesel have set out. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask, do trans people require a gender recognition certificate to work in healthcare? Cabinet Secretary, I just wanted to seek some clarification. As far as I know, I am a new MSP, I will probably keep saying that five years on as well. From legislation comes policy, from policy comes guidance, so I am not understanding that where is not in your gift to gift today to work with us on this part of the legislation to make sure that we have a watertight, that we are supporting every diverse community out there and that we are not letting anybody down. I did welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to discuss amendments that I was bringing forward, but will she not accept that to make this legislation successful in terms of its impact going forward, that we do need co-ordinated, coherent research and monitoring of its impact and thinking through the implications of the people who will be affected by the legislation, whether they want to take the opportunity of using the GRC process being simplified. There will be more interest on this topic and that puts an onus on the Scottish Government to stand back and review in a couple of years' time what its impact has been and what more work is needed by the Scottish Government and its agencies and in public life more generally. Yes, I agree with that. Pam Duncan-Glans' amendment in terms of the three-year review is the right time frame because it allows data to have been generated. There is then the question of what do we review and what can be reviewed in terms of what the information will be available and does that get kept under review itself in terms of the impact and monitoring? Yes, it does. I agree with Sarah Boyack. The question is what do we put in to that review criteria in terms of what we can gather and what we will gather? In terms of Karen Adams' question, no, you do not require a gender recognition certificate to work in healthcare or for any other walk of life, as far as I am concerned or as far as I am aware. You do not require that. In terms of guidance to public bodies, including NHS of course, that is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to do that, and they have. They have issued guidance to public bodies that public bodies can use in terms of the operation of the Equality Act 2010. I was going to mention this later, but since Cabinet Secretary, you have mentioned it, you will be aware of the briefing that MSPs have received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I specifically say that because of the significant changes to this bill compared with 2004, they believe that there are going to be significant issues with the interaction with the Equality Act. For completeness, ministers need to address what the ECHR has said about this. While they agree with you on some points, they are quite specific that they themselves—this is the body that is responsible for guidance on the Equality Act—are saying that they think that there are significant issues. I really think that it would be wrong with the Scottish Government not to address it at this stage or a future stage before we make some decisions on that. It would be really helpful if it was possible to respond to that. Pauli McNeill will be aware of the various correspondence that we have had with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which were, of course, one of the main advocates for change to the gender recognition certificate process just a year ago. We have tried to understand some of the concerns that they have raised on the change of position, and we still are trying to seek clarity around that, as is the Scottish Human Rights Commission. However, I have looked at the issues that they have raised and we have tried—through some of the amendments that I have accepted—to take many of the issues that members have raised on board. I have tried to—even where I think that the risk is minuscule, that is what is important is perception. A lot of the amendments that I have accepted have been in the space of trying to reassure people, and I will continue to do that. As I said, we will bring together a number of the amendments that have been laid. We will reflect on the discussion around the table on what the art of the possible is and what can be included in that stage 3 amendment. The only caveat is that I am not going to commit to gathering information that will not be able to be gathered because it does not exist. If it can be done and it is proportionate, I am content to work with people in advance of that stage 3 amendment to look at what the art of the possible is, if people are content with that. I do not understand how something is not possible to gather. Do you mean that you do not yet currently gather it, in which case can you confirm that you would be open to gathering additional information and new information? We are open to gathering additional information and new information. People have said about the increase in the number of people obtaining an agenda recognition certificate. That is true, but the numbers are still really small. If you break that down into various different aspects, the numbers are so small that it makes it very difficult to record. In principle, if there are things that we do not gather but we think that we could and it is proportionate and the numbers are not so tiny, then yes, I am happy to look at that. We are potentially talking about single figures and that is very difficult to record, just in practical ways. Just to complete, amendment 143 places a duty on ministers to report every two years on the impact of the act on education, health and criminal justice. We think that that is too broad a requirement and does not support, likewise amendment 144 requiring the Registrar General to report on the number of certificates issued to people who have previously obtained one. It would likely not be appropriate to publish information about again such a tiny group of people and I cannot support that amendment. Tess Whites amendment 148 requires ministers within six months of royal assent to consult on how they should report on the impact of the bill on women and girls, report on that consultation and then make regulations setting out their plans for reporting on the impact. The effect of regulations setting out plans is unclear and I will not be supporting this amendment nor amendment 155, which prevents section 2 from being brought into force until after the report that is required by amendment 148 has been laid. What I have said is that I will work with people to get a proportionate, balanced and doable group of areas to be reviewed on the basis of that. I hope that members will not press some of their amendments and I have indicated the ones that I am happy to accept. I am still concerned that you have not reassured my colleague Pam Gozzle on the intent or impact of the amendment that she seeks to bring forward. I just want to reiterate what Daniel Johnson said. If we are moving to the reform of obtaining a GRC to a self-declaration model, that makes the protection of section 22 more easily available and therefore that section 22 privacy provision cannot guarantee a female doctor or a nurse treats a person of religious diversity. I understand the protections that are afforded within that privacy. However, I still am not reassured by this and I really implore with you to come back to Pam and to work with Pam. Foisel has also raised his concerns. I think that there is room to continue the conversation around this, if I may say so. I am happy to continue the conversation, but I think that it is important to recognise that some of the exceptions, protections and rights that are already the case are not changed by this bill at all. It is important to reiterate that on the record. I am happy to discuss further with Pam Gozzle whether there is anything more that can be done. Will you accept, cabinet secretary, that obtaining a GRC through a self-idea process is somewhat changing the privacy protections of section 22, because it opens up to a wider and more diverse group and makes it available to them? Therefore, it possibly speaks to Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendments in terms of the legal challenges that will come because of this. Cabinet Secretary, sorry, but there is a number of things that are wanting to come in. Can I just reply on this before it was in my head? What is really important, though, is the question that Karen Adam asked me. Someone working in the NHS does not require to have a gender recognition certificate to be living their life as a transman or a transwoman. A gender recognition certificate is not required in order to work in the NHS. We are perhaps getting focused on a gender recognition certificate. In actual fact, what is important here is how the day-to-day running of the NHS and its ability as the NHS does day-in, day-out to try to meet people's needs where they have specific requirements and to make sure that they support staff in difficult circumstances. That balance is managed because each circumstance will be very different, and it is very hard to legislate for that, particularly when staff do not require to have a GRC. That would be my caveat. I just want to say one more thing. It is just a comment that you are putting the onus on those people in the NHS to interpret the law. Thank you very much, convener. It is linked to the previous discussion. If the Cabinet Secretary could provide clarity, because the right does sit with the employer to make any decisions around making exceptions if they wish to do it, it does not sit with the patient who has a right to ask about who can provide care, but it sits with the employer to make any decisions under the Equality Act. Can the employer make a decision? Can you set out the legal framework in which the employer can make a decision? Clare Baker is correct. Of course, the employer would take very much cognisance of employment law and the Equality Act. The employer has a balance of rights here in terms of the rights of the patients to request who they want, but also the rights of staff working in an organisation and the protection of them. They would draw an equality law under the 2010 act and employment legislation. Can you imagine a scenario in which perhaps a different minority, a patient is refusing to accept care from someone because of a different minority group? It is then for the employer to decide what is proportionate and what is acceptable in the circumstances. Is it helpful if the employer is dealing with patients to set out if they have decided to make a discrimination, if they have decided that it is a single-sex service and on what basis they have decided that? Should there be more transparency around that? When people understand a single-sex service, they are based on biological sex. I think that most people will think that if they are told that it is a single-sex service, that is what they are based on. Under the Equality Act, sex and gender reassignment would be the exemption that you would apply. If an employer or a service provider wanted to use that exception under the 2010 act, they could, as long as it is proportionate. The bill changes none of that. Those protections are there. The guidance that I referred to that the Equality Human Rights Commission had updated clarifies that again and just reiterates that point to public service providers that they have that exception, but they have to just show that it is proportionate in doing so. The group that we are discussing is the review of the impact of the act. The next group is the interaction with the Equality Act. However, I have further intervention from Foisal Choudhury. Just quickly, convener, I thank you for giving me the chance. Is that not putting employers at risk and what support is the Scottish Government going to provide the employers? I think that it is opening up the whole load of arguments for everyone and it is totally unnecessary and that needs to be clarified. That is why I have just mentioned the Equality and Human Rights Commission's guidance, because they are the body that gives guidance around the Equality Act to a temporary reserved act. They have, in recognition of some of the challenges that employers have in advance of any changes that we have made to the 2004 act. The guidance around the existing provisions is bearing in mind that not everyone has a gender recognition certificate who is living as a trans woman or a trans man and working in public services. The guidance is to cover the situation whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate and whether or not we had this bill, the situation and the guidance would still be required. They give that guidance to employers around the balance and the proportionality required if you have an exception under the 2010 act, which is there to have and the NHS can do that if it is proportionate to do so. I do not think that we could provide guidance that makes that any clearer, to be honest, and they are the body that has provided that guidance to public bodies. Brian Whittle, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 1. I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary and I am going to press the amendment because I was just looking there that they think that the numbers are small. We already know what the numbers are. In New York Marathon this year, there were 45 non-binary finishers in their own category, which was three times the number of the year before. That is why we need to ensure that we are collecting that data, because if that continues, obviously the non-binary category is going to grow and grow, which is great, but we need to understand that, we need to understand the impact on other categories. I am going to press because this is already a live issue in sport and it has to be dealt with. We have to collect the data. I do not think that we are doing anything—what I am suggesting here is that we are doing anything other than what is already happening within sport. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour, please vote now. All those against, and there are no abstentions. Three in favour, four against, the amendment is therefore not agreed. As I said earlier, I will now suspend the meeting for 15 minutes for a comfort break. Thank you. Amendment 23, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 23 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 23 is along the same lines as Foisal Troudreys 104, convener, and amendment 24 is similar, but seeks to clarify more precisely that obtaining a GRC would not impact on the protections offered by the Equality Act in relation to sport. Amendment 23 addresses a key concern expressed by many women about the effect of the bill on the Equality Act. It is important that the safeguards and protections afforded by the Equality Act are not impacted by the measures in this bill, which would mean that many more GRCs will be issues to a loosely defined more diverse group. Without casting any judgment on the policy issue at stake, it is absolutely vital that the definitions we use are clear. Lawmaking must be precise or it will not be effective. No matter the aim, substance or ideology behind legislation, we should all be able to agree on the point the laws must be clear and the definitions within those laws must be plain. To the point spoken earlier, as it stands, this bill is too vague. It is not well defined. It leaves far too much to subjective interpretation. We should all be agreed and we should be all looking to improve the bill. These new laws will not be workable for anyone if they are incomprehensible, imprecise and ultimately this bill, we must imagine, might be not clear enough. It is important that the public are reassured that this bill will not harm women's rights. Amendment 23 simply seeks to take the minister at her word in previous proceedings on this bill by writing onto its face that this new system of gender recognition introduced by this bill will not change how the definition of sex on the Equality Act is interpreted. I note that foysal charities are similar but extends that to the definitions of women and men. Amendment 24 safeguards the rights of sports bodies to include separate sports categories based on biological sex. My amendment seeks to achieve that for the avoidance of doubt that nothing in this act will affect the protections offered by section 195 of the Equality Act. The 2010 act prohibits discrimination against trans people, however, provides an exemption for sports bodies to be able to require that athletes compete in sports based on the biological sex when needed for safety and fairness. The amendments that were not supported by the Scottish Government put forward by my colleague Brian Whittle on the reporting duty expand on the detail of exemptions required to safeguard women and girls in sport. We received evidence that the bill would negatively impact women's sports by changing the group of individuals who can participate in them. Athletes such as Sharon Davis stated that self-decoration would make it impossible for sports authorities to enforce single-sex sports. Mary Yamachi also raised concerns that girls may self-exclude from sports at a grassroots and an elite level because of this bill. This issue strikes at the heart of fairness for women and girls. How may they fairly compete against athletes who have genetic benefits that they cannot possibly have? How can it be fair to stack the playing field against them based on inbuilt advantages that they cannot match to no fault of their own? To me, that would simply be deeply unfair to the young girls striving to succeed who would suddenly find that they cannot and to the world class athletes who have sacrificed to be their best only to find that they cannot win. That goes against every principle of sport and basic fairness. Amendment 2462 assists sporting bodies to make clear that, in legislating for this new system, the Scottish Parliament had no intention of undermining the use of the protections in section 195. Again, I want to make it clear that the intention of my amendments is to make the bill clearer. Nobody benefits if the bill is not clear. It will only make things more difficult for everybody. If the cabinet secretary wishes to ensure that sports bodies are able to protect those rights of women who want to compete fairly, those amendments will achieve that. If she does not want to achieve that and if the intention of the bill is to make the playing field unfair for women, I sincerely hope that that is not the case. I hope that those seeking that aim will reconsider. I hope that, if that is the intention, they will answer why that is fair for young women or world class female athletes. We should not risk legislating in a way that makes it harder for service providers to use the powers that they have under the Equality Act to respond to women's needs for single sex provision. For reasons of privacy, as discussed previously, for dignity and safety in sport or more generally, my amendments are intended to prevent us from making that mistake. Therefore, I invite the cabinet secretary to explain how, by broadening the group of people who will be able to obtain legal gender actation, her proposals do not have significant implications for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland. Furthermore, if she believes that GRCs should not be relevant to the operation of that act and if she wants to create clear laws without leaving room for vague misinterpretation, why will she not support my amendments? Finally, if the intention of this bill is to change the entry requirements for competition in women and girls in sport, can I ask for a very simple answer about how it is fair to disadvantage women solely because of genetics? I move the amendment in my mind. Thank you, and now Daniel Johnson to speak to amendment 25 and other amendments in the group. I also thank the committee for welcoming on those of us tabling amendments this morning. Let me be very clear. I am fully convinced that we do need reform of the Gender Recognition Act. I think that making sure that people have a straightforward, understandable and non-stigmatising way to have what is a fundamental part of their identity recognised is really important, but in so doing it, it is vitally important that we understand that we do this within the context of broader law. Indeed, the laws that we pass have consequences and impact in terms of policy and practice beyond their immediate scope. Indeed, I think that we have to acknowledge, and I think that implicitly already this morning we have heard acknowledgement that the Equalities Act is robust and has stood well in the 12 years since it has passed. I think that that is because protect the rights of many, partly because it has been able to move and reflect and be nuanced in terms of the way that it is understood. Fundamental to its ability to that is the fact that it did not set up protected characteristics as siloed boxes, as distinct categories. It set them up as balanced perspectives, which sought to balance rights, identities and characteristics in context. Fundamentally, it recognises the nuance and context that those understandings have. Those aspects embedded them in terms of the way that the law has been applied. In short, it works because nuance matters. It works because context matters. Those are the very heart of the way that the Equalities Act operates. That is what my amendment seeks to do by requiring the Government to bring forward broadly stated guidance on the interactions of the legislation and the Equalities Act. Indeed, I think that the previous discussion acknowledged that point. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the exchange between Claire Baker and Jamie Greene. I think that the focus is very much on that. I would also like to highlight that Karen Watkins amendment 152, which has been unable to stay at committee to speak to, also considers that point. Let me acknowledge that the gender recognition reform bill does not change the Equalities Act, but it does change understandings and will lead public bodies to reflect and revise their policy. Indeed, we have already seen much of that happen already. In simplifying the criteria for an entertaining GRC, it also widens the numbers of people who are likely, and very much I would see as a sign of success if we had seen increased numbers of people obtaining a GRC. Indeed, that is an important point that was also highlighted by the EHRC. I think that it is important that we have acknowledgement of that today. My amendment is intended to act as a probing amendment, but it also has practical effect. On that first point, I think that it is important that we get clarification from the Government on their intention about aspects that can currently be considered under the Equalities Act, whether we want to describe those as physical, biological or genetic characteristics, and how they will continue to be validly considered going forward as a matter of policy. On the practical side, it is important that, given some of the examples that we have seen in recent years, we have seen very well-intentioned decisions, albeit clumsy ones that have had consequences for a great number of people. It is important that we have practical assistance and help, so we are not leaving those who are tasked with implementing public policy to make it up. We need clear and robust guidance and assistance from the Government so that they have the clarity that they need so that they can do their jobs. Let me go a little bit further. As I said in the outset, it comes to identity, nuance, matters and context matters. That is why I accept the right people to self-identify when it comes to their gender. By the same token, if nuance does matter, we cannot overlook or ignore nuances because they are complicated. Your chromosomes, anatomy and physiology certainly do not define you, but if nuance and detail are important, you cannot completely disregard or ignore them either. I think that the context in which those things are relevant is incredibly narrow, but where they are, they are also incredibly important. Whether we are talking about situations—again, we have heard this warning already—about physical examinations or where people are required to essentially surrender their bodily privacy to others, we have to understand how and where we can relevantly discuss and make decisions with others as a matter of this. It goes beyond the immediate scope of the bill because, as well as those people who can validly obtain it, we already see this practice in forming decisions being made by youth groups, sports groups, schools and in other contexts. It is important that we have clarity, that we provide that guidance, that we understand the interactions between the bill once it is passed and the Equalities Act. I am sure that, like many others, I have had a huge number of people approach me in my constituency office, in my constituency surgeries. Some of those concerns I do not share, but some of them I have found arresting and have found difficult to explain away. Let me just give you one. About a year ago, a woman came to speak to me and asked me, how would I feel if my daughters were attending a guides group and the guide leader was a trans woman? I said that I would not care in the slightest, I do not think that it is relevant. As long as that person had gone through the relevant training, had gone through the relevant checks, I would not care at all. How would I feel if I found out that my daughter, while doing an outdoor expedition, had been asked to share a tent with a male bodied peer? I have to say, do I think that there should be absolutely categorical cast iron rule in those circumstances? No, but do I think that that should be discussed with me? Probably. Should I think that my daughter has the ability to discuss that without being told that she is wrong or bigoted? Absolutely. I think that it is about having that ability to discuss, understanding when it is relevant to focus on those elements of whether we would describe it as anatomy, biology, physiology. I think that it is incredibly important. Otherwise, we are going to do a great deal of damage. I think that we are actually putting people responsible for implementing public policy in an invidious position. So, we had asked the cabinet secretary to clarify when she thinks that it is relevant to consider these things. Ultimately, to commit to bringing forward clear guidance for very much the reasons that were discussed in the last section, because ultimately, as I said at the beginning, nuance matters, context matters and that is why we need guidance on the interaction between this legislation and the Equalities Act. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. Pam Gosall, to speak to amendment 74 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. As I said previously, I do recognise that improvements to the gender recognition process would be beneficial for trans people, but my job here is to ensure that legislation is balanced. As it stands, this bill does not strike a balance and, instead, puts women, girls and vulnerable individuals in harm's way. My amendments 74 and 75 protect single-sex spaces. Those amendments would require Scottish ministers to publish information on the impact of this act on single-sex spaces and services. Throughout this process, some of the concerns raised by stakeholders and witnesses on this issue have been met with accusations of scaremongering. The Scottish Government has repeatedly brushed off those concerns and suggested that there is no data to suggest that abuse of self-id would take place as a result of this bill. However, there are legitimate concerns that the changes introduced by this bill would make it easier for predatory men to abuse the process. Written evidence, including evidence from the Women's Rights Network Scotland, has indicated that, in the absence of a medical diagnosis and the gender recognition panel, as well as lowering the waiting period from two years to three months, could lead to predators falsely claiming to be trans in order to gain access to single-sex spaces. That is particularly concerning for vulnerable individuals such as women in domestic abuse shelters, women in prison and young children. Those are concerns that we have heard time and time again throughout this process. If the Government really has the courage of their convictions and that those concerns are not valid, then they will allow those reviews to take place in order to provide some kind of reassurance. Because of that, I will be supporting amendment 110, which will allow for accurate reporting on sex. I will also be supporting amendments 23, 24, 25, 101 and 151, which seek to provide more guidance and clarity for the avoidance of doubt on the interaction of the act with the Equality Act. I also support the Equality Act 2010 in current form, as well as its existing definitions, and therefore support amendments 37, 104 and 152, respectively. Cabinet Secretary, I really hope that today you can provide a response that will give some reassurance out there to women, girls and parents who have expressed their concerns through contacting me direct, through social media, through the media and the rallies outside Parliament. I hope that you have listened to ensure that this bill is fair and balanced for all. I hope that you can demonstrate that you have at least, at the very least listened to them and will support my provisions. Although I do not believe that they alone will provide a safeguard, I offer at least some form of reassurance that the impact of this bill of single sex services and spaces will be reviewed. Pauli McNeill, to speak to amendment 101 and other amendments in the group. I begin by saying like Daniel Johnson and support reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, something that seems a century ago, but I did share it at the time and it was very much needed piece of legislation to protect the rights of trans people. My amendment 101, to begin with, is guidance on the effect of a GRC. It seeks to clarify the effect of having a GRC while recognising the impact that it has on equality. To some extent, Daniel Johnson has spoken a long way in which is the central argument that I am going to put today. If the Government does not provide clear guidance, then public organisations will be unclear about how they can use the Equality Act in order to, for example, protect single sex spaces. That is an unacceptable position, as far as I am concerned, to leave organisations in the dark in that regard. While a GRC gained through the original 2004 act has the same interaction with the Equality Act, my contention is for the guidance for exclusions can never be made clear enough. That bill has made significant changes to the process and with a larger number of individuals who are likely to apply for a GRC after the bill comes into effect. It is now more pressing to ensure that this guidance is clarified. To quote a note from MBM, it is worth emphasising that a GRC is not a sex invisibility cloak. In court recently, counsel for the Scottish Government appeared to argue that, once someone has changed their birth certificate using a GRC, it would be more or less impossible for organisations to distinguish between those born female and holders of a female GRC. I ask the cabinet secretary this question at the stage 1 report, because there appears to be a contradiction here as to what the Government has said to Parliament. We heard in exchange with Karen Adams and the cabinet secretary that having a GRC or not having a GRC is not the basis on which an exclusion would be made. However, in court, the Government is arguing that there is legal significance to having a GRC, so we need to re-clarity on what it means. When we look at the Equality Act functions with regard to the exclusion of men from single spaces, the Equality and Human Rights Commission tells us that the Equality Act allows for the provision of single sex services and certain circumstances under exceptions relating to sex. If that is the case, it is incumbent on the Government to set out how that can be achieved. Again, I asked the cabinet secretary to address this question, which I do not think was addressed, and I hope that the Government will. The Equality and Human Rights Commission says that, by broadening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain a legal gender recognition certificate, their proposals have significant implications for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland. The Government cannot ignore that the body who is responsible for telling us how the Equality Act operates is saying that that could be a problem and needs to be resolved. The Equality Act makes provision to treat people with the protective characteristics of gender reassignment different from others, sharing the same legal sex and certain circumstances, and we are justified in relation to occupational requirements, separate and single sex services sport and communal accommodation. The sex discrimination cases, although a reserve matter, given the significant changes to a Scottish GRC, employers need to be aware about the interaction between sex discrimination and having a Scottish GRC, because women who will be seeking equal pay claims need to know, for example, whether they can compare themselves to someone with a GRC or not. I make no comment about that, but those are the types of things that the Government needs to make clear. Claire Baker mentioned this already in a previous group. Under those provisions, your approach must be proportionate means of achieving illegitimate aim, so that will depend on the nature of the service and may link to the reason for the separate single sex services needed. We are clear that the Equality Act allows for exclusions. What we are unclear is that what those exclusions really amount to. For example, a group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers, for example, say that they do not allow trans women to attend as they judge their clients to attend the group session and are likely to be traumatised by the presence of a person who is biologically male. The Government needs to say whether or not they agree that an exclusion would be lawful or unlawful or in their guidance, whether they were supporter or they wouldn't. It is the same for domestic abuse ravages, and some have sought to make exclusions, but they have found themselves at the wrong end of either social media. If the exclusions exist, organisations must be allowed to use them. If the Government is making significant changes to the 2004 act, I argue that it is incumbent on them in guidance to see what the effect of having a Scottish GRC is. One thing that is confusing is that Glasgow Life in 2015's guidance on accessing sport facilities and services by transgender people say that single-sex leisure provision is entitled to participate in single-sex sessions and cannot be excluded from participation of their chosen gender. That is legally incorrect. We have the authority in my own city saying that you cannot exclude people. That is plainly wrong. The Government has to start challenging that if it believes that we can use the Equality Act in the way that it was intended. I have to put on record my concern that a letter that Kevin Stewart in the Minister for Mental Health has written to all health boards, further confusing Government policy on this matter, where he says—I have asked for the letter, so I would see the cabinet secretary wasting on the report, so I am happy for any clarity. He is reported as saying that health boards who place transwomen in a private room as a way of dealing with single-sex wards may be discriminatory. That is plainly wrong in law because if they believe that they can prove those exclusions. I have to see the Scottish Government ministers are not helping themselves, allowing people to understand how those exclusions cannot be made. On that amendment, the Government has to say more explicitly what rights do women have to set boundaries on single-sex services and what rights do organisations have to use those exclusions. If the answer that the cabinet secretary is going to give me today is that it is a matter of equality and human rights commission, I cite again that they themselves are concerned about it. It has decided to the Scottish Government to see what the effect of having a GRC is. To deal with my other amendment, it is quite simple. It is in relation to data collection. I think that we are all at one in this Parliament, certainly in the debates, that we have a significant problem in Scotland and across the world, in violence against women and girls. This data needs to be continued to be collected. I believe that that data should be collected on the basis of biological sex. I would like to hear it as to what definition the Government intends to use. As I say, I do not think that it is clear from what they have been saying in court, and they have not said anything so far in this process. It makes me any clearer. I would have thought that there would be some agreement that we should continue to do this without interfering with the main principles of the bill, which is to give trans people dignity in their lives and significantly improve the 2004 act, so that we are complying with making changes that make sense. I look forward to that. I will definitely be pressing 101. I will hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on 1.1.0. Okay, thank you. Brian Whittle, to suspend the meeting briefly, will resume and Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 103 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 103 is a reference to any governing body or authority that needs to make a decision on the inclusion of trans people in sporting activities, especially around safety concerns and any material advantages that can potentially be gained as a result of gender resulting from the act. As has already been said today, the Qualities and Human Rights Commission are stating that, by broadening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposals have significant implications for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland, whereas the Equality Act makes provision to treat people with protected characteristics of gender reassignment differently from others, sharing the same legal sex in certain circumstances and, where justified in sport being one of them, such provision does not apply in every context that is contemplated by the act. The reasons that we must include in the face of the bill are as follows. As I have said before, sport globally is in turmoil trying to deal with the trans community's participation in sport. I have already mentioned the mess that sport has made of dealing with the intersex community and their inclusion in sport to their detriment and to the detriment of sport. It varies from sport to sport from country to country and even in the US state to state. It means that some trans athletes participate as a woman locally but must compete as a man nationally or internationally. Sports national governing bodies are unsure of the legalities in which they can act and they must leave themselves open for court action on the grounds of prejudice. Or conversely, if a trans athlete is injured or injures a fellow competitor, then the sport may be left open to legal action for failing to take appropriate action to protect the safety of participants. In other words, many sports are not taking any action for fear of making the wrong decision. As it currently stands in international sport, when we are determining sex, it is a swab on the inside of the cheek and that determines your sex that you compete in for life. It is not just national governing bodies, we are talking about here, it is coaches and teachers and it is subjective. I am speaking here as a coach. I am a senior coach and have been for 20 odd years. I was chair of the National Coaches Association and member of the European Coaches Association. In terms of that, we do not know how to deal with it because it is so subjective and I will say that sport does not employ its participants. We are not subject to employment law and the problem is that if I make a decision based on safety, it is subjective. I am open to legal action in that case. I was asked by a national governing body that if they took action to prevent a transathlete from competing on grounds of safety or on the grounds that the transathlete had a material advantage from the sex in which they went through puberty, would they be acting illegally? It is not just national governing bodies that have to make decisions in sport, it is teachers and coaches who have exactly the same issue when selecting teams. The fallout from the wrong decision is significant. In the case of a male and a female athlete of the same size, a male can generate approximately 160 per cent of the force of the female can. A person born male transitioning to female retains many of the male characteristics, which give a huge unfair advantage. One of the things that happens is that when we go through puberty, the q-angle at the hip changes. It is that important. It is physics. It is about application of power. A male's bone density is a third greater. A male's muscle mass is a third greater, the size of the heart and lungs. We are asking, especially in sport where contact is made, we are asking females to potentially compete in an arena where somebody opposite them has a much greater ability to deliver, much greater force to a much weaker frame. That is before we go into talking about menstruation, which was highlighted by Dina Asias-Smith and by Leish Macalgen this year. Any sport where power and speed is a significant element, there is a significant risk of injury. In the case of trans men competing in women's sport, if they are transitioning, they are likely to be given through hormone replacement therapy, hormones that are illegal according to the World Anti-Doping Association. In other words, it is tantamount to legalised doping. What currently happens is that most trans men still compete as women because they cannot be competitive in men's sport. Examples that I want to give here is—I am going to use my own sport here—the world record for the 400 metres for women was done in 1985 by an East German by the name of Marita Cock, and it was during a time when there was state-sponsored doping. Since 1985, not one single woman has got near that performance, not one single woman in all that time. Last year, 10,000 men ran quicker than that. 10,000 men. You could be ranked 1,000th in the world transition and all of a sudden would be the world record holder. Another example is Tori Bowie, Olympic champion, one of the greatest sprinters in the world. She won the Olympics, she won the world's last year 15,000 times, men ran quicker than that. It is just an unfair playing field. Surely we cannot have women excluded from sport, as it is currently being done, because politicians cannot make decent law and will not take the responsibility. I do not think that this is just happening at the elite level. It is happening across all age groups and abilities in our schools and in our sports clubs, and I have seen it. As I have said to the cabinet secretary, I think that it is fantastic that New York Marathon is taking a stance on this. The Boston Marathon is doing the same. They are creating a non-binary category, tripled in size in one year. What I say to me is that we are now offering trans athletes the opportunity to participate and they are confident to come forward. Those numbers are only going to increase exponentially, and we have to be aware of that. There are over a million women and girls participating in sport in Scotland. It has been a long fight to try to get equality between men's and women's sport, and we have gone such a long way in my lifetime in the events that women are now allowed to participate in and also parity of prize money. In setting this bill, it is imperative that the Government considers the impact of the bill across all society and does not pass the buck. We have to protect women's rights, we have to protect the trans community, as I said, what happened to Caster Semenya. We all want equality across society, but we cannot create equality for one group by creating inequality in the other. The Scottish Government cannot hide from the potential safety issues, and those must be dealt with prior to the bill passing. We cannot wait until there is an injury before amending the legislation. I move the amendment in my name, convener. Thank you. I now ask Foisal Choudhury to speak to amendment 104 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Just like Pam Gorshal, I'm a new MSP and this is the first time I'm attending or putting an amendment, so be kind to me. Thank you. The intent of my amendment is to make sure that there is no contradiction between the provision in the bill and the Equality Act 2010. It is a compromise. I was advised that the best way to ensure this effect would be to ensure an exception into the Gender Recognition Act 2004, like section 15 or 16 of the Act to ensure that the same effect as may amendments in Scotland. Unfortunately, this was ruled out of the scope of the bill, and I should say that I do not entirely agree with this. The reasoning was that the bill is to do with the process of getting GRC in Scotland, not what a GRC does, but the question of what a GRC does is implicit in this legislation. Why else would the question of whether a GRC legally changes one sex of the purpose of the Equality Act had been raised in our business at all? When some have made it clear that their view is that gender recognition certificate changes once legal sex, and others have made it clear that this would render the legal protection for single sex spaces in the Equality Act impossible to maintain. This is an important point to clarify. I hope the minister will clarify in her responses whether the Scottish Government believes that a GRC granted under this legislation would change once legal sex as well as once gender. My amendment therefore seeks to clarify this point as far as is allowable within the scope of this bill to make sure that nothing in this bill overrules the existing protection or definition in the Equality Act 2010. I appreciate the effort of Pam Duncan Glancy and Rachel Hamilton to achieve this through similar means, but where my amendments differ is to specifically add clarity on the definition within the Act 2010. The EHRC briefing circulated to MSPs also voiced its support for clarifying the relationship with both Section 11 and Section 212 on the Equality Act 2010 with a view to addressing cross-border complexity. They say by burdening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposal has significant implication for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland. In short, if we do not make this matter clear on the face of this bill, we are inviting legal challenges to clarify contradiction that we as legislator would have created. I do not believe that this is a responsible approach to creating legislation on matter this important. I recently had a round-table meeting with members representing many of Scotland's faith communities. They were enormous in voicing their concern for the ability to maintain single-sex spaces required for their religious purpose. Participants even noted there was little support from the Scottish Government when it comes to the practicalities of implementing this kind of law. They said that there is a sense that these rules are handed down from MSPs in Avery Tower and it is left for everyone else to deal with the consequences. The consequences in this case will be, for example, places of worship and low-paid frontline workers having to work out how to pull a single-sex spaces themselves. It cannot be right that we invite these legal contradictions and then expect people like religious organisations and low-paid workers to navigate resulting legal minefield. There must therefore be clarity on the relationship with the Equality Act on the face of this bill, and that is why I have put my amendments forward. Scottish Labour has sought throughout this process to focus on the bill and its drafting and to reject the culture wars that have dominated some of the discussion, casting trans people as threats or women as bigots is not helpful. What we need is good law and clear guidance, and that is what I and my party are working to achieve. Although many concerns relate to issues that are not in the bill, we understand that some people, including women, are frightened that they will lose some of the rights that they have, particularly on single-sex services. We know that those are rights that they have fought hard for. Colleagues will know that it is the Equality Act 2010 introduced by the last Labour Government that provides protection from discrimination for women and trans people, and it is our view that nothing in the Gender Recognition Reform Bill will or should affect that. In the case of gender reassignment, it is clear that protection from discrimination exists whether or not a GRC is in place and whether or not the person has undergone medical treatment for transition. The protections in the Equality Act 2010 also allow single-sex services, such as women's refugees, to exclude men and trans people in certain circumstances. It is Scottish Labour's view that the Equality Act is reserved cannot be altered by devolved legislation, and therefore it is our understanding that those protections will and must still apply if the bill passes. This is a matter of great importance for many people concerned about the current reforms, and we recognise the desire for reassurance. That is why I am moving this amendment. That protection allows for the operation of single-sex spaces and works as an exemption to the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or gender reassignment, but only when it is proportionate response to meeting a legitimate aim. For example, in the case of a women's single-sex service, a trans woman without a GRC could be excluded on the grounds that they are legally a man. A trans woman with a GRC, and therefore legally a woman, could also be excluded but on the grounds that they have reassigned their gender and sex on their birth certificate. Both of those exemptions for the protection and dignity of women accessing services must be protected. That is why we support both Reform of the Gender Recognition Act and continued implementation of protections and provisions within the 2010 Equality Act. I therefore believe that it should be clear in the legislation that nothing in it modifies the protections in the Equality Act. In proposing this specific amendment, I am seeking to ensure that, should it pass, it is clear that Parliament believes that the GRA must be considered alongside the Equality Act. It is also my belief that reading the Equality Act in as a whole is crucial, because it is the interaction of all schedules in the Equality Act that bring its strength. Only including aspects on sex from the Equality Act could mean, for example, that at a later date it was assumed that we did not give importance to gender reassignment, which is concerning for a number of issues. Specifically, that element could be really key in applying some of the previous exemptions that I spoke about when protecting single sex services. That is why I believe that my amendment, which focuses on the act in its entirety, affords the best and strongest protection for trans people and women and all of us. It covers the protections in section 11 and in section 195, as others in this group seek to do. I believe that we will carry the confidence of the public. I will therefore abstain on several amendments in the grouping that pick out specific sections of the act and on Jeremy Balfour's ECHR1 previously discussed on this basis. My amendment seeks to cover all of those, without separating them from the other aspects of the Equality Act, which I believe bring its strength. I will also support amendments that are seeking guidance on how the two acts work together. That, I believe, will be essential if the public are to have confidence in the law and for organisations to be clear about what they can and can't do. My colleagues have spoken about that already. My amendment ensures that any future dispute over Parliament's intention in passing the gender recognition reform bill is made clear. Each and every protection and provision of the 2010 Equality Act will and must continue to have effect, despite the passage of the bill. I move amendment 151. I have already outlined to the committee the rationale and purpose of the amendments in relation to occupational requirements and exceptions. I emphasise that this is about ensuring that rights that already exist in the 2010 Equality Act can be exercised. While I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has indicated support for amendment 156, notwithstanding the potential for amendment stage 3, amendment 151 commits the Government to producing guidance on occupational exceptions, which clearly sets out the interaction between this piece of legislation and schedule nine of the Equality Act and crucially section 22 of the 2004 act. While the Cabinet Secretary set out in the previous discussion the basis on which exemptions can happen, I hope that she recognises that section 22 is having a chilling effect on the operation of these exemptions. While the Equality and Human Rights Commission have issued guidance on occupational requirement and exemptions, the interpretation of that guidance in public bodies across Scotland is leading to confusion, which Pauline McNeill outlined in her contribution. The Government may argue that it is not their role to issue guidance, but it is not unusual for additional guidance to be issued. For example, in education, Education Scotland provides guidance for schools in respect of the Equality Act 2010 on discrimination. It says that it provides an authoritative, comprehensive and technical guide to the detail of the law, providing an overview of obligations, describing it as an essential reference that should be used both to develop and review policy. The EHRC itself, in a briefing for stage 2, said that the UK and the Scottish Government must also ensure clarity for employers and service providers on the law. I do not believe that it is outwith the boundaries of the Scottish Government's powers to provide clarity on those issues. If we go back to the quote that I gave from the Government's 2019 consultation in the scenario of information being held by an HR department, the Government consultation said that it is appropriate for information about a person's trans-history to be shared in a strictly limited proportionate and legitimate way. It would provide much-needed clarity if the Government were to set out this assurance in guidance, which employers could use on the occasion that they wished to exercise an occupational exemption, which they are able to do with the support of the Equality Act when it is proportionate for a legitimate aim. It would also provide clarity for service users, as it would emphasise the EHRC guidance and make it clear the circumstances in which they can expect an occupational exemption to be considered. That would provide clarity for the provision of single-sex services. While there may be questions or challenges, the legal framework in which decisions are taken would be made clear. I will say that I have taken notes of the points that have been made by members throughout what was quite a lengthy session. Occasionally, I consulted with officials on those points. I would have thought that that was an entirely appropriate thing to do. On the amendments that relate to the interaction of the bill with the Equality Act 2010, I support amendment 37. I cannot support any of the other amendments in the group and consider some of them to be outwith legislative competence. It is appropriate that I provide the committee in connection with Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment 37, with an explanation of the way in which the bill does not modify the Equality Act 2010 and of the way in which, although a GRC can affect the treatment of people in accordance with the 2010 act, the bill does not change the effects of obtaining a GRC. As I have said before, the bill does not modify the reserved provisions of the 2010 act, which includes not changing the protected characteristics and the single-sex exceptions under the act. In line with that, the amendment uses modifies, which has a technical meaning that refers to modifying rules of law by means of a sexual amendment repeal or otherwise. As I also confirmed in the stage 1 debate, the effect of a GRC upon the sex of a person for the purposes of the protected characteristic of sex is not changed by the bill. The effects of a GRC were provided for in the 2004 act, and those effects are not changed by this bill. The effect of a GRC upon the protected characteristics of sex is a matter of the application of the rules in the 2010 act, and those are not altered by the bill. The application of the rules in the Equality Act 2010 is not for the Scottish Government to explain or advise on for very good reasons, because, as I have explained previously, the 2010 act provisions are reserved. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as a reserved body, not Scottish ministers, provides a code of... The other people want interventions, so I'll let the cabinet secretary finish this area. Provide a code of practice and guidance on the effects of the 2010 act. The bill also does not change the provisions on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment contained in the 2010 act. Do you want me to finish? Maybe if I could finish on this. As I've explained the effect of the bill, however, I have had discussions with MSPs who are keen to see a provision in the bill on interaction with the 2010 act. Members have said that in moving their amendments. The amendment in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy provides for the avoidance of doubt that the bill does not modify the 2010 act, so I can support this amendment if the committee chooses to agree to it. It covers the entirety of the 2010 act, rather than specifying sections or elements. I was going to go on to amendment 23 and 104, but maybe I'll point to... Let's take the interventions that we have just now. I've got Rachel Hamilton, Daniel Johnson and Claire Baker. I want some clarity on the relevance of a GRC under the Equality Act. Does the cabinet secretary believe that a GRC is relevant under the Equality Act or is it irrelevant? Last, well, two weeks ago, the Scottish Government was arguing in court that a GRC changes someone's sex under the act. Can you explain... I'm going to take the other folk before you come back, because I think they're all kidding now. They all suggested they wanted to intervene at roughly the same time. Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, convener. I accept what the cabinet secretary is saying in terms of the narrow scope of the law, but I wonder if the cabinet secretary would consider the following things. First of all, while the legislation does not alter the Equality Act, it's very much dealing with the same landscape. There are concepts and considerations that, in terms of the practical implementation of public policy, public bodies will have to think about that at the same time that they're considering the Equality Act. Therefore, as a practical, if not a legal consequence, I think that there is overlap, as there always is in terms of legislation. Indeed, I would go further with what the cabinet secretary acknowledged. In terms of other legislation, the Government is on the record stating that the law has an effect to communicate. It's not simply about the regulation of what can and cannot be prosecuted. It's also about communication and the wider social impacts. In that sense, the cabinet secretary also acknowledged that there are consequences that go beyond the strict scope of the law, which very much will need to be contended by public bodies. I don't think that the cabinet secretary answered that in the last section. The point that the EHRC made about the increased number and scope of that, having an impact on the application of the Costs Act in Scotland, would she acknowledge that point? Indeed, what is the Government's response to it? Clare Baker, and I've also seen Pauline McNeill, Jamie Green and Fulton MacGregor. Sorry, I hadn't indicated, convener. I think there's been confusion. Sorry, Pauline McNeill. It was just a simple point, cabinet secretary. You said that it does not modify the equality bill or the effects of obtaining a GRC. That's fine, but what's confusing is that the Government is arguing that legal sex, opposed to biological sex, includes those with a GRC. So it appears as though the Government's definition of sex includes people with a GRC. You can see that, that would be my definition and many people disagree with that. That is disputed, but you can see why your statement that it does not modify the bill or the effects of it, well it does. It does change it if your definition of sex is not biological sex, so I think that you need to clear this matter up. What is the Government's definition of sex for the purposes of the Equality Act? Jamie Green. I'm far less titled than Mr MacGregor is, so I'll do my best. Cabinet secretary, just on amendment 37, which I believe you've stated, you will support. First of all, amendment 37 just says, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this act, et cetera. It's a very narrow bandwidth. You used the same argument against amendment 111 by saying that, for the avoidance of this doubt, amendments of that type are completely meaningless in the face of legislation, so you've asked the member not to push that amendment, but for the entirely opposite reason you're asking members to support 37, which is worded very similarly, and no doubt has the same meaningless effect. So I think what members are asking for by a whole series of amendments is that the purpose of the act may not necessarily be the same as the effect of the act, and we won't know the effect of that until after the act is enabled. I believe that there may be a compromise to be had in the catch-all reporting requirement that the Government has indicated that it will be willing to open to members. So I wonder if some of those other amendments, which look at the interaction between another piece of legislation and this act, may be best suited in that place if the Government is not willing to support them all. I do feel that the Pam Duncan Glances is so limited and narrow in its scope that there is some room for a constructive working with members ahead of stage 3. Thanks, convener, and it's on a similar vein to what Jimmy Green asked there. Cabinet Secretary, I know that the Government isn't overly keen on a huge number for avoidance of doubt amendments, but I know that you were looking at Pam Duncan Glances particularly, because it encompasses a wider remit. I wonder when you are responding to the interventions, if you think that it does, if Pam Duncan Glances, if you are suggesting that we support it in the committee, it does support it, if it does capture the intent of amendment 111 and to what extent. Brian Whittle. Thank you, convener. You indicate that you're not going to support my amendment, but by removing some of the safeguards, you are, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, having a significant implication on the operation of the Equality Acts in Scotland. Here's the reality. If we do not prepare guidance for sporting governing bodies, for coaches, for teachers, you can't hide from the impact of this bill. It's not if women are going to get injured here. It's not when, because it's already happening out there, and I have to say that I've seen this personally. As you know, I have three daughters, one of them is a young teenager in a combat sport, standing opposite a trans woman, bigger than me. That's the reality of what's happening out here in Scotland right now. Thankfully, that trans woman recognised her advantage and played within herself, but that will not happen all the time. Women are going to get injured if we do not clarify what the rules and regulations are for sporting governing bodies, coaches and teachers. That, I'm afraid, is factual, because it's already happening across the world. Thanks, convener. I'll try to come back on all the points and questions that have been raised before coming back just to finish the other amendments. Rachael Hamilton, first of all, it's worth just pointing out that the Equality Act 2010 protects the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment, and it protects gender reassignment whether or not someone has a GRC. The point about the 2004 act and the effect of obtaining a GRC is the same in section 9 of the 2004 act. None of that changes that and essentially enables people to change their birth certificate to be in line with their acquired gender. That has been the case for 18 years, and that remains the same. I'm not going to comment on the court case, other than to say that the position of the Scottish Government is exactly the same as the Equality and Human Rights Commission has set out in court. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has set out in court their position. We agree with that position. There is no difference in terms of the position. I don't have the devolved matters, because that is with regard to the gender representation on public boards. Can you tell me whether the EHRC's point of view is regarding other aspects that are devolved or reserved? The EHRC's position is on the effect of a gender recognition certificate, as it has stated and is on the website in terms of the position and the effect of a GRC. That changes none of that. I'm not going to comment on the court case, other than to say that our position is exactly the same as the Equality and Human Rights Commission's position, which the member has agreed with on many times. Sorry, but the rest of the UK is not reforming the law, cabinet secretary. We are not changing the effect of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. That does not change the effects of it, which was laid down in the 2004 act. That has not changed at all. It is exactly the same. There is no change to the effect. That is the position. In terms of the practical effects that Daniel Johnson said, as I have said previously, the guidance here is led by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. If Daniel Johnson is asking me, would we be intending or prepared to work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in terms of whether that guidance needs updated post the passing of this bill? Of course, we are, as a Government, more than happy to work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on doing that, but it would have to be led by them because they are the lead body in terms of the guidance, but if you are asking me, will we work with them if it needs to be updated in the light of the passage of this bill, then I can give a commitment that we will do that. Can I just deal with the other amendments first? In terms of the explanation that I gave to Rachael Hamilton in the 2004 act, answers Pauline McNeill's point that the 2004 act is not changed in terms of the effect of obtaining a gender recognition certificate, but that, under the Equality Act 2010, the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignments sit alongside each other as protected characteristics. I think that, just finally, I am sorry if I have missed some points, Brian Whittle, in terms of the guidance, I mean, given— The intervention on— Right, okay, and I will come back to that. Thank you. It is just because you were on my amendment. I hope that you would address a significant question around the exclusion. You said that the 2004 act sits along the 2010 act. Forget your definition versus my definition of sex. What I am interested in is how you use the 2010 act for exclusions. I have said in my submission that you have a minister who is telling health boards that they cannot exclude people, and if they exclude them, it may be discriminatory, but it is completely unhelpful for the purposes of this debate. I would like an explanation from the Government somewhere along the line, but if I use the Glasgow Life example, I think that some bodies are confused or potentially not implementing the section of the act that allows them to make that proportionate legitimate decision for a legitimate aim, they are actually saying that they will not make any exclusions. That is not what the act says. Given those examples, that is why I think that surely the Government has got to step in here and say, hold on a minute, that you are allowed to make exclusions under the 2010 act. Do you see my point? Yes, I do see your point. The exclusions are exactly the same and it makes no change. The updated guidance that the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued should be followed by public bodies, and that is clear. It is clear that it is proportionate. Clearly it gives some guidance in terms of proportionality of applying those exceptions, but if a public body deems that it is proportionate to exclude transwomen or transmen for that matter, with or without agenda recognition certificate, it is entirely within the 2010 act for them to be able to do so. I do not think that I can be any clearer than that. Jamie Greene's point popped back in my head about the avoidance of doubt. It is not something normally that we would have on the face of the bill. However, the reason that I felt it was important to have this on the face of the bill was because of the discussions that we have just had for absolute clarity—I am going back to Pauline McNeill's point—that it is stating the obvious and the facts of the matter, which is why, from a point of view, why would we need to because that is the absolute law and the facts of the matter. It cannot change the 2010 act, but we felt that it was important because of the importance of the discussion and the need to reassure that putting it on the face of the bill was proportionate. What then is not required is for different elements of the 2010 act to be pulled out and put on the face of the bill, because the 2010 act covers all of that and there is no change. That is the clearest way of moving forward. On Brian Whittle's point, I accept the need for sports governing bodies to be clear about what relates to their sport. Each sport is different in relation to the treatment of transgender athletes. We have seen different governing bodies develop and change their guidance in the light of the rulings and evidence that they have taken and the rulings that they have made. That is entirely appropriate. Sport Scotland updated its guidance last year in order to try and help with that. All governing bodies need to apply the principles of the Equality Act. I think that trying to legislate in this bill for something that governing bodies have already demonstrated that they are doing, they might not have all done it in the timeframe or to the satisfaction of Brian Whittle, but many of them have done it on the international stage. We have seen changes in policy emanating from that. I think that because of the nature of sport being so different from one governing body to another, that is where those discussions and changes should happen and our best place to happen. In Scotland, following sport Scotland guidance, Brian Whittle wants to come back. I appreciate it and let me come in here. What I am saying to you here is that sport is not doing this well. Sport is doing this really badly. It has a history of doing this really, really badly because it does not know how to apply this rule. Pauline Neill has given you an example of Glasgow Life, who is not applying the legislation in the Equality Act properly. That is happening across the board. It is not sport to sport. If there is power and speed involved in a sport, then transwomen have an advantage. If we do not make sure that all sport understand, and not just national governing bodies, I am talking about teachers and amateur coaches like myself. If we are not absolutely given the clarity from the Government on what happens here, women are going to be put not just at a disadvantage, but they are going to be put in danger. I do not understand for the life of me cabinet secretary why the Scottish Government does not understand that we have to have guidance really clear across the whole of the country. The guidance is provided already through the Equality and Human Rights Commission and through governing bodies. You are talking about two slightly different things. In terms of a public body and the way in which it manages its spaces, the guidance is there through the Equality and Human Rights Commission around the proportionality of who would be excluded from certain spaces within sports provision. If you are talking about competition and athletes competing at whatever level, then, of course, it has to be specific to that sport. That is why we have seen very public changes of sports governing bodies, making those changes in the light of the evidence and research that they have done. Each sport is very different from the other in terms of the physicality of athletes. Therefore, it has to be specific to that sport. I cannot see how you could possibly legislate for every scenario in every sport within a bill that is about the process for obtaining agenda recognition certificate. However, if the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes that guidance is required to be revised again in the light of the bill, then, of course, we will work with them in doing that. However, the guidance is already there, and sports governing bodies are changing their policy in certain circumstances. I am telling you what is happening out there. Sports national governing bodies are not making the right decision because they are frightened of ending up in court. That is what is happening out there. I can go through as many as you like. Some power and speed-based sports are making one decision, other power and speed-based sports are making a different decision to the detriment of women. That is happening out there, cabinet secretary. We have a paper here that tells you what the rules are. Tell me why, if the rules are clear, why that is not being applied across all of sport because it is not working, cabinet secretary. Something has to be done properly to deal with that. I cannot speak for all governing bodies, but I am aware of some very public positions that have changed within a number of sports governing bodies in the light of them, looking at their sport, looking at all the issues that Brian Whittle has raised, and changing their policy in relation to transgender athletes on the back of that. That is the right and proper way for each sport to look at the rules that they have, because each sport is very different in how athletes, in terms of the unfairness in competition, are not the same for every sport. To try and legislate for sport across the board when every sport is so different—I just cannot see how that could be done—is much better to allow, as sports governing bodies are doing. I am sure that members around this table are aware of those changes of policy that have been very high-profile. Many are already doing that, and it is for them to lead what is appropriate for their sport within the law, addressing the 2010 Equality Act and making sure that they are in line with that, but it is entirely for them to do that within the existing rules. I do not see how you could legislate for a couple of indications of people wanting to come in, but I do not know how much you have left to conclude. I will turn to the reasons why I do not support amendment 23 and amendment 104, because they select out section 11 only of the 2010 Equality Act and the bill cannot change section 11. We have got the catch-all Pam Duncan-Glancy amendment that I referred to earlier. I also do not support amendment 24, which selects out section 195 of the 2010 act, and the bill does not alter the exceptions in section 195, which provides for certain exceptions for sex, gender reassignment and discrimination in relation to sport. I do not support amendment 110, which focuses on collecting data on sex, because its effect on interpretation of the bill is unclear, nor do I support amendment 152, which requires that the functions under the bill must be exercised in accordance with the 2010 act. The requirements of that act do not impact on who can and cannot obtain a GRC or the process for obtaining a GRC. Let me turn to amendments in relation to the Equality Act 2010 and guidance. As I have said, it is for the UK Government or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission as the reserved body to issue guidance on the Equality Act. It is the statutory non-departmental public body established by the Equality Act. In relation to the 2010 act, the EHRC have published guidance for individuals, for organisations and the public sector. They also published updated guidance earlier this year on protecting people from sex and gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the act. They have also published a statutory code of practice, which assists service providers with understanding the relevant issues in relation to the act. They are the correct body to do so. I also said earlier on that, if they want to update their guidance again after the bill has passed, we would welcome that. On the basis of all that, I cannot support amendments 25, 74, 75, 101, 103 and 151. There are another four members, so we will take them all in turn and then come back to cut some. Thank you, convener. I am really grateful to be let in. It is just going back to the points that Pauline McNeill and I are making. Are you able to set out for the committee the content of what the Scottish Government argued in its position in court two weeks ago? What did you go to the court to argue? I am sure that you are not protected by legal constraints on that. My other question is relating to Brian Whittle and others. Their concerns around the interaction of the GRC with the Equality Act is, do you think that women's rights to manage their boundaries around the opposite sex matter, or not you, but the Scottish Government? Thank you, convener, for allowing me to come back in. My point was on my amendment number 37, just to address a couple of issues that have been raised. I do not share the view of my colleague Jamie Greene that it is narrow. The purpose of that amendment is deliberately broad, so that it takes into consideration all the aspects of the Equality Act. Every one of us around this table today has said that, regardless of the argument that we are pushing forward, for example, with Brian Whittle's arguments around women in sport and trans people in sport, that everybody is keen to also say that we support all protected characteristics, including trans people. That is important for us all to remember that, and sometimes that gets a bit lost. That is one of the reasons why the amendment that I have put in in my name is so broad in that sense, because I want the whole act to be read in and relevant. I do not think that we can pick it apart like that in bits and pieces. It was written to allow groups of people to live in a society where we all have to live with one another. Sometimes, there are situations in which we have to ask questions about what those protected characteristics rights mean for those protected characteristics rights. We have discussed a lot of them today, and pulling bits out of it, I fear, does not allow us to consider it in its entirety, as my colleague Daniel Johnson said earlier about the act's ability to be context-specific, and I think that that is really important. That is why the amendment is read the way it is. I also want to say that, on the points back for the avoidance of doubt, members will be aware of a pepper v heart approach, which is that you have the opportunity in proposing an amendment to give clarity about why you are doing so. I hope that that was helpful. For avoidance of doubt, it is not without precedence, but it is rare. It was used previously in the Marriage and Civil Partnerships Act, and I thought that it would be an appropriate mechanism to make sure that the bill is read with the whole equality act, representing and understanding and protecting the rights of all the people in the equality act, including in all protected characteristics. I appreciate the opportunity, convener, just to come back in and give a bit of explanation for that. I hope that members will find that helpful. My amendments make clear that the equality act needs to be taken into account when considering the final GRA bill. If the bill is passed, can women be absolutely confident that men will not be present in spaces reserved for women, be that in single-sex hospital ward, in women and girls sporting activities, in women's refuges or in those spaces reserved for women to practice the religion? Thank you, convener. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments in this group. I hear the cabinet secretary say that it is for the EHRC to issue guidance in this area, but public bodies, including Education Scotland, have provided guidance in addition to EHRC guidance around the equality act on discrimination. They described it as a reference that should be used to develop and review policy. It is a tool. It is whether the Government could look at the approach that we should take to provide more guidance in this area. The EHRC, in a briefing that it sent to members in advance of this stage, said that it has written to the Scottish and the UK Government to get clarity for employers and service providers on the law. It is saying that it provides guidance around occupational exemptions, but it has written to yourself and to the UK Government to see the role there for Governments to provide clarity for employers and service providers. I would be interested if you had a chance to see that letter and respond and what the difference is between the guidance that Education Scotland has issued on the equality act. The guidance was last February 2021. It is described as technical guidance, but it is an authoritative, comprehensive and technical guide to the detail of the law. I think that I will press the amendment today. You might feel that the amendment oversteps what the role is, but do you recognise that there is a role for the Scottish Government in providing guidance on how the operation of the equality act is carried out in Scotland? We could have a further discussion before stage 3 about what role the Scottish Government has here in providing that public bodies and employers in Scotland know how to use the law effectively. On Rachael Hamilton's question, I am not going to talk about a live court case other than to state again that the position of the Scottish Government is no different and that it is entirely consistent with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, entirely consistent with its position entirely. On the second question—I was not sure if I caught it—I think that exemptions under the 2010 act matter, of course they do. If that was Rachael Hamilton's question, of course they do. That is why I have said on numerous occasions that those exemptions are important and should remain and are not affected by the bill. Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment put that beyond doubt if there ever was any doubt. Pam Duncan Glancy gave an account of why her amendment is important, and I do not think that I need to say anything about that. I can confirm to Faisal Choudhury that absolutely the single sex service exemptions apply. They just have to be proportionate, so the guidance sets out the proportionality. It gives examples, the HRC guidance gives examples of the type of services that they would envisage being exempting transwomen, for example, from accessing. They talk about what it means in terms of proportionality of a service provider. In terms of Clare Baker, I will need to look at the letter that she is referring to, and we will have a look at that. However, I am happy to have further discussions with Clare Baker on that. It is getting the balance right of being very clear about the lead organisation around those matters, whether employment law is again reserved, and we would look to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to lead on that. That does not mean that we do not have an interest and that we cannot work with the HRC around further guidance that they may wish to develop on an issue, but it is about the lead organisation and recognising and respecting that lead organisation's role. However, I am happy to have further discussions with Clare Baker. Is there any further thought that we can put to that, if that would be helpful for her? Thanks for that answer, cabinet secretary. However, the EHRC guidance supports my amendments. The EHRC seems to think that it is not only relevant, it is important to clarify for the purpose of cross-border certainty. I quote, by burdening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposal has a significant implication for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland. This significant implication means that it is important for us to put as much clarity on the face of the bill as possible. The clarity on the face of the bill comes from the overarching, for the avoidance of doubt, amendment in Pam Duncan Glancy's name. If you start to pick out differing parts of the 2010 act, you give more prominence to different elements of the 2010 act, and that itself just creates confusion and opaqueness. Having the whole act beyond doubt, for the avoidance of doubt, is clear. In terms of the operation of the 2010 act, as I have said on a number of occasions, that is for the EHRC to lead on. In terms of the cross-border issues that Foisal Troudry said, we are working with the UK Government around a section 104 order, and we will continue to work with them, as we would with any piece of legislation around any cross-border issues. I want to ask the cabinet secretary what is your interpretation of the Equality Act 2010? My interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, in its entirety, or specifically? Do you not think that it should be more clear? Do you not think that removing some to accommodate somebody else? Do you think that it should not be balanced? Should it not be given equal opportunity to everybody and listened to everyone? The Equality Act 2010 protects the characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. It protects all those characteristics. It is a good piece of legislation, and it is entirely untouched by the bill. I have said that on a number of occasions, but we are now literally putting that on the face of the bill for the avoidance of any doubt. For the avoidance of any doubt, in relation to the briefing, which the cabinet secretary has seen it anyway, I just want to refer to it specifically. Foisal Troudry mentioned it previously, so he says that we have highlighted several areas where the effect of the bill's provisions on the operation of the protections from sex discrimination in the Equality Act is unclear and has urged further consideration before legislative change is made. They refer to all the amendments, including mine, in 11101 and all the amendments in the group, but they say that the Government recommends that such amendments should be considered. Given that you are relying on saying that it is a matter for the ECHR, I hope that—I suspect from what you have said that you are not supporting 101, but it is important to get on the record that, even if the ECHR has said that they should at least be considered, because they themselves would welcome that clarity. It seems that it is the Scottish Government that stands alone saying that you would not accept further clarification. I am grateful, convener. I echo Paul McNeill's point there, but I will go further. If we are going to accept your logic, cabinet secretary, that there is essentially nothing impact and that it is open to public bodies and, indeed, others to use the exemption set and the Equality Act, could you just, before the record, clarify that it is proportionate and reasonable to do so? That public bodies and, indeed, others can distinguish between people on the basis of whether we want to describe its physical characteristics, however we want to capture it. I recognise that there are issues around the terminology and the difference between legal definitions and commonplace, but it is open and, indeed, that they should, where it is fair and proportionate, those distinctions, such as school trips, shared accommodation or others. You might not want to pick out those particular examples, but that public bodies can and, indeed, should use those distinctions rather than simply using declared gender identity. I can absolutely confirm that, because that is what the Equality Act says. As I have said probably quite a few times now, the bill changes none of the protections and exemptions under the Equality Act, so I can absolutely say that. Public bodies should look to the guidance for the guidance in terms of how they apply that to their own particular circumstances, and it has to be proportionate, as Daniel Johnson has just outlined. All of that is there, and I can confirm that. The point that was made by Pauline Dassby, who asked me a question. The ECHR's briefing says that it should consider these amendments. Yes, so we have. Let me be absolutely clear that we have considered every single amendment, and we have gone and looked at it, whether it is required or not, and what the effect of it would be on any unintended consequences, all of them, every single one of them. For clarity and simplicity, by having the protection or the catch-all clarity of Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment is the clearest way of being absolutely, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is no change to any aspects of the 2010 act. I think that to then go further than that brings a lack of clarity, and hopefully my answer to Daniel Johnson could not have been any clearer around those exemptions that will continue to be the case. Thank you, convener. Obviously, there has been a fulsome discussion around these groupings. Just to speak to Daniel Johnson's amendment, I think that we must address the policy impact of reforming law. Most people here today have said that, although the bill is well-intentioned, the reform is well-intentioned, the bill is actually clumsy. All of us have said that we need clear and robust guidance from the Scottish Government around the interaction of the quality act. My colleague Pam Gozzle is also correct that the Scottish Government is brushed off concerns by stakeholders. Pauline McNeill is right that public organisations should not be left in the dark, legislation should be clear. The new laws, we believe, and if the cabinet secretary is hearing what we are saying on behalf of stakeholders and our constituents and others, the general public is that those laws will not be workable and they are not clear enough. It is important that the public are reassured that the bill will not harm women's rights and others, particularly around the areas that protect against discrimination, such as pay or representation on public boards or the protection of single spaces. In, for example, domestic shelters and rape crisis centres, I agree with both Foisal Childry and Pauline McNeill that it is down to the Scottish Government to tell us what the effect of a GRC is for the purpose of the Equality Act. Pam Duncan-Glancy says that she wants to see the Scottish Government make good law and clear guidance, so we are all agreed on that. We must give the public clarity, and I will question the clarity that her amendment gives. As it stands, the Scottish Government is failing to put a firewall between the GRC and the Equality Act, but at the same time it is making GRCs available to a much larger and wider and diverse group of people. Despite the Scottish Government supporting Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment, we still do not have the reassurance that the delivery of services, jobs and sport on the ground is clear. I also believe that all Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment does is to support the SNP's position, which has still not been explained. I thank the member for taking an intervention, and I appreciate that this is politics, and you will seek to make that point as clearly as you just have. However, this is not a case of people winding up on a political basis. What I have done with my amendment is to set out that the Equality Act, which, if we are going to raise politics, was written and brought in by a Labour Government, is as relevant for the bill, and it is particularly relevant. I think that we need to say so in this discussion because of some of the concerns out there in the real world and in here, in fact. That is why we are doing that. Just because we happen to agree—there are a number of areas in which my colleague Rachel Hamilton and I will agree—we will vote in the same way. That does not mean that I am lining up to support the Tories on anything, least of all on women's rights, but I can absolutely be clear that this is not about a party political allegiance. I do not think that it is fair to suggest that. This is about trying to make sure that everyone in Scotland's rights are protected in the way that they were intended when the Labour Government brought in the Equality Act in 2010. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that amendment. With all due respect, my point is on the side of the public, and therefore I am not making this political. I think that it is important, Pam, that we do discuss things robustly. It is just a shame that other parties have not got to the position of having a free vote on this so that we could have been more open and transparent. However, using the example that the cabinet secretary used— Do you agree on that point? Yes. Thank you. That is a little bit of mischaracterisation. This is a small Parliament, and every political party will come to positions through discussion and agreement. In a group the size of ours, can I assure the member that that is how we arrived at that? It is slightly unhelpful and characterising the position of the Liberal Party is one being whipped. Thank you for Daniel Johnson for his intervention, and I did not use those words, but he is entitled to his own opinion. I am not going to interfere in how his own party decides on his own business management of the party. However, using the example that the cabinet secretary used of the HRC guidance when it suits, I believe, is shallow. The HRC supports Foisal Charteries amendment. I am supportive of Foisal Charteries amendment, so why not the Scottish Government? If the Scottish Government truly wants reform, if the cabinet secretary wants to see this passed as a piece of legislation that is groundbreaking reform for Scotland, I believe that all parties should be brought together. We have discussed it in good faith, and we want to make good law. I think that that is the point here. I think that a catch-all approach that the cabinet secretary has been supportive of in previous groupings would have been preferable. On that point, I will withdraw my amendment. The member has asked permission to withdraw amendment 23. Is that agreed? That is agreed. I therefore call amendment 24 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 23. I call amendment 25 in the name of Daniel Johnston, already debated with amendment 23. Daniel Johnston, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we therefore go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote, and all those against. That is three in favour and four against, so amendment 25 is not agreed. I call amendment 74 in the name of Pam Gossel, already debated with amendment 23. Pam Gossel, to move or not move. That is moved, so the question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so we go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote, and all those against. Again, that is three votes for and four votes against. The amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 75 in the name of Pam Gossel, already debated with amendment 23. Pam Gossel, to move or not move. That is moved, so the question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so therefore vote all those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is three votes for and four votes against. It is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 76 in the name of Pam Gossel, already debated with amendment 1. Pam Gossel, to move or not move. Can I say a few words? Yes, it is moved, but is it okay? No, it is moved or not moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so therefore go to the vote. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. Two votes for and five votes against. That is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 101 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 23. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. That is moved. Without going to the vote, is that agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we now go to the vote on amendment 101. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is three votes for and four votes against. That is not agreed. I call amendment 103 in the name of Brian Whittle. Brian Whittle, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is three votes for and four votes against. The amendment is not agreed to. I move to amendment 104 in the name of Foysal Choudhury. Foysal Choudhury, to move or not move. Can I say a few words? No. Move or not move. I will draw at this stage. Okay, thank you. I call amendment 136 in the name of Jamie Greene. I am already debated with amendment 1. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Move the convener. So the question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is six in favour, one against. amendment 137 In the name of Jeremy Balfour, I'll already debated with amendment 21. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. It is not moved. amendment 138 In the name It was moved to move or not move. The question is that amendment 139 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There is not agreed to vote, so I structured the vote as it could be. All those against, and all those three versus and four against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call the amendment 140 in the name of Reriall Hamilton who has motion. 1, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Llywodraeth. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we move to the vote. Always in favour, please vote now. Okay, and always against. Okay, that's three votes for, four votes against, that is not agreed. I call amendment 141 in the name of Maggie Chapman, already debated with amendment 87. Maggie Chapman, to move or not move? To move. So the question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed to. I call amendment 142 in the name of Tess White, already debated with amendment 21, Tess White, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 143 in the name of Tess White, already debated with amendment 1, Tess White, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 144 in the name of Tess White, already debated with amendment 1, Tess White, to move or not move? Not moved. called Amendment 105, in the name of Ros emphas, is already debated with amendment 83, did Ros McAll to move or not move? Not moved. Call amendment 106, in the name of Ros McAll is already debated with amendment 83, does Ros McAll to move or not move? Not moved. Call that amendment 78, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already is debated with amendment 53, cabinet secretary needs to move formally? A question is, amendment 78 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That is agree. 4. Solicy of Scottish values 5. Rodyg flockwci 65. 64 suspected 75 suggestion ことをごと full 66 broadcast 66 Anything 68 For 68 0 Us Worlach ynghylch hyn arfor iniw'w c carteilai sy'n dod cy llehau cWAwr feeton wahanol byddochi'r bwynt g stall assign o gennyn, fyrdiwch o'n blaen fyddion ond grants cwyfo'r allu ddechrau, dym ni'n gobeithio'n ddim ni'n gobeithio'n ddechrau. Felly, 5 yn cydweithio. support Therefore, no ddim ni'n gobeithio, ddim ni'n gobeithio'n ddechrau. Cymru yn dweud oedd i'r llei? Cymru oedd i Domethau Cymru oedd i'r llei Cymru oedd, felly ar allwch not i ddim ni'n gafoddiad? The question is that amendment 1100 beig ymarfer, are we all agreed. That is not agreed, can I ask all those in favour to please vote now. It is 11 animals and all those against, and abstentions, okay? That's two for, four against, and one abstention the amendment is Therefore, I do not agree. Amendment 145, sorry, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 1, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move? It moved. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. Amendment 146, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move? It moved. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so all those in favour please vote now. Amendment 146, and all those against. Amendment 147, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, grouped with amendment 149, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move amendment 147 and speak to all amendments in the group. I thank the convener, and if the convener and the committee will give me two seconds to get my correct paper. Amendment 147 requires the Government to collect better data on gender recognition certificates and in relation to the bill. It takes the best practice that I have been able to find from the Irish Maltese Victorian legislation and from the Ministry of Justice in the UK models and ensures that future policy is served by better evidence than has been found in the drafting of this current bill. I encourage members to vote for it on the basis of that, and I move amendment 146. I call Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 149 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 149 would require the Scottish ministers to specify narrow and specific areas where data collection is able to or required to happen on an acquired gender and gender at birth basis. The specified areas would be in the face of the bill and would initially only include access to provision of healthcare and the commission of specific offences. Ministers would be able to modify the list through regulations. The committee heard a wealth of evidence on data collection, and it is clear that there is no example of best practice and that there are critiques of all countries that have moved to self-id laws. Senator Docherty gave evidence on Ireland's experience of self-id laws and said that they had a long way to go on data. The elements in Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment are crucial. I would like to highlight the issues in my amendment, and there are two areas. It would require the Scottish ministers to specify where data must be collected on both acquired gender, gender at birth and narrow and specific areas. At present, public bodies follow guidance, but gender and sex is frequently used interchangeably. The initial list of areas would be confined firstly to healthcare, where data plays a significant role in designing services and ensuring that everyone receives appropriate healthcare. The bill is likely to lead to an increase in the number of people applying and obtaining a GRC, which is likely to lead to a larger cohort of people who may need to access gender-based health services for their opposite sex. For instance, trans men may need to access a smear cervical cancer screening test, and it is essential to protect the health and outcomes of trans people that our NHS has robust data. Historically, we have rightly argued for an increasing focus on the importance of research in women's health, where there are differences with men's health, and one of the issues that came up in conversations that I had with trans constituents during discussions on the bill was the concern that there is no longitudinal research in Scotland, which specifically monitors the long-term health of trans men and women to ensure that they get the support that they need throughout their lives. I wanted to flag this issue at this stage, as I think that the Scottish Government needs to do the heavy lifting so that when we make it easier for people to transition as a result of this legislation, those people can also have the confidence that our health service will be there for them. The second issue around my amendment responds to concerns that have been raised with me on the small number of bad actors who may use this bill to exploit women and girls. I want to explore how we can send a clear message to bad actors during the discussion on this legislation in Parliament that this bill is not an opportunity for them. I know that the issue was discussed in response to Russell Finlay's amendment earlier in the committee stage. Two discussions, I think, also earlier today in terms of Jamie Greene's amendments. Just to be clear, my intendant is absolutely not to ban people who have committed specific effects from transitioning if they meet the criteria of the bill, but I think that there should be the capacity for organisations where vulnerable women need safe spaces, for example, so that those organisations would be aware of that. Today, we have seen several amendments that have highlighted the need for clear and effective guidance for a range of organisations. People who want to register as trans specifically to abuse women are absolutely clear that they are predators. I am sure that every MSP will want to ensure that we can do everything that we think is necessary to protect women and girls. A number of concerns have been raised with me using the example of Denmark, where instances of rape and sexual offences rose in the year after self-id legislation was introduced. A critical issue here is that there is no data in place that can prove or disprove whether self-id legislation or something else is behind the rise, but I strongly believe that we need to explore the issue. I heard the cabinet secretary say that there is no evidence that we should be worried about. I repeat that I am not suggesting that people should be stopped from transitioning if they have lived in their new gender as set out in this bill. I want to be clear that my concerns are not about trans women, but about bad actors and sending them a clear message and ensuring that those who have committed abuse against women and girls, who will take any opportunity to carry out their abuse, make sure that there is accountability here. That is partly a probing amendment, but it is also an amendment that is really important. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary what work she is committed to put in place to ensure that sex offender notification would be acted upon. We have heard from the cabinet secretary that police would carry out monitoring just to get on the record the extent to which that would also involve prisons, safe spaces for women who have experienced sexual abuse or any other area where she thinks that there is research that is needed. We know that there is new statutory action outlined by the cabinet secretary, but I would really like more details on that. I have Pam Gossel. We support amendments 147 and 149, as both amendments offer more data collection. From amendment 147, we especially welcome data collection on the number of gender recognition certificate applications received and on the number rejected. Should there be a large number of gender recognition certificates rejected, it would be important to know why. We also welcome provisions regarding the number of applications received from prisons as assaults on female inmates by males pretending to be transgender have occurred elsewhere in the UK. That amendment would also allow us to analyse how that law change has impacted on the number of overall gender recognition certificates that have been granted. The Scottish Government has made estimates about how many applications will result from the law change, and that amendment would allow for those estimates to be measured against reality. Therefore, I hope that the Scottish Government welcomes that amendment. Amendments 149 calls for more data collection regarding trans healthcare. Trans healthcare waiting times are long, and it would be important to measure what impact that legislation has had on such waiting times, especially since the bill opens a window to more people being eligible to obtain a gender recognition certificate. The impact of that legislation needs to be measured for every affected group, and that amendment would help to achieve that. As I said in group 17, I agree that we should review the bill. In addition, the bill, as introduced already, includes a provision at section 15 that requires annual reporting, including on the number of people who apply for and obtain a GRC. The national records of Scotland annually provides statistics and reports in other areas of civil registration, including marriage, civil partnership, births, deaths. The bill will require them to also report annually on the processes around gender recognition certificates. It is important that we carefully consider what is possible and appropriate to collect information about. The list contained in amendment 147 is overly prescriptive and also puts it duty on Scottish ministers rather than the Registrar General, who will be responsible for those processes. While I would not support amendment 147 ahead of stage 3, I would want to consider if there is anything within it that would be possible and appropriate to provide as part of the annual duty on the Registrar General to report on that. If Pam Duncan-Glancy was content not to move her amendment, I would be prepared to work with her around that to bring something back at stage 3, if we can. I agree with Sarah Boyack that it will be important to collect data and information about the impact of the act in order to ensure effective reporting. Again, we need to consider what is possible and appropriate. This amendment is very broad. For example, the bill, as I said before, is about reforming the process for obtaining a GRC. You do not need a GRC in order to access gender identity healthcare, so I am not sure how that would work in practice. Again, at this stage, I cannot support amendment 149, but I would be happy to work with Sarah Boyack on some of the issues that she raised. There were some wider issues raised within those amendments. First of all, I laid out in some detail, and I have written to Pam Duncan-Glancy on the MAPA protections, and those were laid out in some detail. Essentially, I would be able, if there is a concern from those managing sex offenders that there is a concern and that someone is trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate fraudulently, to prevent the GRC from being issued through the registrar general, or if it had already been issued, it would be able to be revoked. Essentially, the justice secretary will put in place a regulation that will require someone who is on the register and seeking to obtain a gender recognition certificate to, first of all, attend a police station and inform the police around their intention. I think that those are proportionate risk-based assessments. MAPA works very well at risk-assessing offenders, and that gives us the assurance that, if there were the bad actors that Sarah Boyack used, those protections will help to ensure that. Thank you very much for that. Two sections to your response on the two elements of my proposed amendment. I am pleased with your comments about MAPA. I want to look at that in detail thereafter, because I have not seen the letter that you referred to, but at least you are reaching out in this direction to address specifically the issue of bad actors. In relation to the first element of my proposed amendment, it is really there, because looking at other experiences in terms of legislatures, there is a key need for support being in place. I was disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not accept my previous amendment, which is actually designed to enable people to get the support that they need, which comes through the likelihood that more people are going to use the opportunity to transition. It goes back to making sure that you have the review so that you have those support services in place, which is a variety of support. I have not been specific on exactly how you do that with the intention of enabling Scottish ministers to use their judgment on it, but it comes back to the need that there will be changes made. Looking at other legislatures, you need to plan ahead and think about the potential impacts of legislation once it is passed and once people use it. On the point of healthcare, as I said previously, the cabinet secretary for health, Humza Yousaf, has written to the committee to lay out in some detail the actions that are being taken forward, and in detail has already said in terms of any changes that may be made to the delivery of healthcare services for the transgender community. We will take into account many of the reviews that have happened elsewhere, including CAS. However, the difficulty is not to conflate that someone going forward for gender identity healthcare for whatever purpose does not need to have a gender recognition certificate. We just need to be careful of not conflating the two issues. However, I am happy to work further with Sarah Boyack on some of the data collection and information issues that she has raised, if that would be helpful. The Scottish Prison Service was mentioned earlier on, and I want to put on the record the very robust risk assessments that the Scottish Prison Service carried out. They will place someone, whether it is a transgender woman or a transgender man, whether they have a gender recognition certificate based on that risk assessment in the estate that is risk assessed as being best for them and for the other prisoners in that estate. That is how they have operated and will continue to operate, whether or not someone has a gender recognition certificate. The sentiment behind Sarah Boyack's amendment I think that some number of issues are really important. However, I just wanted to further address the question of who is calling it bad actors. I have done a lot of legislation that other members have. It is quite normal in legislation to close down loopholes, and it is quite common in legislation to close down loopholes even if you do not think that there actually is a loophole that is perfectly normal. Although the Government has moved on this question in relation to sex offenders, I welcome that. I do not understand why the Government is so resistant to closing down a loophole where there does not seem to be anything preventing someone who would want to misuse it. You are not talking about a trans person here, but we are talking about a man, for example, who can easily acquire a GRC, let us face it, and it is a simple process. So far, the Government does not seem to think that that is a loophole or anything that needs further action in order to prevent that from happening. I just plead with the cabinet secretary to think about that for stage 3, because loopholes in legislation—that is why we are here as legislators—is to say that I am not sure whether it would be wrong, but it looks to me like there is a loophole here. I do not understand why the Government is so resistant, because I do not think that it undermines the principles of the bill or what the Government is trying to achieve. I point out the reality of life, which is that men have abused the positions in professions in the NHS in relation to women, so why would they not use this as an opportunity in another way? Why cannot we just think about how we could close that loophole down for the purposes of complete closure on it, thank you very much. Can I just say that it is in recognition and listening to what people have said and in trying to address some of the issues that we have brought forward, the MAPA regulation that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice says will be in place, as committed to putting it in place before this bill is enacted, for the very reason of recognising that. I explained when we discussed the reason why a blanket ban was not ECHR compliant, and I went into that in some detail for all the reasons that I am sure Pauline McNeill and others will understand. Therefore, taking a risk-based assessment is the best way, and that regulation being brought forward by the Justice Secretary is absolutely in recognition of some of those concerns. In terms of the false application and the aggravator that Jamie Greene brought forward that we have accepted again, it is about sending out a very strong message that if someone is falsely obtained, a GRC goes on to commit a crime, then that should be an aggravator, and again it is recognising all of those things. I do not think that it is fair to say that we do not recognise what we are trying to do is to address them in a way that is legal and competent with either within this bill or within other processes, like MAPA, that the Justice Secretary has agreed to address. On the basis that the Government will consider bringing forward an amendment and hopefully support that at stage 3, I will not press. However, I do expect the amendment that comes forward to address as much of the data collection as I have outlined. I do not think that there is data collection in 1.47 that cannot be gathered. I look forward to trying to find an amendment that could be acceptable across the chamber, and on that basis I will not press today. The member has asked to withdraw amendment 147. Is that agreed? That is agreed. I therefore call amendment 148 in the name of Tess White. Already debated with amendment 1, Tess White to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour of amendment 148 please vote. All those against and abstentions. Case 2, 4 against and 1 abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Call amendment 149 in the name of Sarah Boyack. Already debated with amendment 147, Sarah Boyack to move or not move. I do not get you no research considered by the cabinet secretary to talk to you about it. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 16 in the name of Sue Webber. Already debated with amendment 2, Sue Webber to move or not move. I call amendment... The question therefore is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed and section 16 is agreed to. I call amendment 26 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 2, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. That is moved. All those in favour of amendment 26 please vote now. And all those against please vote. Okay, that's 2, 4 and 5 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 111 in the name of Fulton MacGregor. Already debated with amendment 21, Fulton MacGregor to move or not move. Not moved, convener. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 151 in the name of Clare Baker. Already debated with amendment 23, Clare Baker to move or not move. That is moved. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed. So all those in favour of amendment 151 please vote now. And all those against. Okay, that's 3 in favour and 4 against. So the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 152 in the name of Carl Mawkin. Already debated with amendment 23, Carl Mawkin to move or not move. I call amendment 156 in the name of Clare Baker. Already debated with amendment 1, Clare Baker to move or not move. That is moved, convener. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 112 in the name of Ros McAul. Already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 79 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 80 in the name of Pam Goswll. Already debated. Pam Goswll to move or not move. That is moved. So the question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. So all those in favour, please vote now. And all those against. That's 3, 4 and 4 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 81 in the name of Pam Goswll. Already debated. Pam Goswll to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. So go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 81, please vote now. And all those against. That's 3, 4 and 4 votes against. So that is not agreed. I call amendment 27 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated with amendment 28. Graham Simpson to move or not move. I call amendment 153 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy in the group on its own. Pam Duncan Glancy to move and speak to amendment 153. Thank you, convener. This amendment ensures that all future changes to the legislation made by the Registrar General under regulations must be subject to an affirmative procedure in Parliament. And we believe that this gives the required scrutiny that is necessary for changes like that. And I move the amendment in my name. Okay. Thank you and Cabinet Secretary. The bill provides that the Registrar General with the consent of Scottish ministers can make regulations about the form and manner in which an application for a GRC is to be made, the form and manner in which a notice of confirmation is to be given, information or evidence to be included in an application for a GRC or a notice of confirmation and other matters in connection with the making of an application for a GRC. Regulations made under this section which contain a provision which adds to, replaces or omits any part of the text of an act are subject to the affirmative procedure. Otherwise, regulations made under this section are subject to the negative procedure. And I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee of this Parliament has approved the Delegated Powers in the bill at stage 1. The form and manner of making the application form and of giving the notice of confirmation will be relatively procedural matters as such. The negative procedure is considered an appropriate use of Parliament's time, making all regulations under this section subject to the affirmative procedure would, in my view, place a disproportionate burden on the committee with a potential impact on the other work that the committee has to take forward. And of course, even under the negative procedure, the Parliament still has to scrutinise, consider and vote. I heard the concerns that were raised with the committee at stage 1 about the regulations to make a provision for or about further information or evidence that may be included in an application for a GRC or a notice of confirmation. However, this will not allow a change to the criteria and grounds that are specified in the bill for a GRC to be granted. For example, this power would not allow regulations to be made to reintroduce a requirement for medical evidence. This provision is intended to ensure the smooth running of the process and that it will not be frustrated if it transpires in the light of experience in future that some additional information or evidence should be submitted with an application or a notice of confirmation. Also, of course, just because an instrument is negative does not mean that the committee would not still have an opportunity to scrutinise and consider it in the normal manner. And for those reasons, I cannot support amendment 153. Okay, thank you. Just to check, Pam Gossel, did you want to intervene? I'm fine now, thank you. Okay, if I move to Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 153. Sorry, convener. Did you say before you moved to or did you say I moved to? Sorry. Oh, thank you. Thank you, convener. I've listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said and I understand the number of various different bits of regulation that may indeed come to the committee. And I'm under no illusion about the level of work that that could include. But I actually think that on a bill such as this, something like that probably does need to have the level of scrutiny that the affirmative procedure affords, as opposed to the negative procedure, which, in my short time in this place, I can explain. I've learned doesn't give as much opportunity for scrutiny as others. And so I don't think that some of those aspects should be left to that. And so I do, I'm afraid, still move amendment 153. Okay, thank you. So the question is that amendment 153 be agreed to. I will agree. That is not agreed, so therefore move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 153, please vote. Okay, and all those against. It's 3, 4, 4 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated. Graham Simpson to move or not move. I call amendment 35 in the name of Ross McCall. Already debated. Ross McCall to move or not move. I call amendment 36 in the name of Ross McCall. Already debated. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 154 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy. Already debated. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. Moved. So the question therefore is that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 82 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated. Cabinet secretary to formally move. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 17 in the name of Sue Weber. Already debated. With amendment 2, Sue Weber to move or not moved. Not moved. So the question is that schedule 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. That is agreed and schedule 7 is agreed. So I call amendment 29 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated with amendment 20. Graham Simpson to move or not move. Not moved. That's not moved. So therefore I call amendment 31 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. So the question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is not agreed. We go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 31 please vote now. And all those against. That's too far. Five against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 30 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated. Graham Simpson to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 155 in the name of Tess White. Already debated. Tess White to move or not move. So the question therefore is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is not agreed. We go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 155 please vote. And all those against. That's too far. And five against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. So the question now is that section 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question now is that section 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed and that end completes our stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance along with all members who have participated. That concludes our meeting for today.