 Y cwestiynau yn ymgyrchol 7 3 2 0.1 yn y rhai yng ngyfnwys Alexander Burnett, ond y dyfodol iawn, 7 3 2 0 yn y cyfnod George Adam, am y cyfnod yr Uneddaeth o'r bwysig yng Nghymru i fynd i gafodd y peth, ac mae'n ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd ar gyfer y flod. Yn y gwyfnod ymgyrchol 7 3 2 0.1 yn y rhai ynghylch ynghylch ynghylch ynghylch, mae'n gydag 31 o'r 96, mae'n gwyfnod o'r bwysig ddydd, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 730.2 in the name of Graham Simpson, which seeks to amend business motion 730 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 730.2 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 31, no, 96, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that amendment 730.3 in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend business motion 730 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 730.3 in the name of Liam Kerr is yes, 31, no, 96, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 730.4 in the name of Stephen Kerr, which seeks to amend business motion 730 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 730.4 in the name of Stephen Kerr is yes, 31, no, 96, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 730 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 730 in the name of George Adam is yes, 95, no, 10, there were 21 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Without notice under rule 8.6.2. Thank you Mr Burnett. I'm just concluding that item of business. Point of order. Thank you. Earlier today I submitted a request to you understanding order rule 8.17.2 to suspend rule 9.8.4a in relation to the gender recognition bill stage 3 amendment. Mr Burnett, I am accepting your motion so please do continue and speak to the motion and to move the motion. Do you want me to start again? I have given consent for the motion without notice so please do speak to the motion. Thank you Presiding Officer. Earlier today I submitted a request to you understanding order rule 17.2 to suspend rule 9.8.4a in relation to the gender recognition bill stage 3 amendment consideration. This would result in no timetable limits to the stage 3 amendments with proceedings carrying on over multiple days if required. The request also detailed the alternative provisions for considering stage 3 as is required by rule 17.2. Those were that every member who wishes to speak in any amendment grouping should be granted the opportunity to do so. This request has been made necessary by the constant curtailing of scrutiny by the Scottish Government throughout this bill, implemented through bureau and other means. I encourage members to support my motion so that this bill can receive a full scrutiny it deserves. Thank you. No other member has asked to speak on the motion therefore the question is that motion number 7325 is agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed therefore we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I'll take that point of order after the vote Mr Duncan Glancy. It's on the vote. Point of order Mr Duncan Glancy. I should have voted yes but my vote wasn't taken. The result of the vote on amendment number 7325 in the name of Alexander Burnett is yes, 51, no 74. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. Point of order Rachael Hamilton. Presiding Officer, I'm sorry to delay proceedings. Ms Hamilton, please continue. I'd like to raise a point of order under rule 9.10, which says that members of this Parliament are allowed to speak in support of amendments that they put forward. Last night, after 10 o'clock, my colleagues Russel Finlay, Labour member Jackie Baillie and SNP member Michelle Thompson were all sent a letter asking them to withdraw their amendments to the Bill at the 11th hour. The amendments in question all aimed to provide protections for women's rights. My colleague Russel Finlay's proposal in particular would introduce a crucial safeguard to prevent convicted sex offenders from changing their legal gender in order to potentially access vulnerable women and girls spaces. Presiding Officer, I consider this amendment to be one of the most important we will hear today. Yet, instead of publicly debating this much needed proposal, the SNP Government has attempted to shut down debate and silence colleagues all around this chamber. Presiding Officer, do you agree with me that this was a blatant attempt from the Scottish Government to prevent MSPs from speaking in favour of their own amendments and to avoid the scrutiny of the public and members of this Parliament? Do you also agree that if the Scottish Government are opposed to amendments that have been put forward, then they should set out their arguments openly and frankly in this chamber instead of using back channels to try and have them withdrawn? I would say that the amendments to which the member refers remain on the marshaled list and they will be called and they will be debated. Thank you Presiding Officer. In light of the vote that has just taken place on motion S6M-07325, I would be keen to understand under rule 7.2 how you plan to call speakers in relation to the amendments that are tabled in the business that we have shortly moved to. Thank you Mr Mundell for his point of order. The next item of business is actually a timetabling motion and we will discuss that at that point. I now move on to that point of order, Graham Simpson. Thank you Presiding Officer. It was a very similar point. I wish to understand the effect of the vote. Does it mean that any member who wishes to take part in a debate, which will be the normal state of affairs, will not now be able to do so? If that is the case, that would be a democratic and scrutinising outrage. I thank Mr Simpson for his point of order. The timetabling motion is of course the next item of business but I would say that it is up to the Presiding Officer in the chair to manage debate as normal and both myself and the Deputy Presiding Officers will seek to do that. Under rule 7.2, in the circumstances and given the seriousness of the legislation under consideration, it would be useful for Parliament as a whole and certainly for me as a member to understand your expectation in terms of how members will be able to participate in that business. I would seek your guidance on how you plan to select speakers on this occasion. I thank Mr Mundell for his point of order. I have just ruled on that point. Of course the Deputy Presiding Officers and I will seek to call all members who have a right to be called and as many other members as we possibly can to ensure that as many voices as possible are heard in debate, which is something that we always strive to do. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 7.321, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button and I call on George Adam to move the motion. I rise to speak against 7.321, the motion on stage 3 timetabling. I appreciate that in doing so that this is quite an unusual position to take, but I would like to clarify that I do in general support the existence of guideline times for stage 3 amendment consideration. Today, however, we are presented with a timetable that does not do justice to the complexity of the issue before us. At every turn, the SNP have used all their power to make sure that this business is rammed through Parliament before Christmas and they have done so frankly to protect their own political capital. This has come at the expense of scrutiny and reflective consideration of the detail of the bill that is before us this week. It has also meant the exclusion of stakeholder voices at key junctures, which we should all be ashamed of. I believe that those moves by the SNP High Command and, sadly, all too often I do not think that this is actually a very humorous point. The people of Scotland watching this will make their own mind-ups about some of the cat-calling that is going on. Members, I would just ask that we conduct ourselves at all times in a respectful manner. Mr Kerr, please continue. As I said, I do believe that these moves, sadly too often contoned by other parties in Parliament, are in the eyes of the people of Scotland to the detriment of the reputation of our Parliament and of Scottish democracy. That is why I fully supported Alexander Burnett's comments that he made during the business motion programme speech that he gave. Therefore, I do not support this motion. I would move instead to remove the timetable from today's proceedings so that all members—because all members have a right to speak in this Parliament—are afforded that right, that opportunity to speak in each grouping for as long as it takes. We have to get this legislation right. I stand by the timetable as I am sitting in front of you. I agree that the question is that motion 7321, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Graeme Dey. Mr Dey will ensure that that is reported. The result of the vote on amendment number 7321, in the name of George Adam, is yes, 95. No, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I am going to call Pauline McNeill for a point of order. My point of order relates to my amendment 128, which is on the question of data, group with amendments 13, which is a very large group. We shall see a six-hour debate. I felt that it was wrongly placed in that group, and I accept that there is an overlap with other groups. I believe that it should be grouped with group 19, which also deals with data. I was concerned that, since it is a lot to address in that group, I have three other amendments, and I felt that it may compromise my contribution on that subject matter. I have been advised by the legislation team that there is no time limit on speeches, and I would want to put on record, of course, my thanks to the legislation team for all that they have done this week. Although I know that that is technically correct, I think that it may be important to clarify that point, because I certainly would not want to take unnecessary time to make my points in group 13. I did feel that there was scope for the legislation team to place that amendment in another grouping that there was more space for, if I could put it that way. If you could confirm, then, that either, if your ruling is that it remains in the grouping that it is in, you will indulge me the time allowed to move my substantial amendments in the group and address the question of data, or would you consider my representations that, in fact, it would be better placed in group 19? I raised this point not to waste the Parliament's time, but I think that sometimes it is important that the members do feel they have some ownership of the groupings. Groupings sometimes can be a bit of a mystery in the legislation process, but I think that this one, to me, stood out and had been quite clearly arguable. I thank Ms McNeill for her point of order. As members will be aware, the groupings are decided by the Presiding Officer at stage 3. There are a number of factors that are considered in determining how amendments are grouped, but the principal purpose of grouping amendments is to minimise repetition by debating together amendments on a similar topic. An amendment may be relevant to more than one group, and where that is the case, the amendment will be placed based on considerations such as how to avoid that repetition, ensuring that alternative ways of addressing the same issue are considered together and avoiding any procedural issues, such as amendments being preempted before they have been debated. The way in which the amendment is grouped does not curtail the members' contribution in the scope of what they want to say. I would advise that the amendment will remain in the same group, but as I have said previously, it is certainly my intention and that of the Deputy Presiding Officer to allow as full contribution as we possibly can. Point of order, Ruth Maguire. Presiding Officer, rather reluctantly, given the last hour, I seek your guidance on scope. Colleagues from across the chamber have had amendments ruled out of scope for the reason that the bill relates to the process of applying for a GRC, not to the effect of having a GRC. That has left some of us unable to address concerns raised by constituents, in particular in relation to the fact that the bill, if passed, will allow a much larger cohort of citizens to change their legal sex. In raising that point of order, I wish to be very clear that I am not challenging your rulings on any individual rejected amendments, but rather asking for clarity on the record as to scope so that members in our constituents watching can be very clear about the parameters of our consideration of this legislation at this time. I thank Ms Maguire for her point of order. As members will be aware, there are four criteria for the admissibility of amendments, and one of those is relevance. Relevance itself is determined by the provisions of the bill at introduction rather than the broader policy to which a bill relates. Certainly more guidance can be found on admissibility in the guidance on public bills that the Parliament publishes.