 Maen nhw i'sgwethaf am y syniadau Cymru, ac mae gennym ni'n rown ein nhw, aethau—aib yn i-gwysig. Maen nhw'n grwp 34 â Gwysigol Rhwst, aelwaf i'r cabbwyr Rhwst. Rhwst, cyrraedd o gwyllwn i Gwysigol Rhwst i'r gwysigol Rhwst aelwaf i gwyllwn i gwyllwn i gwyllwn i'r gwyllwn i'r gwyllwn i gwyllwn i'r gwyllwn i'r gwyllwn i gwyllwn i gwyllwn i'r gwyllwn iddyn nhw. I move amendment 34. Those amendments ask for more protection at the start of the process for vulnerable adults and require the register general to have regard the Adults with Incapacity Act, as well as the importance of inclusive communication and promotion of equality and non-discrimination. By ensuring the information and support provided is done in a way that supports capacity and decision making in line with principles of the Adults with Incapacity Act. The amendments would also require information advice and support in relation to understanding the effect and consequences of obtaining a GRC, including for people who may have powers under a welfare power of attorney or guardianship order. The Adults with Incapacity Act is the key legislation that enables other parties to make decisions for people who do not have legal capacity to make the decisions for themselves due to a mental disorder, which may include mental illness, learning disability or personality disorder or cannot communicate because of a physical disability. The person is considered incapable of the cannot act, make a decision, communicate a decision or understand or retain memory of a decision. As an experienced mental health officer told me, it is important that incapacity is not seen as a blanket judgment but rather decision specific. For example, you can have someone who can still manage their money but can't decide on welfare matters. I acknowledge that the bill provides ways for a person with an interest to challenge a GRC, but there is nothing included at the front end of the process. The committee made some general comments about the need for guidance for all applicants, looking mainly at 16 and 17-year-olds, but the situation of vulnerable adults didn't seem to be considered. A general duty in this area would prevent their needs from being overlooked. For those who are covered by formal arrangements, a stronger provision is possible than for those without. The aim of my amendments is to build safeguards at the application stage to reduce the risk of a later successful challenge in the Sheriff's Court on grounds of incapacity to understand. I will. I thank the member for taking my intervention. I agree with Ruth Maguire that it is vital that only adults who are capable of understanding the implications of the decision are able to apply for a GRC. Does she agree with me that this highlights that any application for a gender recognition certificate should only apply to those who are aged 18 or over? I personally agree with that. Early assessment would prevent the person from getting a GRC and others from having to intervene at a later stage. I believe that going through the process of having it challenged at the end would be far more difficult and challenging for the adult concerned. I want to be clear that this is in no way suggesting that everyone with communication difficulties or a learning disability would lack capacity. I repeat that it is important that incapacity is not seen as a blanket judgment but rather decision-specific. I believe that those amendments will benefit applicants who are capable of understanding by reducing the risk that they are put through complex and stressful legal processes that could have been avoided by taking more care earlier to avoid a GRC being issued to anyone who is incapable of understanding its effect. I wish to speak against amendment 34 in the name of Ruth Maguire, but I support amendment 46 on the basis that I think is incredibly important that we take into consideration inclusive communication and support for disabled people. I worry that amendment 34 could have a disproportionate impact on disabled people. For a number of years, guardianship orders and power of attorney have long since had an impact on disabled people's choice, control, freedom and dignity. It is crucial that in this process all including the Registrar General can consider capacity and coercion, for example. There are elements of protections on that in the bill and in other areas, for example in the Registrar General's work that they do around forced marriage. I believe that amendment 34 is not needed, and it worse could have an unintended consequence for disabled people that I do not think the member or others would hope it to. On that basis, I wish to speak against that amendment today. I thank Mr Duncan Glancy and I call the cabinet secretary to respond. Thank you. Those amendments would place a duty on the Registrar General to ascertain for every application for agenda recognition certificate whether the person applying is subject to a welfare power of attorney or guardianship order to have regard to the adults within capacity Scotland at 2000 and to provide information advice and support. Under the age of legal capacity Scotland at 1991, a person of or over the age of 16 years generally has legal capacity to enter into any transaction having legal effect. The bill also already provides for a person who has an interest in a GRC to apply to the sheriff to revoke a certificate on the ground that the applicant was incapable of understanding the effect of it or that the applicant was incapable of valiantly making the application. The register—yes, of course. Ruth Maguire. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. I wonder if she would respond to my point that those processes are available at the end rather than at the beginning and comment on what safeguards are available at the beginning of the process. The Registrar General can also make a similar application to refuse an application on the grounds of incapacity. That would be at the start of the process. It is right that it would be for the sheriff, rather than the Registrar General, to determine whether a person had capacity to make an application based on the evidence because he would be able to gather that evidence, unlike the Registrar General. There are other persons who could valiantly have an interest in a certificate in the circumstances that the person obtaining the certificate may not have capacity. Those include, for example, a person with power of attorney or a guardian or a person authorised under an intervention order under the Adults Within Capacity Scotland Act 2002 acts for the person obtaining the certificate. The 2000 act makes provision about decision making on behalf of those lacking capacity generally in relation to applications to the sheriff or court of session or to the public guardian. The Registrar General does not have functions in relation to proceedings under the act, therefore it is not clear what the relevance would be to the Registrar General's functions in this context. Provision already exists in the bill to allow for GRCs to be refused or revoked on the grounds of the capacity of an applicant whatever their age, and, as has been set out, national records of Scotland will provide guidance to applicants on how to make an application and the effects and consequences of obtaining a GRC. Those amendments also require the Registrar General to make available information, advice and support and to communicate that in an inclusive way. There is already a requirement on the Registrar General to publish information on the process and the effect of a GRC, and I agree that that should be done in an inclusive and accessible way. The national records of Scotland already have a clear commitment to making its websites and resources usable and accessible, and that is set out in its accessibility statement. I do not think that those amendments are required and I would urge people to vote against them. I call Ruth Maguire to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 34. I am pleased to have got on the record my concerns about adults with incapacity. Based on what the cabinet secretary has said, particularly around the importance of inclusive communication around the support that I will not be pressing those amendments. Ms Maguire is not pressing amendment 34. Sue Webber wishes to press amendment 34. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Mr Alon. My app failed. I would have voted no. Thank you, Dr Alon. I will make sure that that vote is recorded. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. I do not think that your microphone was on. Sorry, my app failed too, and I also would have voted no. I have seemed to have lost connection. I do not know if my vote was recorded. It was not, Ms Martin. How would you have voted? I will ensure that that is recorded. Point of order, Stephanie Callaghan. I can inform you that Ms Callaghan's vote was recorded. Point of order, Craig Hoy, online. Sorry to interrupt, Mr Hoy. I can inform you that your vote was in fact recorded. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 34 in the name of Ruth Maguire is yes, 27, no, 94. There were two absensions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 35 in the name of Ruth Maguire. Already debated with amendment 30, Ruth Maguire to move or not move? That amendment is not moved, but it is moved by Edward Mountain. The question is therefore that amendment 35 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division, and therefore we will move to... Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Pauline McNeill. My absions have completely crashed. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms McNeill. I will make sure that is recorded. Point of order, Keith Brown. My absions have completely crashed. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Brown. I will make sure that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 35 in the name of Ruth Maguire is yes, 28, no, 95. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 36 in the name of Russell Finlay. Already debated with amendment 30, Russell Finlay to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Keith Brown. My absions have completely crashed. I would have voted no. I will make sure that is recorded, Mr Brown. Mr Hoy, I know you want to make a point of order, but again your vote has been recorded. I assure you. The result of the vote on amendment 36 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 55, no, 68. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 37 in the name of Martin Whitfield. Already debated with amendment 6. Martin Whitfield to move or not move? Not moved. The amendment is not moved. Oliver Mundell is looking to move. Amendment 37. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 37 in the name of Martin Whitfield is yes, 32, no, 90 abstentions, 1. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 105 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 6. Jackie Baillie to move or not move? Not moved. Jackie Baillie is not wishing to move that. It is whoever it is. The question is therefore that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 105 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 9, no, 111. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 38 in the name of Ruth Maguire. Already debated with amendment 30. Ruth Maguire to move or not move? Move, please. That is moved. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 38 in the name of Ruth Maguire is yes, 36, no, 86. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 106 in the name of Michael Marra. Already debated with amendment 100. Michael Marra to move or not move? Not moved. Amendment 106 is not moved. Jeremy Balfour is seeking to move it. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division and therefore members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Richard Leonard. My app would not connect to the server if it had. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Leonard. I will ensure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 106 in the name of Michael Marra is yes, 25, no, 95. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated with amendment 100. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 2 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 54, no, 65. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated with amendment 100. Graham Simpson to move or not move? I will try again and move. That is moved. The Parliament agreed amendment 103. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Fousal Chowdry. I can advise Mr Chowdry that your vote was recorded. Point of order, Karen Adam. It does say... I can advise you that your vote was recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 3 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 54, no, 65. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 39 in the name of Michelle Thompson. Already debated with amendment 18. Michelle Thompson to move or not move? That is moved. The question is that... I... Getting ahead myself. Call amendment 39A in the name of Russell Findlay. Already debated with amendment 18. Russell Findlay to move or not move? Moved. The question is that... Amendment 39A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 39A in the name of Russell Findlay is yes, 60, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 39B in the name of Russell Findlay. Already debated with amendment 18. Russell Findlay to move or not to move? That is moved. The question is that... Amendment 39B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. That is the vote closed. The result of the vote on amendment 39B in the name of Russell Findlay is yes, 60, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 39C in the name of Russell Findlay. Already debated with amendment 18. Russell Findlay to move or not to move? That moved. That is moved. The question is that... Amendment 39C be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 39C in the name of Russell Findlay is yes, 35, no, 87. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I therefore ask Michelle Thompson whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 39. Ms Thompson. Yes. Thank you. The question is that... Amendment 39 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 39C in the name of Michelle Thompson is yes, 61. No, 61. There were no abstentions. As the vote is tied and Parliament has been unable to reach a view on the amendment, I have to exercise my casting vote in line with the approach taken by all my predecessors. If such a cast against the amendment, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 107 in the name of Rachel Hamilton already debated with amendment 95. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Amendment 107 is agreed. We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. Is the vote closed. Oder Jackie Baillie. Thank you. My app did not refresh in time, I would have voted no. My app didn't connect, I would have voted yes. Result of the voting amendment number 107, in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes 29. No 91. There was one abstention, the amendment is therefore not agreed. Equal amendment 4, in the name of Graeme Simpson. Already debated with amendment 100, to move on up. I'm not intending to move 4 or 5. Thank you, Mr Simpson. The amendment number 4 is not moved. I'm going to call amendment 5 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 100, Graham Simpson, not moving. Thank you, Mr Simpson. The call amendment 40 in the name of Gillian Martin already debated with amendment 18, Gillian Martin, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is a call amendment 40A in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18, cabinet secretary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40A be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We are division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The call amendment 40A in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 119, no, 2. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 40B in the name of the cabinet secretary already agreed. I debated with amendment 18, cabinet secretary, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 40B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be division members who cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 40B in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 118, no, 1. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 40C in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 40C be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be division members who cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 40C in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 128, no, 0. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 40D in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 40D be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be division members who cast their votes now. There will be division members who cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 40D in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 119, no, 0. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 40E in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 18. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 40E be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be division members who cast their votes now. That is moved. The question is that amendment 40E be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be division members who cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 40E in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 118, no, 0. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 40A as amended. Press. The question is that amendment 40A as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be division members who cast their votes now. Os yn iawn. Maeut o'r maes yw Mikel Marra? Maes yw'r awtso i fynd o'r ffordd i'r ddaf. Gweld eich ddechrau, S assets. Rydw i ddaf yn ddaf i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i gael 14, ydym yn unig amiddateb gluten nhw Cillee Martin, ddym yn ddweud o'r gwleidau No 0. Y ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud ein ddaf yn amdani? Mae'n ddweud i ddweud i gweld judgeun, mae ddweud adrodd o'r gwleidau sefydliad ar gyfer. On this occasion, I was actually right. Call of amendment 47A in the name of Paula Cain already debated with amendment 100. Paula Cain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 47A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed to. There'll be a division and members should cast the votes now. The votes are closed. Point of order, Colin Beattie. Can we have Mr Beattie's microphone please? I couldn't connect. I would have voted no. Diolch yn fawr, Mr Beattie. I'll make sure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 47a, in the name of Paul O'Kane, is yes, 32, no, 70. There were 22 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. In fact, the cabinet secretary to press or withdraw amendment 47. I'll press. I think the question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There'll be a division member who cast their votes now. The vote's closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 47, in the name of Shona Robison, is yes, 121, no, 0. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I'll call amendment 48 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 100. Cabinet secretary to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There'll be a division member who cast their votes now. The vote's closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 48 in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 118, no, 0. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I'll call amendment 49 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 100. Cabinet secretary to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There'll be a division member who cast their votes now. The vote's closed. The point of order, Colin Smyth. My app seems to have frozen, but I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Smyth. I'll make sure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 49 in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 118, no, 0. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We now move to group 10, certificates obtained by fraud. Point of order, Jeremy Balfour. I would like to go back to the point of order that I made earlier today in the debate on those with disabilities and those with care and responsibilities. It is now coming up to 12 o'clock. For those of us who have carers, they are now having to stay up way beyond 12 o'clock so that they can help us when we get home. Can I generally ask whether the bill will consider this at the last meeting? Can you also tell us what time you are expecting this to end so that those with us— I appreciate other members who perhaps do not have those concerns, but for those of us who I do have, I think we should be able to be heard. Can I ask when do you think this will finish so that those who have to provide that care will at least have some idea? Can I deal with the point of order for Mr Balfour first and then I will return to you, Ms Bailey? I certainly accept the earlier point of order that you made, Mr Balfour. It was an issue that was discussed by business managers at their most recent meeting. The Presiding Officer laid heavy emphasis on precisely the points that you are making, Mr Balfour. The business managers have agreed to continue this evening until group 13. I am not able to give you a precise time as to when we are expected to finish. That will depend on both the length of the speeches and the number of votes that we have. I am sure that we all appreciate the time that is approaching midnight. The difficulty that we have is that people are tired and mistakes will be made. There are substantive groupings ahead of us to try to achieve all that. I wonder whether you would consult with the business managers to see whether we can curtail business just now and resume tomorrow. Thank you, Ms Bailey. That reiterates the point of order from Mr Balfour. We had a meeting with business managers about an hour ago where it was agreed that we would proceed up until group 13. I would invite those of a similar view, Ms Bailey, to have a word with our business managers if there is a prevailing view that we do not proceed as agreed at the last meeting of business managers. There may be an opportunity to review that, but there is not much more I can add at this stage. I seek your guidance once more. The run-up to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament was made of its proposed family-friendly principles. As it stands, this Parliament has spent nearly 10 hours debating the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. Many MSPs have young families, including myself, and will have had to make last-minute arrangements for childcare. If Parliament is to conduct itself in such a way, Holyrood can no longer define itself as a family-friendly Parliament. My fear, as referenced earlier, is that it will not be the last MSP to state that late-night sittings are incompatible with working here while raising a young family. So, can the Presiding Officer advise if late-night sittings are now standard and whether amendments can be voted on over multiple dates, with the final debate taking place in January to better accommodate sitting hours? As I said to Mr Balfour earlier on, the Presiding Officer, during the meeting with other business managers, again, laid heavy emphasis on precisely the points that both yourself and Mr Balfour had made at the beginning of the session. She also laid heavy emphasis on the reputation of the aspiration that this Parliament has always had to be family-friendly. It is more than regrettable that we find ourselves in the situation that we are in, but, nevertheless, there has been an agreement within the group of business managers earlier on this evening to continue to group 13. As I say, if there are further discussions that can be had with business managers, I am sure a further meeting can be arranged to discuss this, but at the moment that is the basis upon which I am proceeding. Further point of order, Liam Kerr. I wonder whether the Presiding Officer would accept a motion without notice to put the question raised by Jackie Baillie MSP to this Parliament to pause business at this point and resume tomorrow. Can I thank Liam Kerr for that point of order? I am not inclined to take the motion without notice at this stage, but what I think would impress upon the business managers is in the interim that they reflect on the comments that have been expressed across the chamber by a number of members and revisit it. As I say, on that basis there may be an opportunity to look again at what was agreed at the last business meeting, but I thank you very much for that point of order. I understand from the pause there, so you are perhaps waiting for business managers to convene again. Since we have all of the party leaders in the chamber, would it be possible for the party leaders to assemble to look at the timetabling of this bill? The First Minister, myself and the leaders of the other political parties, to look at what we can agree on as the political parties within this chamber to take this issue forward. Thank you, Mr Ross. I appreciate the offer. This is really a matter for the business managers, and I think there is not much more I can add to that. With that, I suggest that we move on to group 10 certificates obtained by fraud. I call amendment 108, in the name of Jamie Greene, group with amendments 110, 114, 115, 116, 138 and 139. Jamie Greene, to move amendment 108 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am as keen as anyone to get through this bill. I suggest that I could happily offer before I move on to my grouping that we give the business managers a few moments of their time in an adjacent room to have that discussion now. I would be more than happy to postpone just for a few moments to let them make that decision. There is clearly a concern for failing coming from all quarters on that note, and I seek your guidance if that could happen. Can we have a bit of quiet minister? Everyone of us obviously wants to see what business managers would do, so I am quite happy to have conversations with my fellow business managers and discuss it and take it from there. Thank you very much minister. I do appreciate that. There will therefore be a brief suspension to allow the business managers to have that discussion.