 Can I invite colleagues to resume their seats? Following a meeting of the Bureau on the earlier suspension, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to suspend a final sentence on rule 9.8.5A for the purposes of consideration of stage 3 of the gender recognition reform Scotland Bill and I invite the minister to move such a motion. I apologise, Deputy Presiding Officer, for not knowing the standing orders backwards, but could you ask us what we are voting for or voting against? I am very disappointed in your lack of understanding the standing orders, Mr Balfour. Is that notwithstanding? It allows us to extend the time available without having to keep going back. We have extended it once. That allows us to continue to do it as appropriate. Thank you very much, Mr Balfour. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move on then to amendment 94, in the name of Claire Baker. Could I seek clarification in regard to what my colleague Douglas Ross raised just before the break in regard to those who can use the gallery both tonight and also tomorrow? I have a number of constituents who I know already have tickets that we will be hoping to come here. They are not intending to make any noise, they simply want to watch it. Will they be allowed in? And what's your point? If someone else does make a noise, will they be allowed to stay in if they remain silent? Thank you, Mr Balfour. I understand in relation to this evening that discussions are still on-going, so I am not able to advise you or the chamber on the situation as things stand this evening, but that is being actively worked on. In terms of tomorrow's proceedings, I can certainly assure you and other members who have constituents or those who are planning to attend the gallery that they will be permitted into the gallery as normal. I realise that we've had a change in chair, and it was the other Deputy Presiding Officer who ruled at that point. We were told that those who had been removed would be spoken to and hopefully allowed back in. If a decision is still to be taken, what communication is going on with those who are hopefully waiting to get back in? Is there any idea as to how long they may miss from this chamber? They want to watch our proceedings. I understand that, Mr Ross. As I've said, discussions are on-going. I'm being told that they are now being allowed back in, so this will happen over the course of the next few minutes, I would hope. We do need to press on with proceedings. I therefore call amendment 94, in the name of Clare Baker, already debated with amendment 6. Clare Baker, to move or not move? That is not moved. Does anybody have any objection to that not being moved? Jeremy Balfour, you are looking to move that amendment. I am. The question therefore is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. It will be a 45-second vote, and I would invite members to cast their votes now. That's the vote closed. Point of order, Gordon MacDonald. I'm sorry, Mr MacDonald. Your microphone was on. May I have Gordon MacDonald's microphone and his card? Officer, my app froze. I would have voted no. I'll ensure that it's recorded, Mr MacDonald. Point of order, Rachel Hamilton. I'll ensure that it's recorded, Mr MacDonald. My app froze as well. I knew we'd have voted no. No. I'll make sure that it's recorded, Mr MacDonald. I've got a point of order from Craig Hoy online. Mr Hoy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. My app similarly froze. I would have also voted no. Thank you, Mr Hoy. I'll make sure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 94, the name of Claire Baker, is yes, 11. No, 113. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group number 3, meaning of ordinarily resident in Scotland. I call amendment 19, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 19. I want to be clear that I am very sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised that an asylum seeker living in Scotland might not meet the requirement of being ordinarily resident if unable to satisfy the tests involved. Whether or not an asylum seeker meets the test of being ordinarily resident would, under a straightforward ordinary residence test, depend on their particular circumstances. As with any other person applying for a GRC, they would not be treated any differently in that regard. An amendment was voted in by a majority of the Equalities Committee at stage 2, which provided for different treatment. Its effect was to treat asylum seekers as ordinarily resident in Scotland in all cases, regardless of their individual circumstances or how short a period they had been in Scotland. As I set out in our stage 1 response and at stage 2, our concerns about this stem from the fact that an asylum seeker does not seek asylum in Scotland, but in the UK and immigration laws are reserved. This Government believes that Scotland should have the power to make decisions on asylum and immigration, but unfortunately we do not. I have had to write to the committee to explain why it is necessary to remove that provision at stage 3. Keeping this provision opens the bill to challenge on the basis that it relates to the matters reserved by the Immigration and Nationality Reservation in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. We consider that there is a serious risk that the provision could be found to be outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament, and therefore the amendment in my name would remove the provision so as not to compromise the bill as a whole. That is not the only area where we have competence issues that would endanger the bill. I would not be moving this amendment if there was an alternative, but because of the limits to the powers that this Parliament currently has, this is a necessary move that ensures that the bill is competent within the powers of this Parliament. I move amendment 19. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, let me join others across the chamber today and thank all those who have engaged with us throughout this process. I have met countless organisations and sought throughout to listen and take seriously everything that I have heard. That is the duty on all of us and it is a duty that I take seriously. Let me also say that I am pleased to see that the gallery has been allowed to come back in, that I too shared the concerns that were raised before the suspension that the gallery had been cleared, and we consider that to be a disproportionate response. Presiding Officer, I must speak against amendment 19 in the name of the cabinet secretary, which seeks to remove the amendments secured in my name at stage 2, which sought to specifically include asylum seekers within the meaning of ordinarily resident to ensure that those seeking asylum are not excluded from the process. I recognise that the Government has some concerns around the competency of including such a provision. However, I am yet to be convinced by the argument that the inclusion of asylum seekers could lead to a court challenge of the whole bill, and I am confident that such a provision would not frustrate the implementation of the wider bill. Maureen Wightfield, I am very grateful to Pam Duncan, glancy giving way on that point. Isn't it right that the amendment that she achieved at stage 2 does not in any way affect the asylum application, which is a reserved power to the UK Government, but clearly allows those who are seeking asylum but are residents in Scotland to take advantage of obtaining GRA in this situation? I thank the member for that intervention, and indeed I do believe that the case is as he has set out. My party voted for this bill in principle at stage 1 because we recognise the importance of reforming the current act, which operates on a UK-wide basis. With that in mind, we believe that it would be unfair for asylum seekers living in Scotland to have to go through a different process to those who are living here. On that basis, we cannot support the Government's amendment to delete the amendment that would have afforded the right to asylum seekers that we achieved at stage 2. As the cabinet secretary said at stage 2, the Equalities Committee supported an amendment that added asylum seekers to the term of ordinary resident under the bill, on the understanding that asylum seekers can be ordinary resident in Scotland, and that remains the case. However, the cabinet secretary has written to the Equalities Committee in advance of stage 3 and again said this afternoon that she would seek to remove the clause from the bill because she claimed that immigration is a reserved matter that I do not dispute. The cabinet secretary went on to argue that a failed asylum seeker would not meet the requirement of being ordinary resident in Scotland, and so the bill would fall into legalising on reserved matters. Therefore, she seeks to remove the clause that would be added into the bill at stage 2 through the amendment. I am willing to accept the argument of the cabinet secretary, but I would like to ask if she could help me before deciding how to vote on what legal advice on whether the clause set out in the bill can only be interpreted to include all asylum seekers, even if they are failed. Because if a failed asylum seeker is not classified as an asylum seeker under the term set out in the bill, it would not be necessary to remove those provisions, as only lawful resident asylum seekers would be included in the bill. Of course, we do not want to legalise in an area that is reserved to the European Government, but I am very keen that the cabinet secretary has summoned up. We would answer my request adequately so that we can all be sure that we are passing competent legislation. I hope her answer will provide the clarity I, the public, and I am sure others are seeking before we vote on this amendment. As I have said before, I cannot disclose legal advice and members of this Parliament understand why that is the case. I reiterate that the provision opens the bill to challenge on the basis that it relates to matters reserved by the Immigration and Nationality Reservation and Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. That is why the provision could be found to be outwith the competence of this Parliament. The cabinet secretary is giving way on this important point. I accept her point that this could be subject to legal challenge, but that does not necessarily mean that it should not be an attempt to reform our legislation and show a bit of moral leadership here. A lot of those things are gray areas and are not well-defined at all. If it is challenged, that is a good outcome in terms of getting an actual clear judgment on what the situation is. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might want to reconsider that position. I am sorry, but I do not believe that bills being challenged are a good outcome, because it delays the legislation. We have seen bills of this Parliament end up in that position. I do not think that the delay of the legislation is a good outcome now. If we know at this stage that that is a risk, then it is upon us as legislators to not take that risk. However, let me also make this point to Paul Sweeney. I am sure that this is a point that he will fully understand about the politics of some of this. Let me be clear that the UK Government has been making it very clear to anyone who will listen, but its intention, because it does not agree with the legislation, is to go through it line by line and to look for opportunities to challenge, as will others. The question for people who support the legislation in this Parliament is whether they want to risk that. I support the legislation and I do not want to risk that. There will be people in this Parliament who do not support the legislation, who will be quite happy to risk it, but I really appeal to members who support this piece of legislation to not put that at risk. I could not be clearer. I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention. I too do not want to frustrate that process and I share that concern, but is it not the case that it would be one specific aspect of the bill that may be challenged? That is a very specific aspect. It would not prevent the whole bill coming into an act. I can see people shaking their heads because of other bills, and I assume that you are referring to the UNCRC, but that the UNCRC has been challenged because it was seeking to change legislation across the UK, not just to change legislation in Scotland, which this piece of legislation is seeking to do. I am sorry. I need to be really clear here. It will be the whole bill that will be challenged because of the competence issue, and that will land us potentially in the courts with delays to this legislation being enacted. I cannot be clearer about that. I do not want to exclude asylum seekers from being able to obtain a GRC, but you have to understand the risks here, and you have to understand that for some who would be quite happy for this legislation to end up in the courts, it is not a concern for. If you support this legislation, you should be concerned about putting potential barriers and risks within this bill that do not need to be there, and I would urge people to support my amendment 19. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. There will be a 45-second vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Jeremy Balfour. I am not sure whether my vote was logged or not. I wonder if I could just check. Mr Balfour, your vote was recorded. Point of order, Jamie Halcro Johnston, online. Sorry about that, Presiding Officer. I am not sure my application froze, whether my vote was lodged or not. I would have abstained. Thank you, Mr Halcro Johnston. I will make sure that the vote is recorded. I can assure you that your vote was recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 19 in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 76. No, 27. There were 23 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Members will note that we will shortly reach the next time limit, and we still have further groups to debate. As a consequence, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept the motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 30 minutes. I invite the minister to move such a motion. Happy to do so. The question is that the time limit for debate on amendments be extended by 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are all agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. I already debated with amendment 6, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote and members who cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 7 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 37. No, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 22 in the name of Russell Finlay. I already debated with amendment 18. Russell Finlay to move or not move. That amendment is moved. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. There will be a 45-second division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is closed. The point of order, Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I will make sure that that vote is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 22 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 60. No, 64. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group 4, supporting information for applicants and potential applicants. I call amendment 23 in the name of Sarah Boyack, grouped with amendments 20 and 21. I would draw members' attention to the procedural information relating to this group, as set out in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 20 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 96 in group 5 due to a preemption. Amendment 21 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 97 in group 5 due to a preemption. I invite Sarah Boyack to move amendment 23 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Amendment 23 is very similar to the amendment 128, which I brought forward at stage 2. Amendment 23 requires the Scottish ministers to ensure that any individual who is considering applying for a GRC is able to access information and obtain support to make the decision where it is required. I want to be clear on what access to support information means. Not everyone who goes through the process to obtain a GRC will require support, some will. By making the process more straightforward, it is vital that there is guidance and support available to them. There are already a range of mechanisms in place to obtain support, some of which are designed specifically for the trans community, often funded directly by the Scottish Government, others such as CAMHS and youth work services, which are for the population as a whole. It is critical that people will have access to support and information. In terms of information for applicants, the Scottish Government has already made provision within the financial memorandum that is associated with the bill for the Registrar General to produce guidance for applicants. That is the type of step that amendment would require the Scottish Government to ensure that anyone who is considering making an application for a GRC has access to support and information at the commencement of the bill and going forward in the future. I thank the member for taking my intervention. Would Sarah Boyack agree with me that the Scottish Government has failed to specify in detail the support and information that would be available to applicants under the bill? Does Sarah Boyack think that, given the pool of people who are able to apply for a gender recognition certificate is being widened, that even more support and information should be provided than is currently set out in the bill? That is really why I have got this amendment in front of us tonight, because it was one of the issues that was raised by the committee in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government should commit to putting appropriate support and signposting in place. At the stage 2 proceedings at the committee discussion, I said that I felt that the committee's findings reflected the concerns that were raised to me by constituents across the Lothians who have gone through the process to obtain a GRC. That is really why I have worked on this amendment and I encourage colleagues across the chamber to support it to today. During the discussions that we had at stage 2, the cabinet secretary was concerned about the wording of my amendment and I used the word appropriate in my amendment. Just to give colleagues a sense of the discussion, to quote the cabinet secretary on the day, she said, for the avoidance of doubt, we would want to avoid listing organisations that we deemed to be appropriate to provide support. I do not think that that would be a wise thing for the Scottish ministers to do. While I do not share the concerns that were raised by the cabinet secretary, there will clearly be a lot more people who will need advice and support. It is really important. If you even do a quick google through the Scottish Government website today to apply for a GRC, it directs potential applicants to the relevant UK Government website and that page then signposts a potential applicant to citizens advice. It is really important that, if the bill is to go through, we have that support and guidance in place. That is very much why I believe that my amendment is important. It is a compromise and I want to thank the cabinet secretary for agreeing to meet me after the stage 2 discussions. It was very helpful to be able to have that opportunity to discuss my amendment and what I was trying to do. It is a compromise but it would deliver on the face of the bill a requirement on the Scottish ministers to ensure that support and information is in place. It takes into account the concerns that the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government expressed that they would not be expected to devise a list of organisations for signposting purposes. It is very much up to them to decide how to take this forward but it is very much needed. Amendments 20 and 21 are consequential and technical amendments related to amendment 23. I move amendment 23 and hope that the Parliament will support it. As Ms Boyack has just stated, the amendments in this group 23 is the substantial amendment with 20 and 21 being consequentials. Amendment 23 would add in a provision requiring Scottish ministers to take steps to ensure that individuals considering making an application for a gender recognition certificate have access to appropriate support and information. Applying for a gender recognition certificate is a significant decision for anyone else to take and it is absolutely right that they are supported with all of the appropriate information. I think that those amendments are especially important given that the Scottish Government is opening up the process to a wider cohort of applicants. Such an expansion of the process will mean that the individuals involved in the application process risk going in blind if they are not adequately supported. Indeed, it is regrettable that the Scottish Government is taking away some of the safeguards that exist under current law, as I believe that they would help to provide the support that applicants for a gender recognition certificate need, while also keeping the safeguards that protect vulnerable women and girls. I do not think that those amendments adequately address my concerns about the removal of other safeguards in the bill, but they represent an improvement on the current provisions. Therefore, I will be supporting them at decision time. Can I firstly assure members that support and information will be available to those who are making an application? National Records of Scotland will provide guidance to applicants on how to make an application and the effects and consequences of obtaining a gender recognition certificate, and will signpost to other sources of support. Further, the amendments in the name of Christine Grahame agreed at stage 2 sit out the information that the Registrar General must make available to everyone to ensure that everyone can easily access the information that is required in making their application. It is appropriate for a range of sources of support and advice to exist, rather than for support to be required by statute. It would not be proportionate to require in law the provision of a support service specifically for those who are making an application, given the small numbers of people expected to apply relative to the general population. I do not consider that the amendments in this group are required, given what I have said about the national records of Scotland and, indeed, the Registrar General, to make available information to ensure that everyone can easily access the information that is required in making their application. Therefore, I urge members not to support those amendments. I want to say that it is important that we put this on the face of the bill. I totally get the fact that the cabinet secretary wants to keep her legislation as light as possible, but if we are making it easier for people to get access to gender transitioning, to deciding how they want to describe themselves, that is really significant for people. They need support, they need guidance, and it needs to be readily available. The reason I would want to push this tonight is because we are making a statement here that it is important for our constituents to get access to advice and guidance. I am absolutely not saying to the cabinet secretary what that needs to look like. Very much that is the judgment of Scottish ministers to make that judgment and for the Scottish Government. It is proportionate. The cabinet secretary said that it is going to be a small number of people. We do not know the numbers of people. The whole point of this legislation is that it is opening up new opportunities for people. We have to give people the support that they will need to make the most of the legislation and to make it successful for everybody. I do believe that it is proportionate. I would hope that, in years to come, we have lots of other amendments about reviews. That is going to be something that we would expect the Scottish Government to have in place from day 1 of this legislation if it is passed and if it gets assent. It is really important. It is a very small set of amendments, but it is potentially one of the most important things that we could do tonight to support our constituents across the whole of Scotland. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. It will be a one-minute division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. We will ensure that that vote is recorded. I will ensure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 23 in the name of Sarah Boyack is yes, 56, no, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move on to group number five, on which the application is to be granted medical evidence and time living in the acquired gender. I call amendment 95 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 95 and speak to all other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. Throughout the process of this Bill, we have heard of the challenges faced by trans people in Scotland. A key concern that has been discussed extensively is the prevalence of adverse mental health amongst trans people. I strongly believe that trans individuals who need mental health support should be able to access the support they need to address this and approaching the relevant authorities to apply to obtain a GRC can and should provide an opportunity if necessary to access this support. Amendments 95, 96, 97 and 102 in my name would ensure that the applicant has this opportunity to discuss their intention to apply for a GRC with a medical professional and access mental health support by a professional if necessary. If this Bill is to pass in whatever form it might take, it should also take into account the opportunity to help those who need it the most to deal with the problems that they may face. These amendments seek to do that whilst placing a necessary safeguard in place to allow GRC applicants to access help should they need it. Amendments 10 and 11 in my name would change the minimum amount of time that an applicant must live in the aquire gender for at least two years, retaining the current safeguard for living in the aquire gender. I believe that obtaining a GRC is life changing. If it weren't there, it would be much less controversy surrounding this Bill. It is absolutely right that we do what we can in this Parliament to make the process of obtaining one easier for trans people because of the importance that document would have to them. But given the importance of obtaining such document, it is vital that an individual who wishes to apply is given adequate time to consider such a decision. A lot more can change in the space of two years than three months. This period was chosen for a reason to provide the current level of safeguarding and I'm determined that this length of time in which an individual should live in the aquire gender is retained. Coupled with the lack of a definition for living in an aquire gender, this section of the Bill will open up the ability to apply for a GRC to a much larger group than it currently does. The safeguards in place now prevent this system from being taken advantage of and stakeholders have expressed concern that the proposed reforms leave the system wide open to abuse from potential bad faith actors. In response to my stage 2 amendments that sought to retain the time in which an individual must live in the aquire gender, we heard no new arguments and no real justification for lowering this time period. Once again, the cabinet secretary shared with us what she believed without backing it up with anything more than her view. Convener, there is no way to make legislation like this and it is no ground on which to reject reasonable amendments to that legislation. Amendment 107 seeks to establish a medical pathway for GRC applications for those who wish to go through it. This amendment is intended for individuals that are planning on moving to another jurisdiction that has more stringent rules than Scotland when it comes to applying for a GRC. The way this Bill interacts with existing legislation in other countries, particularly the rest of the UK, has been touched upon previously in the last groupings, it is vital that a trans person applying for a GRC who intends to move away from Scotland can be assured that their gender would be legally recognised wherever they move to. This amendment would help to provide that reassurance to an applicant. Amendment 137 would require that regulations regarding alternative grounds on which an application is to be granted are made under the affirmative procedure. Given the controversy that has surrounded this Bill, I believe that it is right that the Parliament is consulted on changes that are made to it in the future. The grounds on which an application is to be granted is an especially important part of the proposed reforms. I want to highlight the need for further changes to be adequately scrutinised by this Parliament, despite the unfortunate predicament that we have found ourselves in today regarding the scrutiny of various parts of this Bill. My colleague Jeremy Balfour's amendment 16 in this group requires applicants to include a report from a medical professional to confirm that the applicant has discussed the application with such a professional. It is something that I support as a medical professional to determine if an application genuinely feels uncomfortable in their assigned gender, whilst that could also ensure that other conditions could be diagnosed. That is it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I now call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendments 16 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise to speak to amendment 16, which is in my name, and in fact my colleague has explained amendment 16 very well in her final remark, so I will keep my speech short due to time. As has been outlined, that requires applicants to include a report from a medical professional to confirm that the application has been disclosed and the application with a medical professional. The reason for doing that is that there has been concern—I have heard from different groups around that—that sometimes the medical profession can block someone going forward or compute up barriers in regard to that. That is not what this amendment is meant to do. What it does is simply confirm that a report has come from a medical professional and that an applicant has discussed it with a medical professional. That seems to me to be a logical place for us to go. It gives help to those who are wanting to go through this process. It will give them reassurance that they are seeking proper advice. As Rachel Hamilton pointed out, it allows individuals to discuss other areas that are happening at the same time, which we might find difficult to discuss with family members, friends or other people we know. I believe that this is not a blocking for someone to go through the process, but it is simply giving them the appropriate support from a medical professional and for them to be able to confirm that by having a report. I show me that. I am not supporting the amendments in the group, but I wanted to speak to amendment 97 in the name of Kenneth Gibson. I really wanted to test the Government's position on other reforms that could have been considered in relation to the two-year period. The 2004 act specifically mentions the two-year period, in which the applicant has to show various documents that have been aligned to their gender. It seems obvious that the 2004 act could have been radically amended, because, of course, I fully support the removal of the medical diagnosis and the panel, but leaving in a period such as two years or even one year could have allowed a way in which the documentation of the trans person who wants to realign their gender to be done in such a way that I think it overcomes some of the issues around how you show that someone has acquired their gender. I want to hear from the Government as to why they did not do that and why they have gone for the model of self-id. That is what we seem to have ended up with. I wonder if the minister could confirm that I am correct in saying that the current formulation, if he likes, of the 2022 act is a self-id process. I wonder why the minister has not listened to the evidence of the UN reporter who says that the self-id process is not necessarily a consensus on international law. Obviously, legal recognition is. I would like to hear why the Government has not listened to that and why it could not have even looked at a longer process to overcome some of the issues. The international consensus is a person who should directly have access to legal recognition in a way that is consistent with fundamental principles of human rights and dignity. I feel the support of that. However, she goes on to say, I do not think that there is a consensus that countries adopt a self-id model, but what I see in front of me is a self-id model. Although I am not arguing for that amendment, I wonder why the Government did not consider that it could have removed certain elements of the 2004 act, such as the medical diagnosis, such as the panel, but it could have looked at a longer period and that might have overcome some of the issues that we will discuss in later groupings, which is how you show your gender is required. Perhaps even you could overcome the legal question of fraud. In the final stages of the bill, it is really important that the Government sets out clearly before we vote on the bill as to why it has adopted this particular formulation and rejects the basis of which it rejects those amendments. Deputy Presiding Officer, I will try and keep this brief. I would like to thank members for the contributions on those issues. I will start with where I agree. I believe that trans people should be afforded full access where possible to as much advice, guidance and assistance where and when they need it. That could indeed come in the form of medical practitioners, as is suggested by some members in those amendments. That should be something that we all agree on, should be made available, something that has been sadly lacking for far too many, something that the bill will not fix, I should add, and we may come on to that in another grouping. I disagree with the premise of the amendments. Those are based on two reasons. One is the extension of the period back to two years, which seems to revert to the status quo. Secondly, the reintroduction of the process of why perceives a medicalisation of that process, which go against, in my view, the grain of the principles of the bill per se. However, Richard Armden made a very valid point, which I think that we need to take cognisance of, and that is amendment 107, on something that may not necessarily fit in the bill, on the face of it, but it is something that we need to talk about. That is the interactivity between those who go through this new process in Scotland and achieve a GRC and those residing in other legislations. We have not yet addressed the question or the answer to the conundrum of what happens when someone from Scotland receives a GRC under a new process, if it passes, and then moves to another part of the UK or elsewhere, or if someone comes from another legislation here within another part of the UK where those changes have not been made, or indeed another country where the changes have been made and comes to reside and becomes resident in Scotland. That interactivity is a very valid point to make. I do not necessarily agree with the premise of how 107 is worded, but I think that the member is right to raise it in that context. I am not sure where that fits into this debate, but I hope that we get the opportunity to hear from the Government on those issues and any perceived interactions and conversations that the minister and the Government have had with either the UK Government or any other legislations around that matter, and I look forward to discussing that later. I hope that we will be able to do that later. I cannot support any other amendments in this group. They either go against the intention to reform the 2004 Gender Recognition Act to demedicalise and deep-athologise the process of obtaining a GRC in the cases of amendments in the names of Rachel Hamilton and Jeremy Belford, or, as amendments 10 and 11 do, they seek to revert to two years, the period that people seeking a GRC must live in their quiet gender for. To take each of these issues in turn, Rachel Hamilton has said this evening that medical support should be available if people wanted it, but that is not what hers or Jeremy Belford's amendments do. They compel trans people to speak to medical professionals. We should not be putting this additional medical barrier in the way of trans people seeking to get legal recognition of their gender identity. The whole point is that they know their own minds, that is the point of self-id. It is not to be gate kept by medical professionals. On the matter of the time required to live in the quiet gender, Jen Ang told the committee during evidence gathering that, as a matter of good law, if there is no evidence or compelling reason to show that the time periods achieve anything in particular, it would be worth considering proceeding without it. We have heard no evidence from any of those who gave evidence to us in committee, any of the evidence sent into us in written form or other research. There is no evidence that these time periods produce any favour. Rachel Hamilton Thank you to Maggie Chapman for taking the intervention. What evidence is there to reduce the time to three months? As Rachel Hamilton is well aware, we heard evidence and experienced, lived experience from trans people themselves that there is no evidence for any time period and that other countries that have these time periods in them are seeking to remove them, so it is quite clear that there is no need for these time periods at all. Looking internationally, the two-year waiting period that the amendment seeks to reintroduce to this bill is very much out of line with international standards on this issue, so I urge all my colleagues across the chamber to vote against those amendments. I was about to sit down, but, yes, go on. Pauli McNeill Yes, thank you very much to Maggie Chapman. I think that it is an important debating point about international standards and practices. I am listening very carefully to this because I want to know what international best practice is, but do you accept the evidence given to you yesterday, where the UN report on advance against women and girls says that the self-id model, not legal recognition, but the self-id model says that there is not a consensus on that. Is it fair to say that that was the evidence that you were given yesterday? I think that it is fair. I think that it is fair to say that that was the evidence that you were given yesterday. I think that it is fair to say that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is what she said yesterday, but that is not the substance of any of the amendments in this group, so that is not what we are talking about just now. Thank you, Mr Chapman, and I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Stephanie Callahan. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise to speak against these amendments. First of all, I think that it is important, as the way you approach this, that we do seek to demedicalise this process. I think that it is a mistake to treat trans identity as a medical condition to be diagnosed, and therefore presided over by the medical profession. I think that if there is one thing that should unise all is that as an objective, I think that that reintroduces it. Secondly, and from a personal perspective, I have already risen to say that I have misgivings as to whether or not we have properly considered the interactions between this legislation and neurodivergency, people with neurodevelopmental disorders and so on, but I think that this amendment gets that wrong, because there are many of us who have to have regular contact with mental health professionals. I have to see a mental health professional once a year. I do not believe that it is relevant to them or my condition whether or not I was seeking to change my gender in law. I do not think that this amendment fully considers the impact on those who have to seek regular assistance with mental health services and what that implies. I think that it actually assumes that mental health conditions are a catrol category, which should cast doubt and require those who are seeking to change their identity to get further clarification. I just do not believe that this amendment, while I understand where it is coming from, has properly thought through the implications for a very broad bracket of people that maybe you seem very happy to. I thank Daniel Johnson for taking the intervention and accepting his comments, particularly through his own experience. The Royal College of General Practitioners in Scotland said that there is a major issue facing this area of healthcare and a significant lack of robust comprehensive evidence around the outcome side effects and long-term consequences of treatment for people with gender dysphoria, particularly children and young people. There is an issue clearly that is not part of this bill, that is part of a healthcare pathway that we are letting down people at the moment. However, I do believe that I have called for this bill to be paused because of the issues surrounding this, but also I feel that it is important to keep the safeguards in place until we actually get it right. I thank the member for that comment. The risk of making comments that probably will attract confusion and maybe arguments from both sides. I think that what we are seeing in this bill is a decoupling of the legal process and recognition from the medical process, and that is not to conflate those two. I absolutely believe that we have to think very carefully about the safeguards for those who are entering a medical transition, but let us be clear that today we are looking at the legal transition and the transition of legal status. I do not think that it is helpful to conflate those two things, especially for those who are in regular contact with mental health services. I typically see a different mental health professional every single year that I have to go for my appointment. I do not think that they are best placed to provide perspective on whether or not I am authentically and sincerely applying for a gender recognition certificate if I were to do so. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I request to speak, but the button was pressed in error, so I am going to invite the cabinet secretary now to respond. Thank you very much. Central to the principles of the bill, which were agreed by a clear majority of this Parliament at stage 1, is establishing an administrative process based on self-declaration. In responses to both Scottish Government public consultation, the UK Government consultation, the UK national LGBT survey and evidence given to the committee at stage 1 all show that the current process is a barrier to people accessing their human rights due to the requirement for a medical diagnosis and other evidence, as well as the intrusive and lengthy process. Part of the evidence there is the numbers that were identified through that UK study of people who are living in the required gender, but how few of them had gone on to obtain a gender recognition certificate because of all those barriers. A range of international standards outlines best practice in this area, which is to establish a simple administrative system. The UN independent expert, Victor Maldregal, bore laws, said that, within the United Nations human rights system, there is consensus on the imperative of legal recognition of gender identity and on the related standard of self-identification. It is my opinion that the bill brings the Scottish system closer to conformity with those standards and therefore is an act of compliance with obligations incumbent upon the state under international human rights law. I will listen carefully to what the member said about the UN rapporteur, Niem Al-Salam. One of the things in her correspondence was that she was in favour of the reform of the process, seemed to have some concerns about particular safeguards, and we explored that further. She herself put her name to a letter to the Bulgarian Government, actually requesting the reform of their process in line with a system of self-declaration. If we are talking about the safeguards, as a Government, I think that we have listened to that and have actually put many of the safeguards in more so than the other countries have in the main with systems of self-declaration, yes. Pauline McNeill. Thank you to the minister for giving way, but I think that it would be helpful if the minister would answer the specific point, which is why is she choosing the evidence given from one rapporteur when another rapporteur on the issue of self-id, not of general reform, but on specific reform of self-id processes. She clearly said yesterday that there is no international consensus on the model of self-id. I am not talking about safeguards or anything else, I am talking about this particular model. I think that we are doing an answer as to why we prefer the evidence of one rapporteur, but seem to be ignoring the other, because there is no evidence that it is, and I accept that she has written to other countries saying that you are not doing enough on legal recognition, but this is the specific important point. I would like to know the answer to that, thank you very much. I actually think that the letter to the Bulgarian Government is actually quite explicitly in favour of self-declaration, so I think that Pauline McNeill should read that letter. I am not saying that I am against or for what I am saying is that we have put forward a bill and we have looked at the evidence and we have come to a conclusion. On the two years and why Pauline McNeill asked the question, why have we proposed what we have proposed? Firstly, I think that it is fair to say that the evidence tells us that for many people they have been living in the required gender for years, if not decades, and this will be essentially an affirmation of how they have been living their life. However, we felt that it was important to put some safeguards in, not agreed to by everyone. Maggie Chapman has made her view clear. She does not believe that that is right either, but we felt that it was a proportionate balanced position to have a three-month living in the required gender and a three-month reflection period and to have that six months for 16-17-year-olds that that struck a balance within the legislation. Balance is important here. The amendments in the name of Rachel Hamilton and Jeremy Balfour require applicants to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria or to submit other medical evidence as part of an application for legal gender recognition are clearly not in keeping with the principle of self declaration, which was overwhelmingly agreed by this Parliament at stage 1. As others have said, being trans is not a medical condition, and therefore applicants should not have to provide medical evidence in order to apply for a GRC. Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of Rachel Hamilton would require applicants to have lived in their required gender for a minimum of two years before applying, which again is contrary to the principles of the bill already backed by this Parliament. A reduction in the time period to three months and six months for applicants aged 16-17 represents our view, as I said, of a balanced and proportionate means of improving the system. It ensures that the applicant has already been living in their acquired gender before making an application without imposing a disproportionate barrier on people seeking to apply. I do not therefore support any of the amendments in this group. I would just say to Jamie Greene that we are going to come on to discuss some of the issues around what you can describe as cross-border issues at group 14. I would just make the point, though, that that is not really within our gift. If other jurisdictions decide not to recognise Scottish GRCs, for example, then that is something out with our control, but I am sure that we will get into a wider discussion about that when we get further on with the groups. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call Rachel Hamilton to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 95. Miss Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendments in this group are fundamentally based around retaining important safeguards, as I have said, to obtaining a gender recognition certificate and providing support to applicants when necessary. The opportunity for applicants to use this process as a chance to help them is one that I strongly believe that we should take. A higher prevalence of poor mental health in this population is a result of problems that are more deeply rooted than those that we can address within this bill. I acknowledge that in my intervention to Daniel Johnson. A more equal and accepting society is needed to do that. I know that this Parliament, as a whole, is committed to achieving this aim. However, that does not mean that we should check our responsibility to provide the means to intervene in support and help where we can. On retaining safeguards, as I have already outlined, there is a reason that they have been put in place. I believe that it is irresponsible and misguided to remove them. In the context of the time in which an individual should live in one's acquired gender, those safeguards were, as I said, put in place to stop the system being taken advantage of and that aim should be shared by this Parliament. The same is true of Jeremy Balfour's amendments in this group. On that basis, I urge members to support all amendments in group 5. Just to support Pauline McNeill's comments around Reem Arsalam. In her original letter, she stated that governments who have adopted a self-id procedure for legal recognition of a gender identity do not mean that, because they have done that, simplifying and fast-tracking the procedure does not necessarily make it fairer or more efficient. The fact is that those arguments have not been debated thoroughly and properly in the context of this debate. The cabinet secretary says that she has chosen the three-month time period, which is arbitrary. It does not mean anything. She has not given any evidence to suggest that it is going to be something that could work rather than two years. I am disappointed in that. I press my amendments. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We will move to a vote. We should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 95 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 35, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of Sarah Boyack, which is already debated with amendment 23. Sarah Boyack, to move or not to move, not moved. Can I remind members that, if amendment 20 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 96, as it will have been preempted. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. The member should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 20 in the name of Sarah Boyack is yes, 51, no, 73. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 96 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, excuse me, already debated with amendment 95. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. The member should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The point of order, Neil Bibby. The point of order. I would have voted no, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Bibby. We will ensure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 96 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 34, no, 92. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 21 in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 23. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. The member should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 21 in the name of Sarah Boyack is yes, 51, no, 74. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 97 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 95. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Members, please cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 97 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 31, no, 95. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 98 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 6. Jamie Greene, to move or not to move. I call amendment 24 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 6. Martin Whitfield, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 24 in the name of Martin Whitfield is yes, 24, no, 101. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 15 in the name of Kenneth Gibson, already debated with amendment 6 to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Can I just check that my vote has been recorded? I would have voted no. Thank you. It has been recorded, I can confirm. The result of the vote on amendment number 15 in the name of Kenneth Gibson is yes, 16, no, 109. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 25 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 6. Martin Whitfield, to move or not to move. Thank you. I call amendment 99 in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 6. Jamie Greene, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, the Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Sharon Dowey for a point of order. I have not got a connection. I would have voted no. Thank you. We will ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 99 in the name of Christine Grahame is yes, 103, no, 23. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 8 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Gillian Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just check that my vote has been registered. Bear with us, Ms Mackay. It has indeed been registered. I also check that mine has been registered. My app is frozen, thank you. Certainly, bear with us. Your vote has been recorded, Ms Todd. Mercedes Villalba, point of order. My card has not been in. For quite some time, but I have been voting. I have been voting, so I am grateful if that can be counted. I can confirm that your votes have been recorded, Ms Villalba. Point of order, Monica Lennon. I also voted no, but I am not sure if my vote was recorded. It was recorded, Ms Lennon. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 8, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 36, no, 89. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 26, in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 6. Martin Whitfield, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call Ms Webber. It's Oliver Mundell that spoke about my voices. Oliver Mundell has said that he would like to move the amendment. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 26, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is yes, 25, no, 101. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 9, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. I remind members that if amendment 9 is agreed to, I can't call amendment 10, as it will have been pre-empted. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 9, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 36, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 10, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 95, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 10, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 36, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 11, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 95. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 11, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 35, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 6, entitled minor and technical. I call amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 29. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 27 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thanks, Presiding Officer. The chamber will be relieved that I'm going to be very brief here. As the name of the group suggests, these are minor technical amendments, which only move the word and to the correct position within section 4, to tidy the text of the bill following an early amendment at stage 2. I move amendment 27. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 27, in the name of Shona Robison, is yes, 111. No, one. There were 11 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 28, in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 18. Russell Finlay, to move or not move. It moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Sharon Dowie for a point of order. Sorry, the phone wouldn't connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you. We'll ensure that it's recorded. I call Craig Hoy online. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm not sure if my vote was recorded. I voted yes, but my screen's presently blank. Thank you, Mr Hoy. I can confirm that your vote was recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 28, in the name of Russell Finlay, is yes, 60. No, 65. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 29, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 27. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote has closed. Point of order, Stephanie Callaghan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app isn't updating. I would have voted yes, but I think it may have now closed. I'm not sure. Thank you, Ms Callaghan. We'll ensure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 29, in the name of Shona Robison, is yes, 118. No, one. There were seven abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 16, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 95. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 16, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is yes, 31. No, 95. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group 7, statutory declarations, formalities and supporting evidence. I call amendment 100, in the name of Paul O'Kane, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Paul O'Kane, to move amendment 100 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to move the amendment in my name. Throughout this legislative process, I have sought to engage constructively with colleagues from across the chamber to help to deliver a robust, well-considered piece of legislation that serves to reform the process for obtaining agenda recognition certificate and commands the conference of both trans people and the wider public as I set out in my stage 1 contribution. The amendments that I will seek to move have a shared objective of seeking to provide greater clarity on the process of applying for a GRC. I wish to speak to each of those in turn, beginning with amendment 103 and 104 and amendment 140. This grouping of amendments is rooted in the desire to provide further clarity around the process of statutory declaration, which is outlined in the 1835 Acts of Parliament. I believe that the nature of statutory declaration processes is not widely known or well understood due to the act that outlines the process being almost two centuries old. Therefore, I am seeking to move those amendments, which I believe are logical and sensible in nature, to clarify the process for everyone. 103 and 104 are versions of similar amendments, and I would intend to press 103 and withdraw 104. Amendment 103 seeks to make the process explicitly a legal process by removing councillors as witnesses to a statutory declaration. It also seeks to provide clarity on how the statutory declaration will be made and what forms will be used. It seeks to empower the registrar general for Scotland to provide the forms for the statutory declaration, which would be drafted in accordance with the statutory declarations act 1835. Those regulations would then be subject to the affirmative procedure, as outlined in my amendment 140. My rationale for those amendments is twofold. I believe that statutory declaration should be taken by a legal professional that is a notary public or a justice of the peace. I believe that it could be difficult to expect councillors to witness statutory declarations by my own experience of being a councillor and my signing powers when I was in that role, and indeed the burdens that are then placed upon council legal departments in times of diminishing budgets. I also believe that it should fall to lawyers not to politicians to administer this process. We know that most solicitors in Scotland can act as notary publics and are required to charge a fee set at £5 for this process. Secondly, I believe that for the purposes of transparency and confidence, the forms to be signed should be set out by the registrar general and approved by the affirmative procedure. That would ensure that everyone signs the same form of words declaring that they are ordinarily resident, they have lived in the required gender for the required time period and they will do so for the rest of their life. Those forms should then be publicly available so that everyone knows what is being legally declared. I am very grateful to Paul O'Kane to give way on this point. Isn't it right that if we have different forms across the whole of Scotland, organisations and adults who are out there to help and support not just young people but anyone during this period will be at a real disadvantage in trying to give proper impartial and fair advice? Paul O'Kane I thank my colleague Martin Whitfield for that intervention and I think that it is a very well made point. I think that everyone wants to have a sense that they know what is available, what is being signed to and that they can advise accordingly. We want to ensure that lawyers who are providing the notary public function or indeed justices of the piece are using the same forms so that there is no confusion, particularly for trans people who are applying to this process and so that they know exactly what is expected of them as well. I think that it is a very well made point. Indeed, my understanding is that there is a common form already under the 2004 act, albeit under the current process, as outlined in that 2004 act. I will now move to 47A. I note that the cabinet secretary in amendment 47 proposes that the person witnessing the statutory declaration should be provided with two pieces of ID in order to evidence that the person making the declaration is who they say they are and I support that as does my party. However, my amendment 47A seeks to provide further clarity to the cabinet secretary's amendment around providing that proof of identity. Amendment 47, as I understand, would be taken under the law society guidance, which the cabinet secretary has shared in a letter to all MSPs and I am quoting from that. It is essential that the notary must be satisfied as to the identity of the deponent. If the deponent is unknown to the notary, the notary should ask for proof of identity, for example passport, medical card, etc. I am concerned that that definition could be too narrow, unclear and indeed provide challenging for many trans people. My amendment seeks to clarify the proof of identity that can be provided with a wider scope. I have also sought to reflect the guidance offered by the cabinet secretary on what living and required gender would mean. Again, I quote from that, updating other documents such as utility bills or bank accounts, consistently using titles and pro-nines in line with the required gender, describing themselves and being described by others and written or other communication in line with the required gender and using a name that is associated with that required gender. I appreciate that 47A, my amendment, has caused concerns for some trans people, but it is offered in the spirit of trying to be clear about the administrative process in line with the principles of self declaration and also in the process that you have lived in your required gender in that process of social transition. Amendment 100 aims to provide greater clarity on the application process for the GRC by outlining the need for applicants to include certified copies of the pieces of proof of identity along with her statutory declaration when submitting their application to the registrar general. I believe that that allows the registrar general to have confidence that the process has been appropriately followed and that it is not overly burdensome, with certified copies costing in the region of £30 for two certified copies from a lawyer. I appreciate that there are a range of other amendments in this group that seek to explore how the process can be improved, clarified and strengthened. Although I cannot agree with the content of them all, I do respect the spirit in which they have been offered. I will conclude that I offer those amendments in the spirit of ensuring confidence for everyone in the process, and I hope that that is the spirit in which they are received. I call Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I have got five amendments in this group numbered one to five because I was first out of the traps when tabling amendments. I hope that the chamber will bear with me while I explain the background to these. I tabled some amendments at stage 2, which were aimed at trying to tease out what exactly is meant by living in the acquired gender, because it troubles me that if this bill goes through, then someone can just say that they have changed gender without needing to prove that anything in their life has changed. I explained at stage 2 that I could find no explanation for what living in the acquired gender means, and I still do not know. It surely has to mean something. If I am to say that I am a woman, then common sense dictates that something must have changed in my life, but no one can say what that something or things is. I tried at stage 2 to say that the Government should set out in regulations what changes would be considered evidence that a new gender had been acquired, but the cabinet secretary was having none of it. I am now going to quote her quite extensively. She said, then, to say that someone is living in the acquired gender means that they are living their daily life in a gender that is different from that which was recorded at birth. In the context of the bill, that is the gender that they are living in when they make an application. Applicants will have to make a statutory declaration that they have lived in their acquired gender for a minimum of three months, six months for 16 and 17-year-olds before applying, and that they intend to do so for the rest of their lives. The aim of the bill is to improve the process for those who apply for legal gender recognition as the current system can have an adverse impact on applicants due, in part, to the burdensome evidence requirements. The bill establishes a more straightforward process that is based on statutory declaration. I was still no clearer, but she continued, as I indicated earlier, the requirement is not about looking or dressing in a certain way, but about the ways in which a person may demonstrate their lived gender to others. How might you do that then? If Graham Simpson was to give a fulsome account of what I said, he would also note that I went on to say that the guidance for applications made under the 2004 act, which has been in place now for 20 years, includes examples of having updated the gender on official documents such as a passport or driving licence. That guidance is not changed by the bill and remains in place and has stood the test of time for 20 years. I am sure that he was about to go on to say that. That is exactly what I was about to go on to say, because I said that I was going to quote her extensively, and that is exactly what I am going to do. Her next quote was, in that respect, the bill does not change the position in the 2004 act in which examples of appropriate evidence of living in the acquired gender include updating official documents such as a driving licence, passport, utility bill or bank account. Numerous other examples are provided within the guidance on the 2004 act, which has now been in place for 18 years. So I asked her to expand on that, and she said this. The guidance to the 2004 act uses the examples that include consistently using titles and pronouns in line with the acquired gender, updating gender marker official documents such as a driving licence or passport, updating utility bills or bank accounts, describing themselves and being described by others in written or other communication in line with their acquired gender and using a name that is associated with the acquired gender. Those, she said, are examples of what could constitute living in the acquired gender. Although that was not exactly what I was looking for, I thought that we might have something—who is—yes? Pauline McNeill Thank you to James Simpson for giving way. I confess in this intervention that I am not really sure myself, but I think that one of the member would agree that just looking technically at this provision where I think the minister might possibly be wrong is that the 2004 act sets out a two-year period and in that two-year period you're required to submit your documentation, and that's how you show that your gender has aligned with your declaration. My understanding, wonder if it's the member's understanding, is that under the 2022 legislation there is no similar requirement to provide it, which is partly why Paul Cain is trying to press this question. However, would you agree that the bill, as it stands, even though the guidance is there, is meaningless because the 2022 legislation does not require the documentation? James Simpson Absolutly. Hence, hence these amendments. So, it wasn't what I was looking for, but I thought we might have something to work with on that basis and be able to work together. I have to say that Ms Roberson looked very uncomfortable at the idea of working with me, but there we are. Eagle-eyed members will notice that amendment 3, Evidence of Living in the Acquired Gender, is a virtual carbon copy of what Ms Roberson quoted to me, which I've just read out at stage 2. It's a list of the evidence that she said is already required, and I also give ministers the ability to change that list through regulations. So, what could be better for them? Their own list, which they can change. There's simply no reason for the Cabinet Secretary to oppose putting this on the face of the bill. Clarity is essential in the law, and we should not require people to go hunting for multiple pieces of legislation to get to the legal position. Now, should this amendment pass, it will apply to 16 and 17-year-olds, and I'm against this bill applying to 16 and 17-year-olds, but I accept that Parliament has voted to retain that aspect of the bill, so I'm accepting the reality of the situation in moving this amendment. Now, should Parliament reject that amendment, then I offer them amendment 2, which is a much lighter touch approach, and says that the only evidence required to offer the Registrar General in relation to living in the acquired gender would be pieces of evidence containing just your name, a title and a gender marker. If Ms Roberson doesn't like amendment 3, then amendment 2 is the one for her. The other amendments are technical and consequential. Can I now turn to the amendments from Paul O'Kane, Michael Marra and the Cabinet Secretary herself? Mr O'Kane has clearly been inspired by my approach, and who can blame him? Other than his specific reference to being 16 or 17 in amendment 47A, I can find no reason to object to any of his amendments. 47A is in itself an amendment to the Cabinet Secretary's amendment 47, which asks for two pieces of proof of identity, which is not quite the same as my own amendment seeking evidence of living in the acquired gender, but it almost is. Now, turning to Mr Marra, I have a great deal of time for Mr Marra, but his amendment 106 bothers me a bit for its vagueness. It deals with the business of someone countersigning an application. It says that such a person must have known the applicant for two years, which is fair enough. There must also be someone of good standing or working or be retired from a recognised profession, leaving this latter category to be spelled out in regulations. So he's saying that if you've known someone for two years, but work in certain jobs that you aren't suitable to countersign, which does seem a little bit snobbish, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, I'm not sure what is meant by someone of good standing in the community either. I would hope, I would qualify, but would someone equally upstanding, but who keeps themselves to themselves and therefore is not known in the community, not qualify? I just don't think this—well, I was hoping to hear from Mr Marra so he can persuade me. Michael Marra? No, not at all. More than happy to add to your understanding, Mr Simpson, of the amendment. The provisions in the amendment very closely mirror the provisions that are required for the countersignatory of a UK passport, something that we all sign up to when we change our details. The language here is a direct replication of the last time that you signed a passport on behalf of someone else or when somebody had to sign your passport, so a commonly understood process with those qualifications in terms of the people who are allowed to do it, and that's why it's the most understandable process available in the amendments. Okay, that's really, really useful and I'll show reflect on that and I'll show reflect on what Mr Marra says when we come to him. Before I sit down, can I also thank the various organisations who've contacted me and others saying that they oppose my amendments? I've read their submissions, I understand their arguments, but I respectfully disagree with them, and that is largely down to the helpful steer given at stage 2 by the cabinet secretary herself, who I warmly thank and I move the amendments in my name. Thank you. I call Michael Marra to speak to amendment 106 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to speak to amendments 106 and 141 in my name. Members will be aware that those amendments are similar to those that I brought to committee at stage 2. Some may also be aware that I did seek to leave of the committee to continue working on those amendments to reflect the concerns expressed and to try and reach a compromise position that might balance the needs of all people across Scotland to seek consensus and broad support. I'm afraid that such an approach did not find favour with the majority of the committee and regretfully I doubt it will find favour with the Government and the chamber today. Comparison to my stage 2 amendments, those amendments do include a very significant further widening of the pool of those able to offer a countersignatory without compromising the social barrier that the amendments attempt to build against bad faith actors. The amendments now more closely, as I just outlined to Mr Simpson, mirror the commonly understood passport process, which all of us follow when we change personal details, which I believe is familiar and comfortable for the public. We'd help, crucially—in a moment at Shalser—we'd help to build public confidence in the laws that we are set to pass this week. John Mason? I thank the member for giving way. He's certainly familiar, but I would not say that they are comfortable. I'm an accountant and I can sign some of those forms, whereas a plumber or a joiner cannot. I'm afraid that that's wrong. Michael Marraith. Mr Mason can take some comfort from the other part of the amendment, which says that somebody who has known of good standing in the community for two years is able to sign that. So a plumber in those circumstances would be entirely able to do it. The list of the issue about retired professions—and I've put it in the amendment—opening that up for government to set that list could mimic entirely the set of previous professions that are outlined in the UK passport process, but it allows both options for that. I hope that that would give Mr Mason some comfort, because the legislation before us is a very significant liberalisation of the process for obtaining agenda recognition certificate. It removes the vast bulk of the procedure set out in the 2004 act, and in doing so it vastly broadens the pool of people to whom those rights are afforded. I am in favour of reform and the demedicalisation of our laws in this area clearly follow international trends. My amendments would not make it more difficult than it currently is to obtain agenda recognition certificate very far from it, but it would certainly and purposefully add an additional hurdle to obtaining a GRC in comparison to the bill before us. Obtaining a GRC would still be far quicker and easier for trans people than it is today. It would also do so with a built-in level of safeguarding for women, girls and for trans people. There is almost nothing in this bill that provides safeguarding against bad faith actors. The statutory declaration, ill-defined in my view and transactional, is insufficient in this regard. I have had conversations to that end with the cabinet secretary. I certainly do not accept the portrayal of safeguarding as some indulgent middle-class concern, as some members at stage 2 inadvertently am sure characterised my safeguarding proposals. Some members and lobbyists portray concerns over bad faith actors as scaremongering. We have heard some of those issues raised already today. I would say to them that it is my very sincere hope that the concerns of the public majority in this area do not come to pass. I do believe that strengthening public confidence in the process would be worth it in any case. The opinion polls should give the cabinet secretary pause for thought, not because of any electoral consequences but because of what they say about the operation and confidence in the laws that we have before us. We cannot, in good conscience, dismiss the concerns of the very significant experts from whom we have heard. Last night, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls presented compelling testimony to the Parliament saying that violent males who can take advantage of any loopholes will do so in order to get into women's spaces and have access to women. Those words should weigh heavily on all of us. There is, of course, a counter-proposition of self-id, but I believe that when one seeks recognition, we do so within our community. All of us are worthy of respect and dignity and to be seen for who we are. Identity in this way is not a concept of individualism but of community. The linguistic root of identity is the same, both in terms of how we are recognised and how we endure. It is what we have in common as much as what sets us apart. Dignity is a call to community. No one can actually be recognised alone. Of course, I do understand that there are opposing voices—those who do not agree. That is an issue of public concern and consequence where competing rights must be balanced. The reaction of Parliament to the need for reform—an issue that, while contentious, is fundamentally uncontested—should not be to dismiss and ignore either side of the debate, but it should be to embrace the challenge of finding balance and safeguards that reduce risks to those who are scared and those who are vulnerable. Monica Lennon is grateful to Michael Marra for giving way. In terms of the amendment that he speaks to, does he recognise the concerns that have been raised by trans people themselves, including the Trans Rights Youth Commission, whom I met on Friday? Is he concerned that this amendment may force a trans person to out themselves to obtain a counter-signatory as a member, except for that concern? I have also met trans people around this. I have met the trans youth groups in Scotland and discussed the issue with them. I would say that there are two regards to the proposition. It is a more than reasonable question. One in the first regard is that somebody may have, if they are expressing their gender identity, that they have been living in for three months in that sense that there will be a public regard to that. On the other side of it, whether it be somebody who has lived in their identity for many years, they can avail themselves of the part of the amendment that I gave regard to Mr Mason on, which may be somebody who is familiar to them, but it is not a close personal contact, so it could be a profession. I believe that there are two options to give that. I understand their concerns, but I believe that it is a necessary hurdle that raises the bar and asks people to pass it. A system that commands broad public support, I do believe in that regard, is better for everyone. I would ask the cabinet secretary to put on record in the chamber today, as we are set to pass that legislation, why would it not be better to have a system that provides simple measures of social checks in which the public can have real confidence? Why are the repeated concerns of experts in the field of violence against women and girls not being given due weight in the bill before us? Does the cabinet secretary and her Government accept that, where a system has been balanced between respect and risk, feelings and fear, dignity and distress, our laws should err on the side of caution? I deeply regret the manner in which the Government has approached the legislation. There is a route to compromise that we would afford respect and recognition for all. Unfortunately, that is not the path that this Government has chosen. I move the amendments in my name from the outset. The requirement for a statutory declaration is part of the two-stage process under the bill for applying for legal gender recognition ensures the robustness of the process, something that I set out in my open letter to all MSPs to ensure that it is fully understood. Guidance provided by the Law Society of Scotland for a Notary Public administering a statutory declaration provides that the notary must be satisfied as to the identity of the applicant based on evidence of the person who is not known to them. They must be satisfied that the applicant understands the contents of the statutory declaration. Following discussions with Members, the amendments in my name provide additional assurance to the effect by requiring in the bill that the person making their statutory declaration must provide two pieces of evidence to prove their identity. statutory declarations are a well-understood part of our legal system that has been in use for nearly 200 years with the relevant legislation on statutory declarations in the statutory declarations act 1835. They are legal documents similar to that of David's used in court. They are taken in front of notary publics and guidance on them is supplied by the Law Society. A statutory declaration can be made in front of a councillor in some circumstances, but the current GRC guidance states that a statutory declaration for the purpose of a GRC application should be made in front of someone who is able to administer an oath. I would therefore have been happy to support the first part of Paul Cain's amendment 103, which makes it explicit. However, amendment 103 also requires that the form of the statutory declaration be provided for in regulations laid by the Registrar General. That is not possible following an amendment from Pam Duncan Glancy at stage 2 that was agreed that ensures the bill already provides that a statutory declaration made under the bill is made by virtue of the statutory declarations act 1835. That act sets out the form for statutory declarations in its schedule. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking this intervention. That particular act, as the cabinet secretary will be aware, sets out the form in terms of statutory declarations, as my colleague Paul Cain has set out. Does the cabinet secretary also recognise that forms of words, including for civil partnerships and marriages, were used since that statutory declaration act in 1835, and that it is already precedent to have a particular form attached to a statutory declaration, regardless of the fact that it was written into the 1835 act? I will come on to that. As things stand, the Registrar General would be required to lodge amendments setting out the form for a statutory declaration duplicating what is already in the 1835 act. Any deviation from that would mean two sets of incompatible requirements being placed on a statutory declaration for a GRC application. That could effectively mean that Paul Cain's amendments could make it impossible to validly apply, which I cannot support. The risk of that happening would be heightened by the requirement under his amendment 1.4.0, but I understand that Paul Cain is not going to move—yes, of course. The cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. I wonder if she could just clear up. It sounds like she is saying, however inadvertently, that those amendments would be wrecking amendments. Am I getting that right? I am not sure that I would go as far as wrecking amendments. I think that any inadvertently amendment would cause confusion. I do not think that that is Paul Cain's intention. Unfortunately, we were not able to resolve those matters with Paul Cain. We could have worked together on a constructive amendment, as we have done with others. I lodged a manuscript amendment yesterday morning that would have made the clarification regarding councillors without the requirement for redundant regulations. We explained the issues to the member to say that we were working on a solution that would allow us to support the policy intent. Unfortunately, Paul Cain did not express support for that when, given an opportunity, the president officer did not accept that manuscript amendment. I find that the cabinet secretary is well aware that that matter is entirely up to the president officer. I understand that. I am very grateful for the cabinet secretary giving way. I appreciate what she is saying. I began a constructive conversation with her officials. I was disappointed by the tone and attitude of her officials in the subsequent conversations, because I think that this is an amendment that can work. The 1835 act specifies the form of words that is to be used. That could be attached. I have no intention to write the bill. It is very clear that that has never been my intent. I would also be keen to understand from the cabinet secretary how she intends to clarify the point about councillors if she does not explicitly accept my amendment that will take councillors out of the process. I will come on to that. I do not think that it is a wrecking amendment at all. I just think that there has been an inability to reach an agreement that could have resolved some of the misunderstanding. I go back to the point that at stage 2 an amendment was agreed that ensures the bill already provides that a statutory declaration made under the bill is made by virtue of the format set out in the statutory declarations act 1835. We have already agreed that and then we have this being brought forward. I think that we have had the exchange about that. I want to come on to the point that Paul O'Kane has just directly asked me. As a result, I cannot support Paul O'Kane's amendments 103, 104 and 140 because he risks making the process unworkable. On his point and his question about the issue of councillors, through guidance we will clarify this point and maintain the current approach stating that statutory declarations should be made in front of someone able to administer an oath. I think that that will deal with the point that Paul O'Kane was concerned about in regards to a councillor. Amendment 100, also in Paul O'Kane's name, additionally requires proof of identity to be provided to the register general. However, that is an unnecessary additional bureaucratic requirement, as the application already includes the statutory declaration itself for which the applicant must have provided two forms of identification in person and the notary public must be satisfied of their identity, something that is already required. However, if my amendments 47 to 49 are accepted, it will also be on the face of the bill. I cannot support the amendments in the name of Graham Simpson, which are contrary to the principles of the bill. Living in the acquired gender is an existing requirement under the Agenda Recognition Act 2004 and means living your daily life in a gender that is different to your gender recorded at birth. An applicant will have to make a statutory declaration that they have been living in the acquired gender for the minimum period of time and that they intend to do so permanently. That is the same as in the current process and we are not changing that in this bill, but reforming it so a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and evidence that they have been living in their gender for a minimum of two years is not required. It is my intervention to Graham Simpson. I am genuinely asking this question because I am not really sure myself, but perhaps you can just tell me what the right interpretation is. I do agree that the 2004 guidance is there and that is how you acquire your gender. The two-year process under the 2004 act incrementally. However, the 2022 act, a bill that we are looking at just now, does not require per se to get your declaration any documentation, so there is a separate point to be made about the debate about how you acquire that agenda. Am I right in saying that or am I wrong? I do not mind being wrong, but I would like to know. The point here is that the 2004 act and living in the acquired gender and the examples given that are in guidance are not on the face of the legislation, they are guidance and that is what we replicate by adopting the 2004 guidance. It is not on the face of that. For all the reasons that we understand it is about guidance, it is not about prescription on the face of the legislation. No, I want to move on to Michael Marra's point. I cannot support the amendments in the name of Michael Marra as I consider that they, as others have said, would potentially create a barrier to a person accessing their rights. The aim of the bill is to establish an administrative process based on self-declaration and Michael Marra's amendments would require someone else to make a declaration about a person's gender identity. I think that the point that Monica Lennon made here is an important one because that could be to a person who has no awareness of the person's previous gender identity and we do not believe that that is in the spirit of the bill. I understand that applying for a passport involves a countersignatory process. However, applying for a passport does not involve making a statutory declaration and all that entails applying for a GRC does. I urge members not to support those members but to support the members in my name. I was going to intervene on the cabinet secretary but maybe she could help me with her manuscript amendment. The SNP keeps telling us that we have taken six years to get to this point. We have had two consultations and still yesterday we get a manuscript amendment from the cabinet secretary on a point that I raised at stage 2 in the debate. Now, I will apologise to the cabinet secretary if I am incorrect at this point. During the stage 1 proceedings, I asked the cabinet secretary to clarify the point about notary publics. I said that I would refer to the witnesses of declarations of living in the Inquire gender. Who are the notary publics? Do they include city councillors? Notary publics are often solicitors and justices of peace can sometimes be city councillors. Does her manuscript amendment, if I am reading it properly, remove city councillors as a notary public? No. It was in relation to a councillor also being a JPM. Paul O'Kane wants to clarify that a councillor would be able to take an oath in their role as a JPM and to make that clear. That is the position under guidance and we are going to make sure that guidance is followed so that someone in the role as a councillor is only able to take an oath as a JPM. That was the point that I made at stage 2. I will make the point on manuscript amendments to Rachel Hamilton. We are trying to support and work with members around amendments, which is why any manuscript amendments that I have tried to bring is seeking to do that rather than seeking to be unhelpful. I thank the cabinet secretary for clarifying that particular point because it was a point that I was trying to dig deep into in stage 2. I hope that my intervention also helped to clarify that point. I will not speak to Graham Simpson's amendments. I will focus my remarks on some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment 100 in Paul O'Kane's name confirms that any proof of identity that is provided as part of a GRC application is certified as true copies by the person who received a statutory declaration of someone's intention to change gender. That is a measure that we are sympathetic to because it is important that somebody's identity is verified and so we will be supporting it. I am glad that he took inspiration from the inspirational Graham Simpson. That amendment, coupled with 47 in the name of Shona Robison, would require the identification of a person making a statutory declaration, specifically asked that two pieces of identity are provided by the person making the application. Again, that seems a sensible measure, although I would like to be clear that that would not be necessary if the Scottish Government weren't removing the other parts of the gender recognition process that already exists in law. Amendments 48 and 49 are consequentials to 47 that we will also be happy to support. That brings me to Subsequential Amendment 47A, which contains examples of identity that an applicant must provide. Normally, I would be sympathetic to a measure that provides further clarity on the face of the bill. As part of our principled stance, which states that 16 to 17-year-olds absolutely should not be able to apply for a GRC, this amendment specifically lists provisions that enable this age cohort to apply for a gender recognition certificate. We will, unfortunately, not be able to support this amendment. Amendment 103, which is also from Paul O'Kane, provides a statutory declaration that must not have been taken and received by a councillor, which I have just been teasing out the explanation from the cabinet secretary. This is something that I am glad to have seen addressed in this amendment, and we will be supporting it. This amendment, along with 104, specifies that statutory declarations must be in the form provided for it in regulations made by the Registrar General. Amendment 140 states that these regulations must be made under the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which, of course, I am happy to support both of these amendments so that clarity is provided to the Registrar General and the regulations that they are operating under will be scrutinised appropriately. I turn to amendments 106 and 141, which are from Michael Marra and implement counter-signatory provisions that he also brought at stage 2 of the committee proceedings. Those provisions would require that an application for a gender recognition certificate must be accompanied by a counter-signatory that has known the applicant for at least two years and is a person of good standing community or works in a recognised profession, and this amendment is a slight improvement on the current bill because it would add in an extra provision when applying for a gender recognition certificate that does not presently exist. However, it does not address the removal of the three key safeguards that are in the GRA Act 2004, namely being aged at least 18, requiring medical intervention for applicants and living it in one's acquired gender for at least two years. I do not think that Michael Marra's amendments go anywhere near far enough to address the concerns that I do have with the bill, and I suspect that it does not do enough to address his concerns in the bill either. I would be interested to know if Michael Marra will be supporting the bill if his amendments pass. I will be supporting his amendments 106 and 141, but I reiterate that they are not enough alone to change my mind to support this bill. I cannot accept the amendments in this group submitted by Paul O'Kane, Michael Marra, or Graham Simpson. One of the points or the reforms that we are seeking to introduce is to make the application process for a gender recognition certificate easier. Creating administrative burden such as by requiring certified copies of documents does not do this. Moving to Michael Marra's amendments, they are problematic for another reason, requiring a trans person to seek agreement or to support their application from people they have known for two years who are of good standing or a professional, is completely inappropriate. While I am heartened that Michael Marra has not included the same list of professions he considered worthy enough to include in his stage two counter-signatory amendment, the very idea of requiring a counter-signatory at all flies in the face of self-identification. Statutory declarations aren't something that one makes on a whim to a friend or a neighbour. They are sworn statements made under oath and witnessed by an appropriate person, as we have already heard. Making a false statutory declaration carries a sentence of up to two years in prison. This is already a significant and serious step, and there is, in my opinion, and that of many who work with and support trans people, as well as trans people themselves, there is no value in requiring an additional step through a counter-signatory. It is not appropriate for an outsider to have to confirm a person's gender identity. For more socially isolated trans people, it could also be difficult for them to find a recognised professional who has known them for two years who they trust. We do not think that this should prevent them from obtaining legal recognition of who they are. Graham Simpson suggested, too, that some of Michael Marra's amendment might be a little bit snobbish. I cannot comment on that, but one final point perhaps is, as the cabinet secretary has already said, that UK passport applications might need a counter-signatory, but they do not require a statutory declaration, so that comparison is inappropriate. It is apples and oranges. The reforms that we are trying to pass this week are about making the application for a gender recognition certificate easier. Let us not put additional barriers or hurdles in the way. Thank you, Ms Chapman. I call on Paul O'Cain to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 100. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and in rising to sum up, I begin with saying to the cabinet secretary that I am disappointed that she feels she cannot accept my amendment 103, which, as I said in my opening, I have offered in a spirit of being supportive and trying to find a consensus about ensuring that provision within the bill has commands of confidence, not only of trans people but of the wider public. I acknowledge, as I said in my intervention, the initial conversations that I had with the cabinet secretary's official. Indeed, we had a shared intent to clarify who can witness the statutory declaration. I am not entirely sure in terms of the exchanges between the cabinet secretary and the cabinet secretary, but I am any clearer, because the approach that I was taking in terms of removing councillors from the process was based on the signing powers that councillors hold, that they can witness declarations in order to ensure that we do not over politicise, that we do not have politicians having to witness those things and we have legal professionals that are witnessing those things. That is why my intent was to remove councillors from the process. It was nothing to do with their roles as justices of the peace. Indeed, I do not think that councillors can perform the roles of a no-to-public. That is solely in the power view of Solister. I think that we need a bit more clarity on that in the guidance that the cabinet secretary has committed herself to. As I said, I was encouraged by my initial conversations. I subsequently was disappointed by the approach and tone of the official that I dealt with. I have to say that I do not agree with the cabinet secretary's further assertions that my amendment would indeed impact the bill in the way that she has outlined. Indeed, the form of the 1835 act would be explicit in the regulations laid before Parliament in second legislation by the Registrar General. Indeed, forms already exist, as I have said, under the 2004 act, which incorporates the wording of the 1835 act. I think that it is important that Parliament hears what is within the 1835 act. It says, I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I make the solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the same to be true, by the provisions of an act passed in the year of the reign of his present Majesty, entitled an act, and the title of the act should then be inserted as what the guidance note says. My view would be that that wording would be attached to whatever form the Registrar General would provide and have approved in this Parliament by the affirmative procedure. I will take Pam Duncan-Glancy. Pam Duncan-Glancy? I thank the member for taking that intervention. On the point that the member has just raised about the 2004 act, there is a form, I understand, that has been created as part of the 2004 act, which is the statutory declaration. We would seem to contradict what we are hearing about not being able to do that because of the 1835 act. I am very grateful to Pam Duncan-Glancy for that intervention. Yes, that is absolutely my understanding. It is why I have just outlined the wording of the 1835 act, which is included in that form, along with the current process, and we would seek to replicate the new process on that form, along with the wording of the 1835 act. I really do think that my amendments in that regard are trying to be helpful. They are sensible. They are what people would recognise as a common sense approach, and I am disappointed that the Government cannot accept them. My other amendments follow in the same vein, trying to ensure that there is a Belt and Braces approach to those who witness statutory declarations and to ensure that evidence that is provided of proof of identity is lodged with the registrar general and that there is indeed a record that the process has been followed properly. I think that everyone would want to have the confidence that the process has been followed properly. I think that that is true whether you are a trans person applying to the GRC or whether you are a member of the wider public. I acknowledge Graham Simpson's amendments, and I note that he is keen to claim credit for inspiring me to move my amendments. However, I note that I have some differences in the amendments that I have produced in the spirit of the statutory declaration witness, the process of witnessing those declarations. Indeed, I have differences in the higher set out of my list of evidence. I am trying to de-mediclise the intent from this side of the chamber and ensuring that there are no higher barriers placed in front of trans people in terms of things such as gender markers. Moving to the other amendments, I have already said that we support the cabinet secretary's approach in terms of the proof of identity, and we would want to take that further. To my colleague Michael Marra in terms of his amendments, Mr Marra and I have spoken at length about the nature of the bill and, indeed, of his amendments. As I said in opening, I do not agree with the content of all amendments and the content of his signature amendment, but I respect the sincerely held views of my colleague and the place in which he has come from to bring amendment 2 to the chamber. I want to acknowledge that this evening. It is clear to me that those amendments have been offered, as I said in opening, in a spirit of trying to ensure that the bill is as robust as possible, that it commands the confidence of anyone who has to engage particularly trans people and indeed the wider public, and that was the spirit in which I offer them. I hope that we will command support this evening. I confirm that you are pressing amendment 100. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 100 in the name of Paul O'Cain is yes, 42, no, 72. There were 10 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 1 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 100. Graham Simpson, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 12 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 54, no, 70. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 12 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 6. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. I remind members that, if amendment 12 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 101, as it will have been preempted. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 12 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 35, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 101 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment number 6. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. I am sorry, Mr Greene, did you say not moved? Not moved. I move to the next group, group 8, background checks for applicants. I call amendment 30 in the name of Russell Findlay, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Russell Findlay, to move amendment 30 and to speak to all amendments in the group. I have five amendments in group 8. They are 30, 31, 32, 33 and 36. Like my amendments in group 2, those are not about criminalising or stigmatising trans people. Those are to ensure access to the most comprehensive information possible when assessing applications. At stage 2, I sought to require applicants to disclose criminal convictions with hindsight. Putting the responsibility on applicants was arguably not the best approach. However, the same principles apply for those new amendments, those being that an applicant's criminal history should be taken into consideration and that those deciding on GRCs would benefit from being as fully informed as possible. That is necessary, not least because the existing safeguard of a medical diagnosis will be removed by this bill. Number 30 would require a level 2 disclosure Scotland check to be made as part of a GRC application process. The Scottish Government website about the Disclosure Scotland Act 2020 gives the example of someone seeking to work as an accountant needing a level 2 check. Amendment 31 would require the Registrar General to instruct a level 1 disclosure check for all GRC applications. Members will know that level 1 contains unspent convictions and sex offender notification requirements. That is less information than what is provided by a level 2 disclosure. Therefore, if members do not agree with amendment 30, they may prefer number 31 as an effective way of striking a balance between an applicant's rights and the need for some form of background check. Amendment 33 is technical. It simply adds the Registrar General to the list of bodies that are able to instruct a level 1 disclosure check. Number 32 would require the Registrar General to check if a GRC applicant is on the list of people on either the children's barred list and the adults barred list. The former is a list of individuals who are banned from working with children. The latter is of those banned from working with vulnerable adults. Sometimes people can, of course, be on both these lists. I conclude my amendments with reference to number 36. It is important and it relates to the rest of my amendments in this group. If some or all of those various amendments are agreed, then the Registrar General will need to have some direction about what that means. 36 would require the Scottish Government to come up with detailed guidance about the criteria to be considered by the Registrar General when assessing a GRC application and crucially the grounds for approval and rejection. To conclude, the new self-id process removes the need for any medical element that is therefore sensible and reasonable for the new experimental decision making process to be as fully informed as possible. I will now address the other amendments in this group that are brought by Ruth Maguire. Amendment 35 would require the Registrar General to contact Police Scotland with a request for any relevant information on a GRC applicant. The information passed on would then be considered as to whether the granting of an application is an unreasonable request. Amendment 38 goes on to define relevant information as details about previous abusive behaviour towards a partner or ex-partner. Amendment 43 goes on to clarify that the Registrar General must notify Police Scotland if an application is granted to a person where this relevant information was received by telling the police the name, the person's acquired gender and the date on which they acquired a gender recognition certificate. I will be supporting all of Ruth Maguire's amendments and their consequentials, which are 44 and 45. It is vital that there are as many safeguards for women and girls as possible. We already know from what we have heard tonight and long before that men with a history of abuse will use any loophole they can to target vulnerable women. Providing the Registrar General with a mechanism to find out about a GRC applicant's history of abuse is a welcome step in preventing men who would exploit that by causing harm to women. Police Scotland already has a scheme in operation that allows individuals to request information on their partner about their history of abuse. That comes about through the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse Scotland. That is information that the police already hold and should be able to provide the Registrar General with upon their request. That information can then be evaluated by the Registrar General so that it can judge whether it is still reasonable to grant a request for a GRC given the information that it has been provided with. Given that the Scottish Government seems intent on removing the current safeguards that exist in law, it is vital that as many are put in place as possible at this stage. Although I do not believe that this move will be on its own enough, I still support it as an additional safeguard. I hope that Ruth Maguire and her colleagues will be supporting my amendments that seek to add further protection for women and girls. Thank you, Mr Findlay. I call Ruth Maguire to speak to amendment 35 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move my amendments 35, 38, 43, 44 and 45. In moving those amendments, I am thinking of victims of men's violence, women in all their diversity. I want to mention Ann, who wrote to me, along with the other females who offered to share their experiences with the Equality Committee, in order to explain the importance of single-sex spaces. Space is important for their emotional and therapeutic needs as they were covered from the abuse that was acted on by men. I am heart sorry that the narrow scope of the bill has meant that the very important impacts of opening the process to a wider cohort have not been given as full and airing in our Scottish Parliament as they should have been. The purpose of those amendments is to prevent a person with a history of domestic abuse from attaining a GRC without undergoing further scrutiny before a GRC is granted and to ensure that GRC holders cannot take advantage of a change of identity to evade checks made under the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse by requiring a specific check on whether a person has a history of domestic abuse before granting a GRC and if the application is granted notifying Police Scotland. That would be achieved by requiring a specific check on the person's history. If so, the register general would take further advice on whether to accept the application with regulations to set how that should be done and permitting the involvement of such external specialist input as deemed appropriate. Domestic abuse is widely understood to include manipulative and coercive behaviour. Those amendments are about perpetrators of that crime. Does the member agree that, although we welcome your amendments, there are still far too many loopholes in the legislation that needs to be addressed in order to protect women and girls? I thank Tess White for that intervention. I think that we have to deal with the amendments that we have here. I have concerns, so I share them. My amendments are about the perpetrators of domestic abuse. Individuals who do this may be attracted to an easier access GRC process, specifically as part of a pattern of coercion of an existing partner or to aid concealment of their identity to new ones. Some may see adopting a female persona as a way of gaining women's trust and being able to show that they have taken it all the way to obtaining a GRC as part of obtaining that trust. There are routes for an interested person to challenge that a GRC was falsely obtained after the event. However, I ask colleagues if we could, for just a moment, put ourselves in the shoes of a woman who has been subjected to coercion, control and abuse. In doing that, I think that we can acknowledge just how stressful it would be to engage with that process. Further to that, abusers may, as we occasionally see with custody and family courts, indeed see engaging in them as an extension of the patterns of control. Those amendments aim to stop perpetrators of domestic abuse being able to do just that, and I commend them to the chamber. I will not be supporting any other amendments in this group. It is very galling to have to, again, make the arguments that predatory men do not need a gender recognition certificate to abuse women and that trans people should not be considered and treated as a threat or a risk to others. The Disclosure Scotland PVG system, yes. I thank Maggie Chapman for taking the intervention, and I wonder if she would acknowledge that she is the only person in here that is conflating trans people with criminals, the only person who has mentioned it. My amendments are about predatory men, not about trans people. We have heard people in this chamber and in committee debates and elsewhere make exactly that conflation. The Disclosure Scotland PVG system is about giving employers the assurances about those they employ to work with vulnerable groups. Applying for gender recognition certificates has nothing to do with applying for jobs working with vulnerable groups. We should not be using those mechanisms in this way, and I urge colleagues across the chamber to vote against those amendments. First of all, I start with Russell Finlay's amendments, which would introduce a requirement for all applicants for a gender recognition certificate to first undergo disclosure checks through Disclosure Scotland. The purpose of Disclosure Scotland, as the member knows, is to help employers to make safer recruitment decisions informed by criminal records as appropriate and to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, including children. Disclosure Scotland certificates are required for many job roles, and the type of check that an employee will need will depend specifically on the role that they are applying for. Applying to legally change your gender and obtain an updated birth certificate is not the same as applying for a job where you would be working with vulnerable groups. Obtaining a GRC would not be a means of hiding information from a future Disclosure Scotland check. It is a legal requirement to give your name and full details of all previous names to allow Disclosure Scotland to verify a person's identity. The process protects an individual's right privacy but does not afford the opportunity for any party to conceal past criminal behaviour. Any criminal history information that the law says must be disclosed will be, even if that information predates the current name or gender of the applicant. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Given the fact that we heard earlier, and I think that there is lots of evidence to support what was said earlier about the state of public opinion in respect of this bill, wouldn't it be reassuring from the cabinet secretary's point of view to the public, given the fact that so many checks are being taken away if this one check was left in place? Would that not give confidence to the public about the nature of the purpose of the bill? I am sure that the member is aware of all the safeguards that have been put into this bill at stage 2 and 3. For those reasons, it is not that we think that any of them would ever have to be used, I do not think, but in order to address some of those concerns, that is exactly why some of those safeguards have to make sense and have to be workable. I do not think that trying to bring in disclosure Scotland, which is for a completely different purpose, is workable or desirable. I want to move on to Ruth Maguire's amendments, which would require the register general to contact Police Scotland about each and every applicant to determine whether they had a history of domestic abuse and require the register general to consider whether granting the application would be unreasonable on this basis, although the amendments themselves do not grant the register general power to refuse an application on this basis. There is already provision in the bill for a person who has an interest, including the register general, to make an application to the sheriff on the grounds that an application was fraudulent. I heard what Ruth Maguire said and she makes a reasonable point about whether someone who has been the victim of domestic abuse would feel able to do that for all the reasons that we understand. In those cases, it would be up to the sheriff in each and individual case, but it could be that an organisation advocating on behalf of the person would be able to do that. That would be up to the sheriff in terms of whether they would accept that, but I think that there would be a compelling case for them to do so. Police Scotland's disclosure scheme for domestic abuse has helped safeguard those who have been suffering from or at risk of domestic abuse. The scheme aims to tackle and prevent domestic abuse by providing individuals with the right to ask police about a partner's background if they suspect that they have a history of domestic abuse. The purpose of the scheme is to allow people to make an informed decision about their situation, where they might be at risk in a relationship. It also allows Police Scotland to tell people that they might be at risk. That information can be given, even if it is not being asked for, and even if someone has changed their name or gender identity, that information could still be given. Given that we have seen legislation such as the short-term let's delayed, in some part, due to the lack of resources within Police Scotland to carry out the checks, would the cabinet secretary agree with me that Police Scotland must be given the necessary resources to undertake some of the checks that might come about as a result of changes made in the Parliament today? I am not sure what the relationship is to the short-term let's, other than the position that I have outlined around the Police Scotland's disclosure scheme is a scheme that is already up and running, and it is helping victims of domestic abuse and keeping people safe. It is already up and running. I am not aware of that scheme having particular issues. If there are, I am happy. I am sure that the justice secretary would be keen to hear about them, but, as far as I am aware, it has been working well, and it continues to work well. The point here is that we need to make sure that the safeguards—as I said earlier, we have accepted and put in ourselves a number of safeguards, but they have to be workable and related to the purpose of the bill. I do not think that using Disclosure Scotland in this way would be, and I have set out some of the reasons that Ruth Maguire's amendments are difficult, so I urge members to not support any of the amendments in this group. I ask Russell Findlay to wind up and depress or withdraw amendment 30. I should begin by going back to some of the comments that were made by Maggie Chapman. She began by saying that men do not need a GRC to abuse women. In response to that, I would say, but they of course do not, but inevitably they will. That is, I think, going to happen. She also went on to say that trans women are being treated as a threat or a risk. Now, I have not heard anything tonight or in any of the parliamentary proceedings where any member has suggested that trans women are being treated as a threat or a risk. This is about predatory males, both in this group of amendments and in many of the others that we have talked about tonight, so it is worth getting that on the record. I also think that the amendments that I am proposing are reasonable and sensible. The cabinet secretary referred to Disclosure Scotland's role. It sounded as if there was a sort of rigidity about how it can operate in its role, but it is a public asset. I believe that if there was, you know, it may well have a role in the administration of what we were proposing, if there was a political will for that to happen. So I will just conclude with that and say that I press my amendment. Thank you. Mr Findlay, the question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. Apologies, Presiding Officer. My computer has decided to update at the wrong time, so I would have voted no. I am afraid that Mr Summer of your vote has not been recorded. Oh yes, but it is now noted. Thank you. You should always wait for the full sentence, and the vote is closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 30, in the name of Russell Findlay, is yes, 33, no, 89. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 31 in the name of Russell Findlay. Already debated with amendment 30, Russell Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. My app did not connect, and I would have voted no had it. The result of the vote on amendment 31, in the name of Russell Findlay, is yes, 33, no, 89. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 32 in the name of Russell Findlay. Already debated with amendment 30, Russell Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 32, in the name of Russell Findlay, is yes, 33, no, 89. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 102 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 95, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 102, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 31, no, 92. There was one abstention, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 33 in the name of Russell Findlay. Already debated with amendment 30. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 33, in the name of Russell Findlay, is yes, 33, no, 90. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 103 in the name of Paul O'Kane. Already debated with amendment 100. Paul O'Kane to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 103, in the name of Paul O'Kane, is yes, 52, no, 73. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 104 in the name of Paul O'Kane. Already debated with amendment 100. Paul O'Kane to move or not move. Not moved. Subwayber wishes that the amendment be moved. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 104, in the name of Paul O'Kane, is yes, 50, no, 73. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 140 in the name of Paul O'Kane. Already debated with amendment 100. Paul O'Kane to move or not move. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Members should cast their vote now. Point of order, Paul O'Kane. It says that there has been a problem and an error on my digital voting platform, and I would have voted yes. We are just checking if Mr O'Kane has recorded his voting first, and I will get round to the other points of order, I promise. Mr O'Kane, your vote was recorded. Point of order, I think, was Neil Bibby. For the Presiding Officer, I would have voted yes. Mr Bibby's vote was recorded. Ruth Maguire's vote has also been recorded, and Mr Burnett's vote was recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 140 in the name of Paul O'Kane is yes, 52. No, 73. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I would advise members that given that we are nearing the time at which we were scheduled to finish for the evening, but are obviously not as far into the proceedings as we had expected to be. I am going to suspend the session for a comfort break of around 15 minutes during which time business managers will meet to consider how to proceed from here.