 Thank you. Good morning and welcome to the 29th meeting of session 6 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning. We are joined today by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, Shona Robison, MSP and Scottish Government officials. We are also joined by a number of MSPs who have lodged amendments at stage 2, and others may join us throughout the meeting. We also have a full public gallery. I would like to welcome everyone who is participating in the the meeting and those who are observing, either here in person or online. With a large number of amendments to consider and dispose of for this bill, the committee has scheduled two days for this and I intend to allow as much debate as is needed for each amendment. However, I would ask members to be as concise as possible and to keep their points to what the amendments are about. If we do not make sufficient progress, the committee may require a third day, and should this be the case, I will discuss that with members, and if necessary, we will approach the parliamentary bureau to request that the stage 2 deadline be extended. We are also expecting a long session this morning, so I will pause proceedings to allow for comfort breaks at appropriate points. Our sole agenda item today is stage 2 consideration of the gender recognition reform Scotland bill. Members should have a copy of the marshaled list and groupings. If votes are required today, I will call for members to vote yes first and then for members to vote no and then any abstentions. Members should do so by raising their hand and clerks will collate the vote and pass them to me to read out and confirm the results. Can I remind cabinet secretary's officials that they cannot speak during this stage but are allowed to communicate with the cabinet secretary directly? Members with amendments in a group will be called in turn. If any other member wishes to speak, please indicate and I will make every effort to accommodate. So, we will make a start. There are no amendments to section 1, so the first question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 18 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I draw members' attention to the procedural information relating to this group as set out in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 42 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19 due to preemption. So, Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 18 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The bill as drafted will extend the ability to obtain legal gender recognition to 16 and 17-year-olds. My amendments seek to retain the current minimum age required to apply for a GLC at 18, based on a statutory declaration without any form of medical oversight. My concerns and the concerns of my colleagues relate to lowering the age below 18 in Scotland. I recognise that 16 is the age of legal capacity in Scotland, but it is also conversely that higher age limits apply for several matters that are of less significance than changing legal sex, such as purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, getting a tattoo and driving a car. Recently, the Scottish Government sought to incorporate the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, otherwise known as the UNCRC, into domestic law, which defines anyone under the age of 18 as a child. According to Susan Smith from FWS, people do not cognitively mature until 25. Using comparisons in other countries who have taken a more conservative approach to the age limit to apply for a GLC, in Denmark, one must be 18 to legally change gender, whereas in countries such as Belgium and Argentina, parental consent is required for those under the age of 18. Furthermore, the Scottish Government is pursuing an inconsistent approach when defining maturity. Scottish sentencing guidelines refer to the sentencing of those under 25, claiming that they are not cognitively developed and have a lower level of maturity and a greater capacity for change. According to the EHRC, the change increases the likelihood that transpupils with GRCs are present in educational establishments in Scotland. That has implications for the operation of the education provisions of the Equality Act. Its specific exceptions to the direct discrimination for education providers would not apply in the same way that they do now, because people under the age of 18 cannot currently obtain a GRC. At present, the law allows schools to take a proportionate approach to balancing the needs of transpupils with those of other pupils. The changes that are proposed in the bill may require educational establishments in Scotland to treat trans people with a GRC as having their acquired gender for all purposes, including in a single-set school, leaving the school potentially open to direct discrimination claims if it is sought to balance the needs of trans and other pupils. I would welcome if the minister could provide clarity on that point as to what the position for single-set schools would be should the bill pass unamended. The Scottish Government has dismissed the findings of Dr Hillary Cass' interim review as not relevant to Scotland, which is contrary to the stance taken by the First Minister to compare NHS England with NHS Scotland when answering questions at First Minister's questions. We share the view of stakeholders that it is prudent to wait until the final conclusions and recommendations of the Cass' review before moving to make legal gender recognition available to 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland. The Scottish Government fails to recognise that providing a route to a change of status in law is a form of social transition and therefore is not a neutral undertaking. The Scottish Government and the majority of the committee appear determined to deny any risk that affirming a young person's self-declared gender identity may encourage them onto a medicalised pathway in a setting where the evidence base is lacking. Given the states here, every law that we make must be supported by robust analysis. We think that there are hard questions about Scotland's gender identity services for young people, especially considering the lack of robust data on clinical outcomes. In the absence of better information about the cohort of 16 and 17-year-olds experiencing gender incongruence, MSPs are being asked to make a very significant decision affecting a vulnerable group based largely on some young people's strongly and no doubt genuinely expressed desires. The amplification of those by adults is strongly committed in principle to an affirmation-based approach. The basis appears shaky for assuming that decisions here will have no spillover effect on NHS services and that any legal risks emerging there can be ignored. It looks unreasonable that MSPs should decide that NHS Scotland needs time to consider the final cast review recommendations before lowering the age for a GRC as considered. As the Bayswater Support Group for Parents has put it, our children deserve the same level of care and safeguarding as their English counterparts, and it is incumbent on our lawmakers to consider the needs of vulnerable young people when considering this bill. I urge members of the committee to consider the crystal clear arguments that I have presented today and support the retention of the current minimum age of 18 required to apply for a GRC. I move amendment 18 in my name. Thank you. I now move online to Carol Mawkin to speak to amendment 117 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Primarily, I am raising amendment 117 to reflect the numerous expressions of concern that I and no doubt many others have received regarding the content of this bill. First, I do agree that many people are in favour of the spirit and intent that our details have been overlooked regarding the practicalities and protections of getting gender recognition certificate for younger people in particular. Given that the Government has expressed that it considers the minimum age for applying for legal gender recognition, it should be reduced to 16. It is my view that, should the legislation pass, there must be extra provision in place to support the 16 and 17-year-olds and they must be able to request that should they make that decision. Many young people will be reaching a time of change in their lives, becoming independent, moving away from home, beginning full-time work or starting university or college courses. For that reason, it would be preferable that a young person seeking to support to obtain a gender recognition certificate had guaranteed access to confidential quality support. Similarly, many, particularly of the youngest in this age group, are very likely to be living at home and may experience difficulty communicating the decision to direct family leading to a sense of isolation and helplessness. That is well documented within the evidence collected. That can be assisted with free and accessible advice that helps young people to understand the practicalities of the decision and their options for the path ahead. It may give the young person support to talk, work with their family at a stage that is most helpful to them. Where challenges exist, the support could come in the form of a family liaison officer who could assist with communication. In all cases, there also ought to be well-being support available from a professional and trusted source to protect the mental health and wellbeing of young people who request such support during that process. I would ask the cabinet secretary to set out the Government's position on those points that I have raised in her remarks. That support must be universal and confidential if it is to succeed, but I feel that it is absolutely necessary to help young people during a period of particular need. The amendment would give reassurance to young people and their families that there is balanced universal support available should it be required and that any support would have the young person at its focus. Thank you, Christine Grahame, to speak to amendment 38 and other amendments in the group. I am not sure whether you want me to move at the beginning of that. No, we will not move later. Wow, I am told already. I was actually a rise to speak, but I am not rising anyway. I speak to amendments 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, all in my name. My amendments are supported by Jackson Carlaw. The intention of those amendments is to ensure that, before applying 16 incendials, they have made use of the opportunity to take advice, guidance or support in making the decision, including considering the implications of getting a GRC. That refers to a later amendment, which I will come to about what the register must publish. That is mandatory. The provision is not overly restrictive and requires that it be confirmed to the register general that they have discussed this either with an adult that they know personally, for example a supportive family member or friend of the family, or someone who has a role that involves giving guidance, advice or support to young people. For example, a teacher, a councillor, a suitable service such as the doctor, guardian, LDVT youth—there is a whole range. The form of that confirmation is also not restricted in the amendments to allow for flexibility in individual circumstances. I am not naming a list. The cabinet secretary has already undertaken that 16 and 17-year-olds will be offered and encouraged to take up the conversation with national records of Scotland about the process and effect of a GRC. It is important that, wherever possible, the confirmation should be part of such a conversation, which would take place during the reflection period. I invite the cabinet secretary to confirm whether she agrees with that approach or indeed with my amendment. The offence in the bill of making a false application does not apply to this confirmation. There is no desire to criminalise 16 and 17-year-olds or to require them to provide proof. I am going to say that I may then refer to the amendment in Carole Moughlin's name, which tries to do much of the same thing. However, I feel that it is rather heavy-handed. It is putting in law a necessary support service for applications that all exist just now. The registrar general must confirm that the person has taken that advice and made that mandatory thing. It puts the onus in them, because it is a big decision for them. Those advice supports are already there. If you forgive me, I do not think that it is necessary for your amendment. Mine is the better one, but I would say that. Speaking to 42 and 43, the intention of those amendments is to extend the minimum period of living in the acquired gender for application from three months to six months. I understand Rachel Hamilton's concerns, and that is why I am putting in these other precautions for that particular age range, specifically for 16 and 17-year-olds. That is the very least of it. It might take longer, so my 80-year-olds do that either by introducing two options into the acquired statutory declaration. Either an applicant must state that they are 18 or over and have lived in their acquired gender for at least three months, or that they are 16 or 70 and have lived in their acquired gender for at least six months. That will provide additional assurance that those applicants have had time to fully understand the change that they are making and to be confident that they really do want to live the rest of their life in their acquired gender. That will not introduce an additional delay for someone who has already been living in their acquired gender for at least six months. They could still apply on their 16th birthday because they will have done it well ahead of being 16. After a three-month reflection period, they could obtain a GRC. Never, let's forget, there is a reflection period thereafter. I make a passing reference to the amendments to the Martin-Wittfield in 124. I think that it is just a consequential. My other ones are consequentials. We are not in collision, by the way. We are sitting next to each other by mistake. I think that my amendments, again, if I can be more or less, would be better. I put the onus on the young person to specifically confirm that they have discussed their application and understand that. It is a big decision for them, so it is making them sure that the onus is on them to have done this. I believe that that is a better approach on Martin-Wittfield's amendments, which puts us on the register general to satisfy himself. The applicant has capacity to understand. Capacity is a difficult word in law. I do not know whether it means legal capacity or what kind of capacity. There is a discussion with the registrar that will take place. It can take place face-to-face or online or whatever. That is the time when the registrar can decide whether or not this person really understands what they are doing. I think that the word capacity is a difficult word to use in law, but perhaps he should have fully understood what they are proceeding through. We did put that in, and that is why I do not like his amendment. I thank Christine Grahame for her amendments. You were talking at the beginning about how you have support from Jackson Carlaw, so what kind of support have you had for those conversations with other colleagues? Strangent, I do not know. I have not gone round lobbying for them. I think that they are all intelligent people in this Parliament, hopefully, and they can see the amendments. I laid the ground during stage 1. I was intended to put precautions and support for the 16 and 17-year-olds, because I did share concerns that they were being put in the same boat as the 18-year-olds. Really, the test is in this committee. We have been doing this in depth, so I am hopeful that this is fertile ground. I am very grateful for convener, and it is always a pleasure to follow Christine Grahame, even when she seeks to perhaps insult my poor amendment. I intend to speak to 124 and 120. 120 is a technical amendment for it to fit in. If I deal first with the purposes behind the amendment, the registrar general will have an important role in this process if it moves forward. The purpose behind the amendments is to draw out, and I would seek the view of the Cabinet Secretary on this, that our young people who are 16 and 17 have protections that exist around them anyway, and they are quite substantial. It is a transitional period between childhood and adulthood where we seek to allow our young people as much freedom as possible, while still providing scaffolding support, should things go wrong or should decisions be contrary to the interests of an individual. The reason to answer Christine Grahame's question is why I picked, in respect of the registrar general, on which to place the obligation to ensure that there is some protection there, is because this is someone who already undertakes statutory requirements, undertakes assessments made by people who present themselves throughout a variety of our legislation, and I think is well capable of making those decisions. The protections that are extended in respect of this case are really very narrow. The first two contained in 2BA is the effect of obtaining the certificate and the importance of a statutory declaration. Anyone who undertakes to hear a statutory declaration needs to ensure themselves that the understanding of the significance and importance of that document is made. The effect of obtaining the certificate is to allow the registrar to ask those questions to satisfy themselves that this person is fully understanding of the consequences of it. Section B is the very important one to ensure that the application has not been made under coercion. We echo that in a number of other matters of a marriage situation, where there is a requirement on the person registering that to ensure that no coercion has taken place. With regard to the discussion as to capacity, it carries a very strict legal definition, but the capacity is the word that defines that position a young person is in to make such a significant and important decision in respect of these matters. Both amendments, mainly in 1, 2, 4, really seek to remind a registrar of the legal obligations that already exist upon a registrar, but also to allow them, in certain situations, to avail themselves of the ability to say no, but on the basis that the availability and decision would always be yes, unless I can guide any further anyone. I am happy to leave it at that. I want to speak genuinely about the amendments in this group. The first thing that I want to be clear about is that, in Scots law, the age of legal capacity is 16. At this age, young people can get married, join the army, work, vote in Scottish parliamentary and vote in local elections. It is almost as if we trust them to make big life decisions on their own. I do not see why that is any different. Let us also remember that many young people have already socially transitioned, which might include coming out to friends and families without applying for a GRC. Not having a birth certificate that matches their identity could cause issues when applying for jobs, further or higher education and, more importantly, lead them open to a lack of privacy regarding their trans status. I am vehemently opposed to the current time periods, both the living in the acquired gender periods and the reflection periods. They are not based on specific evidence and they fall short of international best practice for gender recognition, which has no waiting periods at all. Therefore, making the three-month living in the acquired gender period even longer for 16 and 17-year-olds simply increases the length of time. They may have documents that disclose their gender history without providing any clear benefit. It also risks there being more opportunities for those who do not agree with the young person's decision to apply for a GRC to go digging through that young person's online presence for misgendering, use of a different name and so on. Young people tend to express themselves in a much more gender-fluid way than others and the longer time period puts them at greater risk of bad faith actors. I would ask how many young trans people, the members supporting those amendments, have spoken to in drafting their amendments. If they had done so, I am not sure that we would be here debating them, so I will be voting against all of the amendments in this group. I thank the members who have put forward the amendments this morning. I would like to speak to a couple of amendments in this group. In short, I think that there are merits in many of the amendments that we have before us in this section, and I have some concerns about aspects of some of them, too. I hope, therefore, that we might work together ahead of stage 3 to bring some of those back. Carole Mawkins' amendment, as she has already highlighted, seeks to address the concerns that some people have. It would require the provision of free, confidential and balanced support to be available for 16 and 17-year-olds applying for a GRC at their request. For some people, that would be really important. Carole Mawkins' amendment seeks to ensure that there is support there for people who need it. That amendment would give 16 and 17-year-old applicants the opportunity to access it on their terms. That is a positive way to support young trans people to access their rights, and it is distinct from other amendments in this group and, in particular, the amendment in my colleague Christine Graham's name. On that basis, if those amendments were pressed, I would need to abstain. Martin Whitfield's amendment would add coercion of 16 and 17-year-olds as a factor to reject an application and that there is a presumption that 16 and 17-year-olds do have the capacity to understand the process. All of those elements support capacity and the influence of coercion, as my colleague Martin Whitfield has highlighted, I believe could be helpful and should be considered further at stage 3. I would urge the Government to continue to work with my colleague to do that. I am afraid that I can't support amendment 31 in Rachel Hamilton's name because it delays the act and trans people have already waited long enough for reform. I think that it's fair to say that this was a particular area that we heard quite a lot about during stage 1, and we heard various views. Therefore, I'm not surprised at the number of amendments that have come forward. I think that perhaps the views of the two sides of the argument, if you like, have already been expressed quite well summed up by Rachel Hamilton, perhaps in one respect, and then Maggie Chapman in another, but I think that we heard during stage 1 debate that, as we move forward through stage 3, we are wanting to build consensus around this bill, and I think that, therefore, this is an area where we should try to do that. I'm afraid that the Government has said that in the Cabinet Secretary has referred to that particular issue around 16-18-year-olds. It has been one of the most difficult decisions in taking the bill forward. Based on what I have heard today so far, I am not sure who is going to press and who is going to take it forward to stage 3, but I would be inclined at this stage to suggest that Christine Grahame's amendments find their balance and, based on that, I would be inclined to vote for them at this stage. In their stage 1 report, the majority of the committee agreed that the age of eligibility for applicants should be 16, and the principles of the bill had support from members of all parties and were overwhelmingly supported by Parliament at stage 1. The committee has heard from young trans people, as have I, that they currently feel excluded from the system, particularly at an age where they want consistent documentation before entering higher or further education or starting their first job. Therefore, I cannot support Rachel Hamilton's amendments, which are contrary to the general principles of the bill. I have heard the views of members across the chamber in relation to the need to ensure that young people receive guidance and support in making an application. I am unable to support amendment 117 in the name of Carol Mocken. It is unclear to me what the provision of balanced support might be in relation to a young person's application for a GRC, nor am I convinced that it is beneficial to mandate in law the establishment of a wide-ranging support service for young people specifically in relation to making an application for a GRC. I consider that this approach would be disproportionate given the very small numbers that we anticipate would apply in comparison with general population. Support options already exist, and we will ensure that young people are provided with guidance on their application and can access wider support. I note from a number of equality organisations that, while understandably and rightly supporting the general spirit of improving support for young people, do not think that the provision needs to be in legislation, as such I would ask the committee to not support this amendment. I believe that the principles of what Carol Mocken is trying to achieve, however, are provided by Christine Grahame's amendments in this group. Those take a balanced and proportionate approach to this issue, and I support them all. Those additional safeguards for young people provide the reassurance that MSPs have said they want around lowering the minimum age of application. A minimum age of 16 for applying for legal gender recognition aligns with the provisions in the Age of Legal Capacity Scotland Act 1991, where, under Scots law, a person of or over the age of 16 generally has legal capacity to enter into transactions having legal effect. However, concerns have been raised with me by MSPs about striking the balance between autonomy and protection of young people. I am grateful to Christine Grahame for speaking with me about that matter. I agree that increasing the minimum period of time for applicants aged 16-17 from three months to six months would address concerns that have been raised while not placing a disproportionate barrier on young people seeking to apply. We know that applying for legal gender recognition is often the end of a process whereby people make changes to their gender on official documents and where a young person has already been living in their required gender for a minimum of six months. They can affirm that in their statutory declaration, so no additional delay would be involved for those young people. Increasing the period of time to six months would also give young people greater opportunity to access support, advice or guidance before applying, which they can then confirm to the registered general. Amendments 120 and 124, in the name of Martin Whitfield, while possibly well-intentioned, put the emphasis, in my opinion, in the wrong place. Christine Grahame's amendments place a requirement on the young person seeking to make an application to actively confirm that to the registered general that they can discuss the implications of their application with a suitable third party. I think that that is a reasonable expectation. Martin Whitfield's amendments replace the onus on the registered general to satisfy himself or herself that the applicant has capacity to understand and is not being coerced. As he said in his evidence to the committee, it is not for the registered general to be making such determinations, but my own amendment 60 gives the registered general the power to apply to a sheriff in order to refuse an application on the grounds that the application was fraudulent or that the applicant is incapable of understanding the effects of obtaining a GRC or of validly making the application before issuing the certificate. It is appropriate that such decisions be made by a sheriff on the basis of evidence taken by them rather than on the judgment of the registered general. For those reasons, I would ask the committee not to support Martin Whitfield's amendments and to support all those in the name of Christine Graham. Finally, turning to amendment 31 in the name of Rachael Hamilton, I will again reiterate my position that there is no connection between the outcome of the CAS review of NHS England's services and the bill, which is about the process to obtain legal gender recognition in Scotland. I see no reason why the commencement of the substantive provisions of the bill should be delayed. As the Scottish Government has continued to state, we will closely consider the findings of the CAS review and the context of our work to improve NHS Scotland's services. That is also backed up by the evidence heard by committee members during stage 1. Therefore, I urge the committee not to support amendment 31. Just for completeness on Rachael Hamilton's comment on education, the bill does not modify the education provisions in the equality act on the requirements for schools not to discriminate in providing education and offering places in schools. Extending the effect of a GRC to 16-17-year-olds does not change the education provisions in the equality act and the bill does not modify the effects of a GRC. Protection in the 2010 act will continue to apply to all children and young people and the arrangements for recognising their transition will remain the same within schools. Rachael Hamilton will wind up and press or withdraw amendment 18. Whilst I understand the motive for Carole Mocken's amendment to try to implement a safeguard in the process, we will not support, as we cannot envisage, that the NHS services or otherwise will miraculously improve especially because the Scottish Government's reform to self-identity will open up a wider group of people, therefore putting more pressure on our medical services and other services, including in Carole Mocken's amendment. Christine Grahame's amendment is creative but ill-thought-through. How can we, as elected members to this place, guarantee that young people who are at vulnerable age genuinely receive the support that they need? I am disappointed that the Scottish Government is attempting to use young people as collateral damage to water down the bill to appease their own SNP rebels. I am disillusioned by the sceptical approach by the cabinet secretary. The cast review is a key piece of work and therefore the cabinet secretary has not taken heed of the interim review, but I agree that, moving forward, we should consider what the full review says. Living in a quiet gender for at least three months is an arbitrary figure just like the three-month figure plucked from nowhere without evidence. Martin Whitfield's amendment is flawed because it presumes that the register general has the ability to determine capacity, something that was never explored during the evidence suggestion regarding the conversation around statutory declaration. However, on a positive note, I welcome Fulton MacGregor and Pam Duncan-Glansy's offer to work together in the future. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. Therefore, the question is, we go to a vote. All members who wish to vote yes, please raise your hands. All members who wish to vote no, please raise your hand. All abstentions and one abstention. Two members voted yes, four members voted no, and there was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 114 in the name of Russell Finlay, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Russell Finlay, to move amendment 114 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Let's start with what should be a statement of the obvious. My opposition to this bill, as it stands, has nothing to do with the rights of those who identify as transgender. Those eight amendments in my name are not directed towards trans people. Those amendments are to do with criminals, male criminals, male criminals who use lies, cunning and deception to commit and to get away with serious wrongdoing, male criminals who commit serious crimes, especially acts of sexual violence, male criminals whose victims are almost always women and girls. The overarching purpose of my amendments is to ensure that, if the bill is passed, it will contain vital public safeguards. I will address my amendments in numerical order. Given the constraints that have been imposed at stage 2, I am mindful of my limited time and intend to be concise. The eight amendments are grouped under the heading, Applicants with Criminal Charges or Convictions. The first, number 114, would prohibit anyone on the sex offenders register from being able to acquire a gender recognition certificate. GRCs on the basis of self identification should not be available to those who have been convicted of sexual offences of a seriousness requiring their inclusion on the register. As it stands, the bill would allow a registered sex offender to change gender and thereby acquire a new birth certificate, which would hide their true identity. That would make it incredibly easy for predators to erase their pasts. Society would be prohibited from any way of knowing if a legally defined female was actually a male sex offender. Prisons are full of men who exploit whatever mechanism or loophole is available to gain access to women and girls and to commit sexual offences. The GRR bill would be a gift to such predators. It would increase public risk, that risk predominantly being towards women. Amendment 118 is a consequential of number 125, while 119 is a consequential to 142. I will come on to 125 and 124 later. Next is amendment 123, which would require GRC applicants to disclose criminal convictions. I believe that it is proper for an applicant's criminal offending history to be taken into consideration given that the safeguard of a medical diagnosis is not in this bill. However, as things stand and as I understand it, gaps in the bill mean that we do not know how this amendment would work in practice. Specifically, it is not yet known who these proposed disclosures would need to be made to. We therefore need more information from the Government, and I look forward to the minister's response. However, I hope that she agrees that those deciding on GRCs would benefit from being as fully informed as possible. This amendment 123 would help to achieve that. Amendment 125 is in some ways an extension of number 123. That would require any GRC applicant to disclose convictions for various crimes, those being sexual offences, violence, domestic abuse and fraud. The same requirement would apply to those who are on the children's bar list, a database of those who are unsuitable to work with children. That amendment would also require all such applicants to provide evidence of gender dysphoria in their GRC application. The registrar general for Scotland would not be able to issue a GRC unless the applicant provided authentic evidence. I am aware that some of the measures in 1-2-3 and 1-2-5 are not in place under current law, but that is because they are not necessary given the other safeguards that currently exist. Those include the need for a medical diagnosis when applying for a GRC and that you must have lived in your acquired gender for two years. It is in the interests of public safety that extra care and scrutiny should be taken in respect of those with such serious convictions and those unfit to work with children. I note that yesterday the Equality and Human Rights Commission highlighted a lack of clarity about the use of the bill's phrase, quote, living in the acquired gender. The EHRC duly recommended that amendments, including this one, should be considered to improve, again quoting, precision and workability. I turn to amendment 127. This would stop a GRC application where an applicant is charged with any crimes being prosecuted under solemn proceedings. The bill would allow people to change, the bill as stands would allow people to change gender after just three months. We know that most, if not all, solemn cases, that is sheriff and jury trials and high court trials typically take much longer than three months to proceed. Therefore, alleged rapist would be able to seek a GRC before coming to trial. In such circumstances, we would achieve the ludicrous situation where a rape victim may have to refer to her male-bodied rapist in the dock as she and her. It is worth noting that the sexual offences Scotland Act 2009 states that rape is when someone without consent penetrates another person's vagina, anus or mouth with their penis. On December 15 last year, the Criminal Justice Committee took evidence from Justice Secretary Keith Brown and a Police Scotland deputy chief constable. I asked whether a female rape victim might be required in court to use the pronouns she and her for her male rapist. The answer was unclear. I asked whether the police would inform a victim if a rapist changed gender before standing trial. The answer was unclear. I also asked if media reports of Police Scotland already recorded the sex of criminals based on their self declaration were accurate. The answer to that appeared to be yes. Mr Brown told me that he does not control the courts. That may be so, but the courts will be obliged to adhere to this bill. The consequences will surely be that a male rapist with a penis could legally be a she. He added and I quote that nothing in the proposed gender recognition reforms should impinge on this area. I failed to see how that can be. He went on to say that courts, prisons and the police are and again quote very cognisant of the rights and safety of individuals but whose rights prevail. Those of a female rape victim or those of a male who can exploit the ease of acquiring a GRC. That is absurd and I believe most reasonable people would agree. It risks making a mockery of the justice system and re-traumatising victims of sexual violence. Amendment 127 is therefore as obvious as it is vital. My next amendment is 129. That would require the registrar general to inform Police Scotland whenever anyone with a criminal record is granted a GRC. That would preclude those whose convictions are spent. I believe that it is in the interests of public safety and the police's ability to detect crime for them to be made aware when GRCs are issued to convicted criminals, as they would have no other way of knowing under the terms of the bill as drafted. That is especially so with certain types of crime, including sexual offences and fraud. Some sex offenders will almost certainly seek a self-decloratory GRC as a means to re-offend by gaining access to single sex spaces. More generally, and as touched upon earlier in my submission, it is likely that some will attempt to erase their offending history by acquiring a GRC. I was surprised and concerned to learn that more than 500 registered sex offenders in Scotland have recently been allowed to change their names. I would rather that that was not the case that they can do this, but that would require a change in law that can perhaps be discussed another day. However, at least the police must be informed when that happens. It would be logical and consistent for them to also be informed when offenders are issued a GRC. I now move on to my final amendment number 131. This would allow a sheriff or judge to revoke a GRC of someone who is later convicted of rape or another sex crime. As stated in relation to amendment 127, the legal definition of the act of rape states that it can only be conducted with male genitalia. If a man commits rape or sexual assault, it would be in a front for the law and an insult to victims to continue to categorise him as female. Many of those amendments are common sense. We cannot allow Scotland's criminal justice system to be undermined by ill-conceived legislation that has the most profound of consequences. The effects of the bill will ripple through the police, prosecution, prison and courts. Unchecked, it could harm crime victims, enable criminals and skew crime statistics by rendering the recording of sex to be effectively meaningless. The prime purpose of my amendments are public safety and the preservation of the rights of women and girls who may fall victim to sexual violence. I move amendment 114 and urge members to give them their support. I want to be clear from the start that the real threat to women and girls is predatory and abusive men. Unfortunately, as around the globe, we live in a society where men in the home and outside of it are the perpetrators of violence against women and girls, and that must of course be tackled. There is no evidence, however, that those men would obtain a GRC in order to abuse women or that this has happened in any other countries with similar processes. I recognise that some people have concerns and fears that are genuinely held and we should seek to address those concerns, but concerns about the behaviour of abusive and predatory men should not mean, of course, that we impinge on the rights of trans people. While I understand the concerns people have about abusive men, the bill takes the exact same approach as the current system, where none of those restrictions apply to people who have committed certain offences. This group of amendments would prevent people who have committed certain offences from applying for or receiving a GRC, would pause applications for people charged with certain offences or would introduce reporting requirements relating to certain convictions. I mean anyone with any criminal convictions at all, no matter what, would need to declare that. Amendment 123 does not exclude spent offences and it is not clear how it could be checked by the Registrar General. Amendments 125 and 118 would reintroduce the need to show gender dysphoria for some offenders. The Scottish Government considers amendment 114 is likely to be clearly outwith legislative competence, as incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A further difficulty is that the ban would depend on when those requirements are imposed. In one case, the requirements could be just about to elapse when an application for a GRC is made. In another, the ban on being able to obtain a GRC could last for a considerable number of years. Similarly, amendments 127 and 119 would also be incompatible with article 8 of ECHR and possibly article 14, because they would differentiate between persons based on the procedure attaching to the charge for the offence in a way that cannot be justified. It also has the same difficulties as amendment 114 in relation to the timing when the notification requirements are imposed. The Scottish Government considers that, for similar reasons, amendment 131 is likely to be outwith legislative competence, as it is incompatible with article 8 of ECHR and possibly also article 14, because it differentiates between persons based on the type of offence committed. Again, no such restrictions are part of the current system under the UK Government, which also must comply with ECHR. To be clear, inserting provisions into this bill that are incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights puts implementation of the bill in jeopardy. It brings the risk of legal challenge before the new process could be put in place, and, if successful, that would prevent implementation until the compatibility issues were resolved through primary legislation. The bill already provides for a person who has an interest in a GRC to apply to the sheriff to revoke a certificate on the ground that the application was fraudulent. However, we have listened to the concerns that some members have raised about the possibility of sex offenders seeking to take advantage of the proposed processes for gender recognition. While we think that the processes for sex offender notification requirements are working well, there is an existing legislative power that Scottish ministers have to vary the information provided at notification. I can today inform the committee that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans will, before this bill is commenced, introduce regulations to amend the sex offender notification requirements so that those on the register are required to notify the police with details as to whether they have made an application for agenda recognition certificate. That will mean that additional information will be available to help to identify an individual and inform their subsequent management under the multi-agency public protection arrangements. That adds to the information that those on the register are already required to provide to the police, such as name, address and passports, so that the police are fully informed about information relating to the person's identity. That does not mean that there is any implied link between trans people seeking gender recognition and sex offenders, but it will mean that Police Scotland will be informed of an application by someone on the register. That will allow them to take action, either in relation to the application itself, if necessary, or as part of the broader police role in managing the registered sex offender population. The action that Police Scotland could take if they believed that an application is fraudulent would be to apply to a sheriff as a person with an interest for revocation of the GRC and or work towards criminal prosecution under the offences in the bill. Under the Scottish Government amendment 60, the register general, if informed by Police Scotland, could reject such an application following a successful application to the sheriff, meaning that the applicant would be denied a GRC. That means that it is possible to prevent someone on the sex offender's register from fraudulently obtaining a GRC. In addition, I do not want to anticipate discussion of a later group, but we will also note that Jamie Greene's amendment 133 is relevant to those issues. I will be supporting the principle of the creation of a new statutory aggravation to an offencing connection with fraudulently obtaining a GRC. Taken together, that is the right proportionate and competent set of measures to put in place in this area, and on the basis of the action and the safeguards that I have set out, I would urge the committee not to support any of the amendments in this group. Thank you. Russell Finlay to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 114. Thank you, convener. A number of points, and I think that it's supposed to be repeating what I opened with and what the cabinet secretary acknowledged, which is that this is not about trans people, it's about male offenders, sex offenders in the main. I welcome the commitment that's been given today to amend the sex offender notification requirements, which goes some way towards addressing this, albeit nowhere near enough. I don't agree with many of the cabinet secretary's views on this. I think that the opening statement that there's no evidence of sex offenders having exploited GRC or being likely to be ill-judged and perhaps even naive. I think that it's not just likely but inevitable. I would be quite keen to know whether the proposed amendment, the mechanics of that, when this comes into being. What was the way of the cabinet secretary? As I've said, the justice secretary will put that into place before this bill is enacted in advance. I thank my colleague for taking the intervention. He put forward a strong argument for the amendments that he was making. We took evidence during the committee, but we think that those are plausible scenarios or not. I think that what Russell Family has done has outlined that they could happen. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's response to some of the actions that the Government will take through Keith Brown. Russell Family was, if there's any—I don't know how he's now going to go with his amendments—based on what he's heard, but if there's any scope for him and the Government to discuss it ahead of stage 3. At this point, I feel that those amendments are too raw. We don't know the full implications that the cabinet secretary suggested, but some of them might be in a human rights context. At that point, the committee should vote against those, but, given that it has raised some concerns and there's a recognition that perhaps some ground could be reached, I wonder whether he's considered on having further discussions ahead of stage 3, as opposed to pressing the amendments just now. I didn't hear anything really from the cabinet secretary suggesting an interest in discussing a common ground. I may have been mistaken, but I didn't hear that. I think that the supposed incompatibility of some of those amendments with human rights legislation is debatable. I think that it's important that we do move these before I do. I'd like to make one final point, which is that what's being proposed would be the equivalent of closing the stable door off after the horse has bolted. What my amendments do are preventative. They are about protecting women and protecting the criminal justice system from abuses in quite a common-sense way, and therefore I would seek to move those amendments. The amendments are pressed. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they are not agreed. We now move to a vote. All members who wish to vote yes, please raise your hands. All members who wish to vote no, please raise your hands. All members who wish to abstain. That is yes, no, no, and no, five. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Call amendment 83 in the name of Ros McAul, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I draw members' attention to the procedural information relating to this group as set out in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 32 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 93, 57 or 58 due to a preemption. If amendment 93 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 57, 58, 59, 33 or 34 again due to a preemption. If amendment 99 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 72 also due to a preemption. Members should also note that amendment 36 and amendment 113 are direct alternatives. Ros McAul, to move amendment 83 and to speak to all amendments in the group. First of all, and to clarify to members of the committee, my amendments are probing ones to ascertain from the minister who views on the principle of overseas gender certificate recognition. Therefore, I do not intend to push the amendments in my group, but I hope that the cabinet secretary can provide some answers. Let me clarify for the committee that these sets of amendments do different things. One would remove the process of overseas gender recognition entirely, essentially meaning that we revert to the status quo position of a person having to obtain a gender recognition certificate through the process outlined in this bill without any bespoke overseas recognition process. That is currently the case across the UK. Amendment 93 would in effect ensure that somebody moving to Scotland from overseas would not have any more or less rights than anybody residing currently in Scotland, and that is the important part. The intention of the other amendments in this grouping is to allow approved countries, in averted commas, to have the process of overseas gender recognition while everyone else will have to go through the process to obtain a gender recognition certificate. That was to outline an alternative to the committee rather than removing the overseas gender recognition provision from the bill in its entirety. However, as previously mentioned, I do not intend to push those amendments at this stage. As the bill is introducing a new process for overseas gender recognition, I think that it is important that we get the on-record ministers view on the need for this provision and the safeguards that are required if it is to proceed into law. I ask the cabinet secretary directly what the Scottish Government's justification is for introducing the new process of overseas recognition for gender certificates. Does the minister agree that the current draft of the bill does not have adequate safeguards in the terms of preventing bad actors from exploiting overseas recognition provision as they currently stand? Is the minister willing to strengthen the safeguards in that part of the bill? Does she see any merit in the proposed outlines on my amendments that she could support if technical drafting on them would be improved? If I can pause just now. The last vote on 114, I announced two, five, but the correct vote was three, four. Just to confirm the vote on 114, it was three, four and four against. I do not support the amendments in this group in the name of Ros McAll, but I am happy to continue to discuss ahead of stage 3 any further concerns that she may have. At present, overseas gender recognition is not recognised automatically in the UK. Persons who have obtained gender recognition overseas who wish to be recognised in the UK have to apply to the gender recognition panel under its overseas track. The overseas track operated by the panel is used when a person has obtained gender recognition in what is called an approved country or territory, listed in a statutory instrument made by the secretary of state after consulting with the Scottish ministers on the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. That is a system that Rose McAll wishes to emulate, despite the fact that the present list of countries and territories maintained by the UK Government has not been updated for 10 years. It is therefore features jurisdictions that have changed and updated their systems for gender recognition in that time, several of which are now based on similar models to that contained in this bill. Equally, it does not include countries that have introduced gender recognition systems, including our near neighbours Ireland. Section 8N1 of the bill, which would be removed by those amendments, provides it where a person has obtained overseas gender recognition there to be treated as if they had been issued with a full GRC by the register general for Scotland. In broad terms, the bill's approach is similar to the current approach that is taken in Scotland for the validity of marriages entered into and outwith Scotland and recognition of divorce obtained overseas. It is a more straightforward and less convoluted approach than that proposed by Rose McAll. Automatic recognition would not apply, although it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to do so, for example in a case where legal gender recognition was obtained overseas at a significantly younger age. Therefore, I urge the committee not to support those amendments. Turning to the amendments in my name, section 8 of the bill inserts two new sections 8M and 8N into the 2004 act, which provides for automatic recognition in Scotland of a gender recognition certificate issued elsewhere in the United Kingdom and of gender recognition obtained overseas. Amendments 56 and 57 clarify that the automatic recognition ends if the gender recognition obtained elsewhere no longer has effect. Amendment 58 relates to cases where someone with overseas gender recognition of their male or female gender goes on to acquire recognition of a non-binary gender in their own country, for example Denmark or Malta. The amendment provides that in Scotland their gender will not revert to being their gender at birth but will continue to be the male or female gender that they had previously acquired. Those amendments are intended to cover specific eventualities in line with the general principles of the bill, and I urge the committee to support them. I welcome the cabinet secretary's remarks. I will accept the offer to work with you to improve the Government's amendments at stage 3. Therefore, we will support the amendments in this group. I am not pressing them. The member is seeking permission to withdraw amendment 83. Is that agreeable? I therefore call amendment 2, in the name of Sue Webber, a group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Sue Webber to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning. My group of amendments are regarding the retention of the current application process and evidence required in support of applications. Those amendments bring the legislation to the status quo, retaining and, importantly, retain current safeguards. They would mean that all of the existing provision about the Gender Recognition Certificate, the GRC in the 2004 act, would be retained, so that it would operate in the same way that it does now. The only difference would be that an application can be made to the registered general, but the application to the registered general would, with those amendments, still need the approval of the Gender Recognition Panel, so the effect would be the same. The aim of keeping the current legislation in place is to protect vulnerable young people from making life-altering decisions, while protecting women and girls from bad-faith actors that might take advantage of those changes. Amendment 2 retains the Gender Recognition Panel specifically, as there is not enough evidence supporting the removal of the panel. Even though we recognise and acknowledge the issues that some people have had with the panel, we believe that, overall, the panel provides a system of safeguarding and gatekeeping. We also believe that more evidence should be required before removing it. Currently, there is just not enough evidence to suggest that the registered general alone should be responsible for the administration of the Gender Recognition Certificates. Amendment 3 retains the need for a medical diagnosis. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria can distinguish between bad actors. Women's Rights Network Scotland has told us that removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis could lead to an abuse of the system by bad-faith actors—particularly predatory men—that we have heard from colleagues earlier. My amendment 4 retains the need for one to have lived for two years in the acquired gender, while maintaining that the applicant is at least 18 years old. We believe that three months is too little time to take such an important decision. Distressed people can make lifelong decisions before medical professionals have had the chance to help them, especially when coupled with the lack of a gender dysphoria diagnosis. We all know that a lot can happen in two years, in particular when you are young and growing. The Scottish Government's decision to set a three-month period is entirely arbitrary and lacks evidence. Furthermore, a 16-year-old is too young to obtain a GRC and allowing them to make a life-altering decision after a short period of time could have negative consequences that are just not accounted for in the bill. The amendments 5 to 17 are all consequential amendments as a result of reverting back to the status quo. They remove sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and the schedule. That is necessary because of my first three amendments that remove sections 2, 3 and 4 of the bill. They mean that all those subsequent sections of the bill are no longer required. For example, the sections on further provision about applications and certificates is void when the status quo is retained because those sections are changing the provisions in the bill that I wish to remove. I hope that that clarifies the position for the committee. That is not just my position. A poll has indicated that only a minority of Scots support removing those safeguards. Only 19 per cent of Scots support reducing the age when one can obtain a GRC from 18 to 16, 25 per cent support cutting the waiting period from two years to three months and 26 per cent support removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis. The current safeguards exist in law are important and I, along with the majority of the Scottish public, recognise us and want them retained. I hope that the committee agrees to those amendments. I call Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 26 and other amendments in the group. My amendment seeks to retain the requirement to provide evidence to a company and application for a GRC. It would specifically retain sections from the 2004 act, ensuring that the legitimate concerns of parents, young people and gender identity experts regarding the removal of safeguards are addressed. The GRR bill would remove the requirement for medical evidence and reduce the period that applicants must live in their acquired gender before applying for a GRC from two years to three months. The Scottish Government wants a system for legal gender recognition based on a statutory declaration and not agenda dysphoria diagnosis. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary if she can cite evidence from other countries where the impact of reform has been evidential from these emerging policies. Can she also comment on the prediction that removing agenda dysphoria diagnosis will not extend GRCs to a much larger and diverse group such as predatory men? How will vulnerable individuals be supported without medical support? How will undiagnosed conditions be picked up? What evidence does the Scottish Government have that dropping the requirement to provide medical evidence is best for everyone? Surely that stance point is entirely subjective. Finally, why does anyone without gender dysphoria need to change their sex in law? NHS guidance says that social transition should only be considered where the approach is necessary for the alleviation of or prevention of clinically significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning. The young person is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition. Doctors caring for youngsters distressed about their gender have been told that this is not a neutral act to help them transition socially by using their preferred new names or pronouns. The draft guidelines say that doctors should carefully explore underlying health problems, including mental ill health, amid concerns that the NHS is rushing children on to irreversible puberty blocker medication. A significant proportion of children and young people who are concerned about or distressed by issues of gender incongruence experience coisting mental health, neurodevelopmental and or family or social complexities in their lives. A number of doctors, including Dr Anthony Latham, chair of the Scottish Council on Human Biorethics, Dr Ann Williams, vice chair of the Scottish Council on Human Biorethics and Dr Callum McKellor, director of research at the same institute, said that, unfortunately, the stage 1 report on the gender recognition reform Scotland bill, which was published by the Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament on 6 October, has not sufficiently considered the evidence of mental disorders, which are often present with gender dysphoria. As a result, the recommendations given by the majority of MSPs preparing the report are unsafe and should be rejected. In summary, the majority position in the report from the Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is unworthy of the high expectations of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people, since it is unreasonable and professional and does not sufficiently address the biomedical evidence. Moreover, the Scottish Parliament does not accept the majority view of the committee in removing the requirement of a medical opinion before gender transitioning takes place. That will lead to some young persons being harmed. Moreover, research shows that many children with gender dysphoria have significant psychological and physiosocial vulnerabilities. Thus, without a medical appraisal, it is very unlikely that many young persons may embark on risky life-changing procedures which they do not understand. This is all more concerning, since follow-up studies indicate that, overall, the distress experienced by young people affected by gender dysphoria disappears in about 85 per cent of cases, either before or early in puberty, though the rates and studies vary widely. With regard to living in the acquired gender, three months is too short a time for such a life-changing decision, especially for 16 and 17-year-olds who are going through significant changes such as puberty and exams. Furthermore, living in the acquired gender for just three months without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria may not be enough time for an individual to seek medical help or support with mental health, if needed. It appears that many stakeholders are concerned that clarity is required over what living in an acquired gender even means. Two years provides sufficient safeguarding. Thank you and Maggie Chapman. Thanks very much Joe. It may surprise colleagues that I want to speak in this grouping, but I will be supporting amendment number 14. Taken on its own, amendment 14 removes the specific criminal offence introduced by the bill of making a false declaration in relation to one's trans status. We heard from several people and organisations in evidence sessions, Children's Commissioner, Amnesty International, Just Right and Ingender, that the specific offence is unnecessary. It already is a criminal offence under the Criminal Law Consolidation Scotland Act 1995 to make a false statutory declaration, and the introduction of a new offence risks unnecessarily criminalising children. However, there is another reason not to have this offence. Having a specific offence that names trans people specifically potentially makes an already marginalised and vulnerable group more of a target for litigation. So, for very different reasons to see whether, and from a very different place of principle and value, I will vote in favour of the removal of section 14 from the bill. Thanks, convener. I just wanted to speak briefly on these amendments before by Sue Weber and Rachel Hamilton. As I said in previous interventions, I think that stage 2 will allow us to find a lot of compromise, and I will still take this opportunity before he presses the other amendments later on for Russell Family to work with the Government. However, in this particular area, I think that this is the core of the bill that we are talking about here, and some of the evidence that we heard in committee about needing medical permission for people to be who they are is really against the grain of the bill. I will not get into the whole debates around the three-month period, because I know, convener, that time is tight and that those issues have been debated quite thoroughly. However, in terms of the process for an application, I cannot agree with those amendments at all. I think that they go to the core of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to make life better for trans people, and we have to keep that core. While I really do want to find compromise as we move forward through this bill, and I know that the Government does well, I cannot support those amendments. Thank you, convener. Similarly to my colleague Fulton MacGregor, I would like to put on record that we will be voting no to the amendments in this section today on the basis that they undermine the purpose and principle of the legislation that we are trying to discuss today. We will be voting against amendments 2, 3 to 17 and 26. The effects of amendments 2 to 17 in the name of Sue Webber are obviously not in keeping with the general principles of the bill, as agreed to by the majority of this committee and a clear majority of the Parliament at stage 1, including members of all parties. Amendment 26 in the name of Rachel Hamilton presumes that Sue Webber's amendments would be passed and it would remove the requirement for medical reports submitted to agenda recognition panel to include details of treatment for the purpose of modifying sexual characteristics which the applicant has undergone, is undergoing or has been prescribed or planned for them. The other requirements relating to medical reports in the 2004 act would remain. Rachel Hamilton had asked a question about international evidence and just briefly to point out that the committee itself looked at this. I think that one of the people giving evidence to the committee was the United Nations independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. They gave evidence that some of the theoretical concerns that were raised in the process of adopting those processes have not materialised in the numerous countries that have implemented similar systems. Of course, the committee's report noted that the majority recognised that when asked about evidence of abuse and concerns that there was no witness was able to provide concrete examples from the committee's report directly. In short, the Parliament has shown their support for the principles and purpose of the bill, which has shown in the long title of the bill aims to reform the grounds and procedure for obtaining gender recognition and for connected purposes. I urge members to vote against those amendments. Thank you, convener. I would like to make reference to the comments from Fulton MacGregor and the cabinet secretary regarding the comments about the series of amendments that are against the principles of the bill. We, too, want to safeguard and make sure that people who are trans people can go through this process in a streamlined and secure way possible. We do not want to make life more challenging for those people, and I want to make that clear. A person can go through a range of life experiences in two years, as I mentioned, schooling, changes to family and moving to different parts of the country, puberty to name but a few. Having the safeguards in place will make sure that the right decisions are made. Those are life-altering decisions that those people can be taken. They are not reversible, and that is something that we need to look long and hard at. Given the comments that we have had and the feedback from discussions with my colleagues, I will look to only press amendment 2, convener, and with that, I will conclude my comments. The question therefore is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All members who wish to vote for, please raise your hands. All those against, please raise. I think that there are no amendments. Okay, so that is 2, 4 and 5 against, with zero abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 84 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul to move or not move? I call amendment 85 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul to move or not move? I call amendment 115 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, grouped with amendment 116. I call amendment 115 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, grouped with amendment 116. Pam Duncan-Glancy to move amendment 115 and speak to both amendments in the group. I have brought this amendment because I do not think that it is fair to exclude asylum seekers from the process. My amendment explicitly adds them to the bill and I encourage members to vote for amendment 115 in my name for that reason. I call amendment 116 and other amendments in the group. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee's stage 1 report highlighted that there is uncertainty among stakeholders about what ordinarily resident means in practice. Amendment 116 seeks to clarify from the Scottish Government what it means to be ordinarily resident in Scotland for the purpose of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. The intention is to provide clarity but also a safeguard to prevent the potential for GRC tourism. The explanatory notes for the Gender Recognition Reform Bill states that the term ordinarily resident is not defined by the bill and thus takes its normal meaning. That normal meaning is determined largely by case law and specifically the SHA test. The policy memorandum for the bill suggests that a person is ordinarily resident in a place if they have lived there on a settled basis lawfully and voluntarily but it also states that whether a person is ordinarily resident in Scotland will depend on their individual circumstances. While the Scottish Government has emphasised that the concept is used in 17 acts of the Scottish Parliament as well as UK legislation, it is clear that the term is not understood more widely. In her evidence to the committee, I note that human rights lawyer Jen Ang, with Just Rights Scotland, which I understand is partly funded by the Scottish Government, emphasised that the term ordinarily resident is used differently in different parts of legislation. When it is included in a piece of legislation, it is important to define what it means specifically. It is not even to avoid unintended consequences, it is just to make it clear to everyone who is physically in Scotland whether the procedure is available to them. In Ireland, where self-id has been in place since 2015, ordinary residents is also used to determine eligibility for applying for a GRC. However, the definition of ordinarily resident in Ireland is that you have been living in Ireland for at least a year or you intend to live here for at least one year. My amendment mirrors that approach and I would be grateful if the minister could indicate whether such an approach was considered when the bill was being drafted. I further note that the student awards agency Scotland website states that the Scottish Government expects someone who is ordinarily resident in Scotland to have made their home in Scotland with the intention of staying and living here and not just to undertake a course of study. I will briefly address Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment 115, which attempts to clarify the definition of ordinary residents in relation to refugees. I know that the committee considered this issue during the evidence that it took on the bill and sought further clarity from the Scottish Government. I am supportive of Pam Duncan Glancy's policy intention in this area. I urge the committee to consider defining ordinarily residents on the face of the bill so that it is clear from the outset who is able to apply and to prevent the potential for misuse. Finally, the concept of ordinary residents engages the question of fact and degree, as well as intention. The fact that the Scottish Government has chosen not to define ordinary residents on the face of the bill at the outset does not prevent it doing so now. I suspect that the Government has pursued the approach that it has on this concept so that a great deal will go into guidance or its equivalent. Which MSPs are enabled to scrutinise during the parliamentary passage of the bill? As such, I will press amendment 116. I want to thank Pam Duncan Glancy and Tess White for their very constructive amendments. We are happy to support asylum seekers being introduced into this measure as asylum seekers can be classified ordinarily resident in Scotland. I would also urge members to support my colleague Tess White's amendments, which would strengthen the definition of ordinarily resident to provide clarity for everyone, including asylum seekers. The committee stage 1 report asked for clarity on the phrase ordinarily resident in Scotland. We provided that in our response. For today's purposes, I will reiterate again that ordinarily resident is an established concept within several areas of law. As Tess White herself indicated, it is used in at least 17 acts of the Scottish Parliament and many more UK acts. That includes section 3C of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, which in relation to Scotland enables certain persons to apply under an alternative track for a GRC if they are in a marriage solemnised in Scotland or a civil partnership registered in Scotland. One of the conditions for such an application is that the applicant is ordinarily resident in Scotland. Amendment 115, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, seeks to include a person who is seeking asylum in Scotland within the definition of ordinarily resident. Let me begin by saying that I am of course very sympathetic to the concerns expressed during stage 1 about the potential that asylum seekers living in Scotland might not meet the requirement of being ordinarily resident. An asylum seeker does not seek asylum in Scotland but in the UK through immigration laws that are reserved. As I have just said, ordinarily resident is an established concept in law and it is the case that under the UK asylum and immigration system some asylum seekers may not meet the test of being ordinarily resident. In addition, asylum seeker applicants who are not ordinarily resident in Scotland and who have not been born in Scotland have a tenuous connection with this jurisdiction, which raises a competence issue. There is also case law that has confirmed that a failed asylum seeker is not ordinarily resident because they do not meet the requirement that residents must be lawful. I have highlighted the committee's comments about asylum seekers and correspondence to UK ministers and await their reply. I would also like to say that there is still a route open to asylum seekers to gain legal recognition. Although they may not meet the residency criteria within our process, they may be able to apply under the 2004 act as it would apply in the remainder of the UK, as it does not specify a requirement for ordinary residents within the UK. Unfortunately, I must ask the committee not to support this amendment for those reasons. I will now turn to amendment 116 in the name of Tess White, which seeks to strictly define the term ordinarily resident in Scotland as being limited to those persons who have been living or intend to live in Scotland for a minimum period of one year. Having an intention to live in Scotland does not satisfy those tests to be ordinarily resident. Tess White's aim to redefine the term go beyond the criteria that is established in law against which on individual circumstances are assessed for whether they are ordinarily resident, namely that the residence is voluntary for settled purposes and lawful without any necessary period of time to be established. For those reasons, I urge the committee not to support this amendment. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answers. I note concerns around some of the competency of this, but I believe that we need to send a signal that asylum seekers are welcome to apply for this process. Therefore, if the cabinet secretary would consider that in Tess White's amendment 116, where the requirement is that they intend to be here for longer than a year, I would imagine that most asylum seekers would make that declaration and believe it to be true at the time. On that basis, would the cabinet secretary consider supporting that amendment? In response to Pam Duncan-Glancy, the issue is less about that and the basis of which asylum seekers are here in Scotland and the fact that they are here under immigration legislation. What I would be prepared to do is to work further with Pam Duncan-Glancy to see if there is a way to work through this and perhaps to try and elicit a response from the UK Government in advance of stage 3 to be able to discuss this further to see if there is anything that we can do within the competency of this bill if Pam Duncan-Glancy was minded not to press it at this stage. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and I appreciate that. I am tempted to press at this stage because I want to put it on the record the strength of feeling for asylum seekers to be included in the bill, but I also would welcome discussions further at stage 3, particularly if this particular issue is not addressed in the committee today. I therefore do press this amendment. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed all those in favour of 115 and all those against and abstentions. That is four votes for and three votes against the amendment that is therefore agreed to. I now call amendment 116, in the name of Tess White, already debated with 115, Tess White to move or not move. I move 116, convener. So the question is that 116 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We will go to a vote. All those who wish to vote for, please raise your hands. All those against. That is three for and four against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 86, in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83, Ros McAul to move or not move. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I now call amendment 117, in the name of Carl Mawkin, already debated with amendment 18. Carl Mawkin to move or not move. I call amendment 87, in the name of Maggie Chapman, grouped with amendments 88, 89, 91 and 141. I draw members' attention to the procedural information relating to this group, as set out in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 91 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 121 due to a preemption. Maggie Chapman to move amendment 87 and speak to all amendments in this group. I have made no secret of my opposition to any waiting times for the GRC application process. As we have heard repeatedly in evidence, the three-month periods of living in the acquired gender before an application and three-month reflection period following an application before it is granted are arbitrary, unnecessary and unusual. I will start with the last amendment in this group, amendment 141. As I appreciate, I am unlikely to attract cross-party support for abolishing both the time periods completely. Amendment 141 calls for a review of the impacts of these time periods on trans people themselves. If we retain the time periods in any form, we do so knowing that we are going against international best practice and against the advice and guidance of trans people and the organisations that directly support them. We should put in place a clear mechanism for reviewing the impacts of these time periods on trans people themselves specifically. That is what amendment 141 does. On the other amendments in the group, amendment 87, 88, 89 and 91 come from a position of principle that we should recognise the autonomy of trans people and that they know their own minds. Changing one's legal gender is not something that one does on a whim. Indeed, the discussions that we have had and will have about ensuring the gravity of making such a statutory declaration is understood make that even clearer. Changing one's legal gender is not done likely and those applying for a GRC will likely have thought about, considered and reflected upon this decision for months, if not years, before they get to the point of putting in an application for a GRC. They are likely to have completed many other aspects of their transition over the course of several months or years before applying for legal gender recognition. Having spoken to young trans people themselves, as Dr Mary Crawford of LGBT Youth Scotland does regularly, she said in a committee evidence session that young people tell us that before they come out they have already done an awful lot of reflection to understand their true gender. Then they come out, usually to a safe group and they build up from that. By the time they look to apply for a gender recognition certificate, they have been living in their quiet gender for quite some time. Only Belgium and Denmark have a reflection period in place. We heard evidence that in Denmark, where there is a six month reflection period, the trans community considered patronising and were unsure of what they should be reflecting on. Having listened to trans people, they are now plans to remove this reflection period completely. If we are trying to give trans people more agency and autonomy over their legal gender status in the bill, it seems completely counter to the intention to impose another standard of authority by imposing a waiting period on them. We are telling trans people that we don't believe them when they tell us who they are. We are telling trans people that we do not think that they do know their own minds. We should not be doing that. I urge my committee colleagues to assert that trans people do know their own minds and support my amendments. Given that I have submitted amendments that intend to increase the period in which someone must live in the quiet gender to the status quo, I not only believe that the current proposal by the Scottish Government of three months is inadequate, but the absence of any reflection period could lead to young and distressed people rushing into life decision changes that they may later regret. That is especially true if it is coupled with medical alterations such as hormone, puberty blockers and surgery. Furthermore, a reflection period could prevent so-called bad faith actors from taking advantage of these changes and intruding into single sex spaces. Weakening the provisions in the bill would make it even worse, so I cannot support amendments 87, 88 and 89. However, I am happy to support one for one because I believe that it is important that the Scottish Government reviews the period in which a trans person is required to live in the acquired gender, although I know that Maggie Chapman wishes to lower the period of time and I want to raise it. I think that we can both find common ground that reviewing the evidence will allow for a more informed decision from the Scottish Government to be made in the future. I agree that the majority of people who know their own minds and many, and I have met them, have been living in a different gender for a long time before they would ever apply for gender recognition, but it is the majority that you are saying. However, there are other people who will be transitional who will have to have a period of thought about it, and I am looking at the balance. Those who already know—if they have already been living in that for years—will have nothing to them because they can demonstrate what they have been doing for years. It is the same with the 16 and 17-year-olds for six months in advance and the reflection period, but there are people for whom I want to have a little safeguard, particularly 16 and 17-year-olds. In no way does I take away from the autonomy of individuals. I met parents of a child of 10 who knew they were really a girl, and he transitioned to she at primary. I have been talking to people in both directions about this before I came with these amendments. What I am looking for here in law is something that works for as many people as possible and provides safeguards. That is the only reason that I would say to Maggie Chapman that I think that we cannot take away all protections and just say that, or safeguards. Let me begin by saying that I know that those amendments reflect the views of Maggie Chapman that the time period for living in your required gender as well as the reflection period should be removed. That is a position taken by her throughout the passage of the bill and in our discussions on the matter. Of course, I respect that, just as I do the other views expressed during the passage of the bill, even if I do not agree with them. I note that there are views that the time period should be longer or removed entirely, or that the reflection period should be removed, but usually with an increase in the time period for living in the acquired gender. I have not seen an alternative to our proposals that would be accepted and kept to the principles of reforming the process. I consider the current requirement for applicants to provide evidence that they have been living in their required gender for a period of two years before applying to be unnecessarily long. A reduction in the time period to three months followed by the three-month reflection period represents a review of a balanced and proportionate way of improving the system. Six months of living in the acquired gender for 16-17-year-olds of Christine Grahame's amendments are accepted. However, I have considered that the reflection period could be a disproportionate barrier to people in the circumstances that they are at the end of life. I appreciate that an important benefit of legally changing your gender is ensuring that your death is registered in the gender in which you lived. That is why I have lodged an amendment to the bill so that an applicant at the end of life can apply for a dispensation from the three-month reflection period that will be taken in a later grouping. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 87, 88, 89 and 91. However, I agree with Maggie Chapman that it will be important to keep that under review. There are, of course, several amendments that have been lodged to review and report on the operation and impact of the bill across a number of areas that we will get to later in the session. In that group, I am happy to support and urge the committee to support. It will be necessary for us to consider carefully what is possible and appropriate for us to gather information and data about and the impact of the time periods on trans people going through the application process is certainly an area that we can take forward. I therefore support amendment 141 in principle, but I would look to work with Maggie Chapman and other members ahead of stage 3 to ensure that any report and review amendments agreed at stage 2 coalesce around the same time frame. Maggie Chapman, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 87. Just for clarity, Rachael Hamilton talked about medical procedures and therapies. Just to be clear, this has got nothing to do with an application for gender recognition certificate. No medical process is required or expected as part of the gender recognition application process and no GRC is required to undergo any medical transition. On Christine Graham's comments, I do believe that you are sincere in her endeavours and her position on this issue. I think that we just fundamentally disagree how we come at that. Finally, I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments and for the many interesting and helpful conversations that we have had on this and other issues in this bill over the last many months. I acknowledge her comments about the amendment that will come to later, about provisions for end-of-life, and I thank her for those. I also thank her for her comments about amendment 141. However, I will be pressing my amendments that seek to remove the three-month, living-in-acquired gender period and the three-month reflection period. I will press amendment 87. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, that is not agreed. All those in favour of amendments 87, please raise your hand and all those against. That is one for six against. That amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 88 in the name of Maggie Chapman, already debated with amendment 87 to move or not move. Is that agreed? All those in favour of amendment 88, please show and all those against. That is one for and six against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 38 in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 18. Christine Grahame to move or not move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I think that I have some nos. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? All those in favour, please raise your hand and all those against and abstentions. The vote is three for three against and one abstention and I will cast my vote, casting vote, for. The amendment is therefore agreed to. I vote you said three for three against and one abstention and I will therefore use my casting vote to vote for and so therefore the amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 89 in the name of Maggie Chapman, already debated with amendment 87, Maggie Chapman to move or not move. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is not agreed. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand and all those against. It is one in favour, six against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 3 in the name of Sue Webber, already debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move or not move. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is agreed. I call amendment 39 in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 18. Christine Grahame to move or not move. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is not agreed. All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those against and amendments, so that is three, four, three against and one abstention, so again I will use my casting vote so the amendment is agreed to. The question is I call amendment 40 in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 18. Christine Grahame to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is not agreed. We will go to a vote. All the members who wish to vote for, please raise your hand. All those against. Abstention. That is again three, three, one. I therefore use my casting vote to vote for, so the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 41 in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 18. Christine Grahame to move or not move. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is not agreed. We will go to a vote. All the members who wish to vote for, please raise your hand. All those against, please raise your hand. Abstention. Thank you. That vote is three, four, three against and one abstention. I will use my casting vote for and the amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 118 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 114. Russell Finlay to move or not move. I call amendment 119 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 114. The question is that amendment 120 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 18. Martin Whitfield to move or not move. I'm grateful, convener. Given the indication from the Government, I'll not move at this stage. Thank you. That's not moved. I therefore call amendment 42, in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 18. I remind members that if amendment 42 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19 because of a preemption. Christine Grahame, to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's not agreed. We therefore move to a vote. All members wish to vote for, please raise your hands. All those who wish to vote against, please raise your hands. And abstentions. Okay, that's three, four, three against and one abstention. So I'll use my casting vote to vote for and the amendment is therefore agreed. So we therefore move straight to amendment 90, in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAll, to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. Thank you. Call amendment 43, in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 18. Christine Grahame, to move or not move. Moved, please. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. We therefore move to a vote. All members who wish to vote for, please raise your hands. All those against and abstentions. Okay, that's three, four, three against and one abstention. I therefore use my casting vote to vote for and the amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 91, in the name of Maggie Chapman, debated with amendment 87. Maggie Chapman, to move or not move. Moved. As amendment 91 would preempt, amendment 121, I will not put the question on amendment 91 until amendment 121 has been debated. That said, we've come to a natural break. There's no points of order, but do you want to make a point? Yes, I would appreciate that. It's been noted on social media that a member of the public who was present was wearing a scarf from the colours of purple, white and green and has been asked to either remove the scarf or leave the room. Can I seek some guidance? I'm going to suspend the meeting and we'll have a discussion about that in private. We're suspending the meeting and we'll discuss that. It's important to seek some guidance as to why this happened. Thank you. I call amendment 21, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, grouped with amendments 1, 2, 22 and 28. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move amendment 121 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 154, which is yet to come in my name, sets out that, before someone applies to the Registrar General, they must make a statutory declaration signed by a Justice of the Peace, a solicitor, notary public or commissioner for oaths or any authorised other professional, that they are telling the truth and are fulfilling the criteria set out in the act. My amendment in this group, 1, 2, 2, sets out that it is an offence to knowingly make a statutory declaration that is false. Together with amendment 154, I believe that those amendments should be crucial to help to build support for the bill. Statured declarations are serious legal documents, carry great weight and the public have confidence in them in other situations. As I have said on the record in the past, we need reform with a law that works for trans people is administrative in nature and carries the confidence of the public with it. In being signed by respect to group people, statutory declarations are a well-known mechanism in which we trust and could help people to understand that this process is serious. The Government has not made this part of the process as clear to the public as necessary, including the seriousness of it, and my amendment seeks to address this. Amendment 121 and 122 makes it clear that, if at the time someone made a declaration, they did not intend to comply with that criteria, they are committing a serious criminal offence. Graeme Simpson, to speak to amendment 22 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I will not be quite as brief as Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I will try to keep it as brief as possible. I have a couple of amendments in the group, convener. In my view, they are quite straightforward. The bill proposes that it will be a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration or false application. A person who commits such an offence is liable to imprisonment for up to two years and or they will get fine. However, what is not clear is what would constitute making a false declaration nor what prosecutors would have to prove should a person be accused of doing so. You might say that it is obvious, is not it? If I were to say that I had been living as a woman for three months and I had not, I would not be telling the truth. Of course, as we will come to in later amendments, it is not clear at all from this bill what living as a woman or a man means legally. If I take something belonging to you, convener, that would constitute theft and I could be prosecuted. Had I broken the speed limit to get over to Edinburgh then I could face penalty points and if I tried to pin the blame on someone else for that offence, that would be a lie and I could be done for that. However, how would I prove that if I say that I had been living as a woman that I would be lying? Given that we do not know what living as a woman means in this bill and it is pretty difficult to establish if I were telling the truth, this bill creates a serious offence punishable by imprisonment. It is surely incumbent on ministers to set out what would constitute making a false declaration. Amendment 22 compels them to do that. It also compels them to set out what evidence would have to be provided to show that someone had lied. If ministers cannot do any of that then it is difficult to see how an offence can be prosecuted because we simply do not know what the offence is. If we do not know what would constitute an offence because we do not know how to prove or disprove it then there can be no offence. I say to those who are in favour of the bill, which I think is the majority of this committee, that it needs to be much tighter. Reject amendment 22 and there will be legal challenges galore coming along the tracks. If the committee is minded to accept the amendment then amendment 28 makes any regulations tabled as a result to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which gives an extra layer of parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome the conversations that I have had with Pam Duncan-Glancy about amendments requiring the statutory declaration to include confirmation that the applicant understands that making a false statutory declaration is an offence. It may be circular for the declaration about understanding that making a false statutory declaration is an offence to then be subject to the offence provision itself. However, I consider that Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment will be an additional measure to ensure that the applicant is aware that making a false statutory declaration is an offence just as the notary public or justice of the peace administering the statutory declaration is required to ensure that the person understands the contents of what they are signing. It is already an offence to knowingly make a false statutory declaration with the maximum penalty for both the offence being imprisonment for up to two years or an unlimited fine or both. The offence provision in section 14 of the bill also already provides that the offence is made if the declaration or other information in an application is false in a material particular and it is the same position for the existing offence. The amendments proposed by Graham Simpson would require ministers to make regulations about what would constitute a false statutory declaration and the evidence required. However, as the committee will be aware, prosecutorial policy is for the Lord Advocate rather than ministers and, as with any criminal offence, it would be a matter for the police and the procurator of fiscal to demonstrate and the courts to determine where an offence has been committed in any individual case. Graham Simpson has made reference to living in the acquired gender but, of course, the point here is that there is no change to what living in an acquired gender means. It is exactly the same as in the 2004 act. The requirement is not about looking or dressing a certain way but about the ways in which a person may demonstrate their lived gender to others. In that respect, as I said, it does not change the position that applies in the current 2004 act under which examples of appropriate evidence of living in the acquired gender include updating official documents such as updating driving licence or passport utility, bills or bank accounts and there are a number of other examples given within the 2004 legislation. With all of that said, I therefore urge the committee not to support amendments 22 and 28. I now move to Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 121. I thank the cabinet secretary for the response and for the helpful conversations that we have had around my amendments in this group and I press amendment 121. That is pressed but before putting the question on that amendment I will first put the question on amendment 91, which has already been moved by Maggie Chapman. The question is that amendment 91 in the name of Maggie Chapman be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour, please vote. All those against and abstentions. That is one, four and six against and no abstentions. It is therefore not agreed to. I now put the question on amendment 121, which has already been moved by Pam Duncan-Glancy, so the question is that amendment 121 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 44 in the name of Christine Grahame, who is already debated with amendment 18, Christine Grahame to move or not move moved. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. Therefore, I move to a vote. All members who wish to vote for, please vote. All those against and abstentions. That is three, four, three against and one abstention. I will use my casting vote to vote for, so the amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 122 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, who is already debated with amendment 121, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 45 in the name of Michael Marra, grouped with amendments 48 and 154. Michael Marra, to move amendment 45 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendments 45 and 48 seek to address concerns of the broad public regarding the robustness of the legislation. We are absolutely clear that Scotland requires a better system for trans people. There has already been discussion this morning around bad faith actors. I believe that the system that is proposed could be improved to command broader public support across Scotland. The system must be robust for trans people and for non-trans people. In particular, we must recognise the very real concerns of women regarding the possibility of abuse of the system. The legislation is not a mere amendment to the 2004 act. The demedicalisation of the process, which Labour supports, is a profound change to the nature of the process, and it opens it up very considerably. The Government recognises that and, in fact, it is one of the core purposes of the bill. As such, that requires a different manner of safeguard against those who might abuse the legislation. A balance must be struck as it stands. I believe that more could be done to achieve that. My amendment is modelled on the process for obtaining a passport. That is a well understood and commonly respected process for changing your personal details. It applies to every single one of us. When you change this documentation, you require a signature from a person of good standing whom you know. The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that an application is made as part of the community rather than as a solitary individual. I am happy to thank the cabinet secretary and our officials for their engagement on the amendment. The cabinet secretary has indicated so far that the statutory declaration is a sufficient safeguard. I ask her to put her thinking on this on the record at this stage. I believe that that reasoning has not particularly featured in that regard in any of the discussion of the bill in consultation and ministerial correspondence in the stage 1 report or in the stage 1 debate. It would be good to hear the rationale from the cabinet secretary at this time. I have concerns that a statutory declaration on its own could be seen as transactional. It amounts to a small fee being paid to a lawyer to witness a signature and to say that existing identity documents have been produced. It is not about knowing someone. The broader effect of the amendment would be to raise the bar for bad actors and it can increase the confidence for trans people seeking recognition. I am keen to hear from other members and the cabinet secretary on the sufficiency of the statutory declaration as part of the existing proposed legislation and on the rationale for a passport system being too high a bar for this process but being appropriate in the case of changing personal details for every member of the public. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to speak to amendment 154 and other amendments in the group. I thank the convener for that. As I said previously, amendment 154 in my name sets out that, before someone applies to the registrar general, they must make a statutory declaration signed by justice of the peace, a solicitor and other republic or a commissioner for oath or any other authorised professional that they are telling the truth and are fulfilling the criteria in the act. My amendment in the previous group set out that it was an offence to knowing that they make a statutory declaration that is false and I move amendment 154 in my name. I am happy to support all amendments in this group. Amendments 45 and 48 add a new safeguard to the bill that would require a process of counter signatures to accompany any new application for a gender recognition certificate. Similar to the process when applying for a passport. While the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting this amendment, we would also like to be clear that this safeguard is not enough but is an improvement on the existing provision in the bill, which is why we will support it. I would prefer that the existing safeguards that currently exist in the law were retained as my colleagues have already set out, in particular keeping the age at which one can apply for a GRC to 18, the period in which one has to live in an acquired gender remaining at two years and the need for a medical diagnosis when applying for a GRC. However, Michael Marra's amendments are an improvement on the bill as drafted, so I am content to support. Amendment 154 provides a concrete definition of what a statutory declaration entail. Again, I would put on record that I do not think that this is enough. Applications should also be accompanied with an associated medical diagnosis and a longer period of time lived in the acquired gender. However, given that the Scottish Government has failed to properly define what a statutory declaration entails, amendment 154 at least provides a definition that already exists in the law and has been used for some time, namely the definition provided in the statutory declaration act 1835. That hopefully provides more clarity than the bill has drafted, which is why I am happy to support. Thank you. Michael Marra's amendments are very problematic in this grouping. One of the key principles of the bill is that of self-declaration, that trans people should be able to get a gender recognition certificate by a process of self-identification. That is what over two thirds of us agreed at stage 1 a couple of weeks ago. Amendment 48 would require a person from a listed recognised profession who has known the applicant for at least two years to counter-sign the trans person's application. That is fundamentally at odds with the idea that the bill is based on the principle of self-declaration. It creates additional barriers to legal recognition for some trans people. For the avoidance of doubt, statutory declarations are not something that you can make to a friend or a neighbour on a whim. They are sworn statements made under oath and witnessed by either a justice of the peace, local councillor or notary public. Making a false statutory declaration carries a sentence of up to two years in prison. That is already a significant and serious step. There is, in my opinion, and that of many who work with and support trans people, as well as trans people themselves, no value in requiring an additional step through councillor's signatories. Michael Marra makes the equation with the passport application process, but passport applications do not require a statutory declaration, simply a witness. 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 according to the list in amendment 48, who has known them for two years. I do not think that this should prevent them from obtaining legal recognition of who they are. I would strongly ask colleagues to vote against those amendments. I can not think myself able to support Michael Marra's amendments here. I do not think that the analogy of being similar to passports is a good one, because the purpose of the bill is to make the process easier for trans people. That is at the core of the bill, as I spoke about earlier. He talks about raising the bar for bad faith actors. We have had a discussion about bad faith actors, and I think that we need to use this process, both stage 2 and stage 3, to, as Pam Duncan-Glancy's previous amendment looked at, and I think that we need to do more on that. However, this particular amendment raises the bar for all trans people and therefore goes against the whole principles of the bill, which the committee has taken a lot of evidence on and produced a stage 1 report on. Therefore, I would not be supporting those amendments. I will be voting against Michael Marra's amendments here. It is really problematic in that it is very middle-class focused. We really have to look at the variety of people that will be coming forward for a GRC. Those amendments are not inclusive of those people from various different backgrounds. We have to be careful. Sometimes we say the words safeguarding when, in fact, it is gatekeeping. That is what I feel this is. It is certainly gatekeeping. It is against all principles of the bill. Gender recognition reform is to make the process more progressive and easier for trans people to obtain a gender recognition certificate. I do not believe that those amendments will do that, so I will be voting against them. Let me begin by taking a moment to set out the process as you have had from me in writing. Before making an application to the Registrar General, the person must first make a statutory declaration. In the statutory declaration, the applicant must declare that they are aged at least 16, are born or are ordinarily resident in Scotland, have lived in their acquired gender for at least the previous three months, or six months for 16, 17-year-olds, and intend to live permanently in their acquired gender. A statutory declaration is an existing feature of the current process for obtaining legal gender recognition and one that we are maintaining in our system. A statutory declaration is a serious and significant matter, and in Scotland statutory declarations under the bill will be made in the presence of a notary public or a justice of the peace. Guidance is provided by the Law Society of Scotland to solicitors on acting as a notary public. The notary must be satisfied as to the identity of the applicant based on evidence if the person is not known to them, and they must be satisfied that the applicant understands the contents of the statutory declaration. That could require photographic identification such as passport or driving licence. A statutory declaration is like an affidavit and is a formal statement that something is true to the best of the knowledge of the person making the declaration. It is provided for by the long-standing statutory declarations act 1835 and is an accepted way of establishing facts in numerous official contexts. It is a criminal offence to knowingly make a false statutory declaration or provide false information in an application, and the maximum penalty for these offences is imprisonment for up to two years or an unlimited fine or indeed both. Once a person has made the required statutory declaration, he must then provide that to the registrar general when they make an application for a GRC with all of the safeguards associated with that stage. I welcome the discussion that I had with Michael Marra about his proposed amendments. However, I consider that the statutory declaration is sufficient as amendments do not materially add to the requirement to make a statutory declaration. Indeed, as others have said, they add further barriers for a person to access their rights with a prescriptive list of recognised professions within amendment 48. I do have concerns about the countersigning requirement that might work in practice. For example, where an individual has been living in their required gender for a long time, it might require them to disclose their trans status to someone that they have known for years, so they might be completely unaware of that. I understand that applying for your passport involves a countersignary process. However, applying for your passport does not involve making a statutory declaration. As I said earlier, that statutory declaration itself could well require photographic identification such as a passport or driving licence. Finally, the statutory declaration is clearly a higher threshold given that there are criminal offences associated with that. I get clarification on the point that you made about the notary public. I presume that that is in reference to witnesses of declaration of living in their required gender. Who are those notary public? Do they include city councillors? Well, notary publics are quite often solicitors. Justice of the peace can sometimes be city councillors, but they are well established in a number of pieces of legislation. The Law Society of Scotland has guidance to solicitors that are acting as a notary public. Thank you for that. Despite some murmurs from the side, city councillors can be included in that. Well, justice of the peace sometimes are city councillors, I think. Thank you. I now go to Michael Marra to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 45. Thanks to committee members for the feedback and the discussion of the amendment, particularly to take on board the constructive comments from Fulton MacGregor and Karen Adam regarding the specific detail. I disagree that it is in the more broad sense that it is against the principles of the bill. The bill, as it stands, significantly liberalises the process, and rightly so, in the demedicalisation that achieves that. This is about where the legislation currently stands and putting in place a further safeguard within that. I do not agree that it is against the principle of the bill. That being said, I am keen to look for a sensible centre ground that can command the broadest possible public support. I still think that there is work to be done in this area and to take on board those comments from colleagues. I would ask members to allow me to continue to pursue conversations with colleagues in committee and elsewhere. At this stage, I would ask to leave to withdraw the amendment. Thank you, Mr Marra. Mr Marra has asked to withdraw amendment 45. Is that agreed? Can I ask that this goes to the vote because I would like to see the conclusion of the committee at this stage? Okay. On that case, we go to the vote and the question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so all those who wish to vote for, please raise your hands. That was 45, yes. All those against and abstention, okay? That is 2 for, 4 against and 1 abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Call amendment 46, in the name of Christine Grahame, already debated with amendment 18. Christine Grahame, to move or not move. The question therefore is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so we go to the vote. All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those against and abstention. That is 3 for, 3 against and 1 abstention. I therefore use a casting vote to vote for and the amendment is therefore agreed to. Call amendment 123, in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 114. Russell Finlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so therefore move to the vote. All those in favour, please vote. All those against and abstentions. That is 2 for, 4 against and no abstention. That is 5 against, sorry, 2 for, 2 for, 5 against and no abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Call amendment 47, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. The first 10 amendments in this group seek a change in the bill as introduced. Currently, the bill requires the registrar general to grant an application for a gender recognition certificate if the applicant meets the requirements of the bill. That means that, if the registrar general considers that an application was fraudulent or that the applicant was not able to understand it, he would first have to issue the certificate if the applicant otherwise met the requirements and then applied to the sheriff for the certificate to be revoked. To avoid that situation, those 10 amendments would allow the registrar general to apply to the sheriff before a certificate is issued. That is much more appropriate than the registrar general first issuing certificate when applying to the sheriff for it to be revoked. The court would then determine whether the application should be rejected or should proceed. Amendment 67 adds to the grounds on which a person with an interest can apply for revocation of a GRC, specifically in the case of a confirmatory GRC if the overseas gender recognition was the basis for it, has subsequently ceased to have effect. If overseas gender recognition has been revoked for whatever reason, an application for revocation of the confirmatory GRC could be made. That is unlikely to be used frequently, but given that the overseas gender recognition is the basis for a confirmatory GRC, it is reasonable to provide for that eventuality. Finally, amendment 68 provides clarity that the standard of proof for an application to a sheriff is that on the balance of probabilities the GRC application was fraudulent. This is consistent with the usual standard of proof in a civil case rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. That is appropriate given the sheriff's decision in those cases on whether the GRC should be revoked or not on a criminal offence. I move amendment 47. Given that there are no other people indicating to speak, cabinet secretary, do you wish to wind up? I do not think that I have anything else to add, convener. Okay, and I take it that you are pressing the amendment. I will press, yes, thanks. Okay, so the question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 124 in the name of Martin Whitfield, already debated with amendment 18. Okay, so not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 20 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 20, 27, 29 and 30. Graham Simpson, to move amendment 20, I speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks again, convener. This section is called meaning of living in the acquired gender. It's pretty fundamental to the bill. I've searched high and low for an explanation of what has to happen if someone was to say, if a man was to say there were a woman. Surely the bill does not allow someone to simply say, a man to simply say, I'm a woman, get a certificate saying so without providing evidence of anything and then having that legally recognised through a change to a birth certificate or I'm missing something. I don't think I am. The bill says, I would have to live as a woman for three months. But if we're going to bring in a bill as fundamental to people's lives as this, then we need to be clear what is meant by it. The bill is woolly at best and that's not good enough. If we're going to allow people to make declarations that they've changed gender, then surely the law should say what is meant by that and the bill doesn't do that. Indeed the bill doesn't say anything about it, which is particularly concerning if we're moving towards a model of self identification. Surely something has to have changed in order for someone to say, I was a man but now I'm a woman or vice versa. Amendment 20 is another attempt by me to tighten up a bill that is full of holes. It does two things. Firstly, it says that ministers must say in regulations what they mean by living in the acquired gender. Secondly, they must say what changes would be considered evidence that a new gender has been acquired. Convener, it's not for me to say what such changes should be, just that there should be some. Otherwise, we'll be left with a situation where it's easier for predatory men to pray on women by pretending to be women because of having a certificate without any of the current safeguards that exist in law. A piece of paper, which, as the bill is currently drafted, proves precisely nothing. Amendment 27 makes those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and 29 and 30 are technical amendments, which are consequential. Living in the acquired gender means living your daily life in a gender that is different to your gender recorded at birth. In the context of the bill, this is the gender that you are living in when you 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 intend to do so for the rest of their life. The aim of the bill is to improve the process for those applying 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 based on the statutory declaration. As I indicated earlier, the requirement is not about looking or dressing a certain way, but about the ways in which a person may demonstrate their lived gender to others. In that respect, the bill does not change the position that applies in the current 2004 act, under which examples of appropriate evidence of living in the acquired gender include dating official documents such as up-dating driving licence or passport, utility bills or bank accounts. There are numerous other examples provided in the guidance to the 2004 act, which has now been in place for 18 years. I am interested in what the cabinet secretary is saying here. Can you spell out some of the numerous other examples? As the guidance to the 2004 act uses examples that include consistently using titles and pronouns in line with the acquired gender, updating the gender marker official documents such as 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 the acquired gender, using a name that is associated with the acquired gender. Those are examples of what could constitute living in the acquired gender. In this respect, the bill does not change the position that applies in the 2004 act currently. I do not consider that amendments that require applicants to provide evidence that have been living in the acquired gender beyond that of the statutory declaration would be in keeping with the general principles of the bill, as supported by the Parliament at stage 1, and would introduce another set of barriers to people. For that reason, I ask the committee to reject Graham Simpson's amendments. Rachel Hamilton is a question, cabinet secretary. It is again a point of clarification, cabinet secretary. On 6 October, the committee agreed that interpretations of living in the acquired gender could lead to reinforcing of gender stereotypes and that that would be unacceptable to enshrine in law. Do you agree with that? That is why I have just said that the requirement is not about looking or dressing a certain way, but about the ways in which a person may demonstrate their lived gender to others. I have given examples of how that might be done in documentation about how people are living their lives and are able to provide evidence of that. I think that the national records of Scotland will provide guidance to applicants on how to make an application and will be able to refer to some of those examples that are based on the guidance in the 2004 act. I will again clarify that that will be in the guidance for the register general, that there will be a definition of living in the acquired gender. We are going to try to provide as much information as possible, but it will be based on what is already in the 2004 act and those examples, but we want to provide as much clarity and information to people as possible. The register general website will have all of that information. Graeme Simpson, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 20. Thank you very much, convener. I always think that it is useful in stages 2 and 3 of a bill to listen to what is being said by people who you may have assumed you were disagreeing with. However, I think that there is probably some common ground between myself and the cabinet secretary. She may not realise it, but I actually think that there possibly is, and she can intervene on me at any point. In amendment 20, I was simply seeking to get the Government at some point to spell out what we mean by the acquired gender, because I have seen nothing of that until today, and the cabinet secretary listed a few things. I would be happy to work with the cabinet secretary ahead of stage 3 to see whether there is something that we could insert into the bill based on what she said that would help to clarify matters if she is prepared to do that, and I will invite her to respond to that. I have always taken an approach that I have kept an open door, and I have spoken to people across the chamber from all the political groupings around all those matters. I think that my principle here would be to not move beyond the examples given in the 2004 act, because I think that they provide clarity where we will want to make sure that people are aware. I take Graham Simpson's point about the different aspects that are highlighted and the information that we need to make sure that people are aware of. That is where, for example, every bit of information about the whole process can be put in the one place. We would be able to include those examples. Where I would be reluctant is to put anything on the face of the bill that goes beyond the 2004 act, but if there is any further information in guidance or on the website that Graham Simpson thinks would be helpful, of course I am happy to have that conversation. I am happy to have the conversation anyway, but I cannot guarantee that I would go beyond the 2004 act, but I am happy to speak to Graham Simpson further. I think that that is very helpful. I can see that cabinet secretary is struggling to agree with me, but on that base I am going to help her because I am going to engage with her. I will not press this amendment because I think that we can find some common ground. I hope that we can, ahead of stage 3. I think that that will be helpful to everyone. I think that, as members, no experienced members, no, certainly those of us who have been on the DPLR committee know that it is very difficult for not just MSPs, but members of the public to jump about between certain pieces of legislation. It is quite useful to have everything in one place. I will not press 20 on the basis that I think that we can work on something for stage 3. The member is seeking to withdraw amendment 20. Is that agreeable to the committee? That is. On that basis, I will move to amendment 4, in the name of Sue Webber, who is already debated with amendment 2. The question is, that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 48, in the name of Michael Marra, who is already debated with amendment 45. I call amendment 92, in the name of Ross McCall, who is already debated with amendment 83. Ross McCall, to move or not move. I call amendment 125, in the name of Russell Finlay, who is already debated with amendment 114, Russell Finlay, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is, that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so we move to vote. All those who wish to vote yes, please raise your hands. All those against, please vote. And abstentions, 2-4, 5 against and 0 abstentions. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 126, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move amendment 126, and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and if you'll give me a second to get to my correct notes pages for 1, 2, 6. The amendment 126, in my name, intends to ensure that people nearing the end of their life do not have to wait unnecessarily to have their gender recognised in legislation. I submitted the amendment because I believe that the reflection period should be waived for people in that situation. I recognise that the Government also has an amendment in this area, and I welcome their agreement to work on this for stage 3. The definition that I have included is the one used in social security in Scotland, and I think that it's a good one. I won't press this amendment, but I'd welcome the Government's agreement to working with us to ensure that people at the end of their life get a gender recognition certificate as quickly as possible, and to consider the definition of terminal illness that we have put forward as outlined in the social security legislation. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary to speak to amendment 49 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. Whilst not a specific recommendation of the stage 1 report, the committee did highlight differing views to the reflection period and invite me to consider it further. I've noted the stage 1 evidence that the reflection period could be a disproportionate barrier where an applicant is needing the end of their life because of illness. As I said in earlier groupings, where you remain of the view that the reduction in the minimum period of living in the acquired gender to three months, six months for 16, 17-year-olds, combined with the introduction of a three-month reflection period, represents a balanced and proportionate way of reducing the length of the overall process. However, in the response to the committee's stage 1 report, I undertook to introduce amendments to create a dispensation to allow the waving of the three-month reflection period in cases where the applicant is nearing the end of their life. The amendments in this group, in my name, create that dispensation. They have been developing consultation with the national records of Scotland and reflect the process and provisions for similar dispensations applying to marriage under the Marriage Scotland Act 1977. That would require the Registrar General to be satisfied that the applicant is gravely ill and not expected to recover. In practice, that would be established through a letter from the applicant's doctor confirming that and the detail of that would be set out in guidance. Again, that reflects the equivalent process with marriage applications. Amendment 73 also ensures that a fraudulent application for dispensation would also be included in the offence that is created by the bill. The amendment from Pam Duncan Glancy seems to have a similar goal, but it takes a different and, in my view, a narrower approach. It applies the requirement for notification after a reflection period where the applicant is terminally ill rather than empowering the Registrar General to waive it. I would understand why that approach might seem more attractive. However, in practice, the Registrar General, in either version, would need to establish that the individual is near the end of life. We are also not seeking to provide a definition of an end-of-life illness such as this amendment does, recognising that someone could be gravely ill at the end of life due to old age, for example, not just through a terminal illness due to a progressive disease, as outlined in Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment. Although that is appropriate in the Social Security Scotland Act 2018, where a definition was needed to access disability benefits at a higher rate and on a fast track, I do not believe that it is appropriate here where we are waiving a reflection period for someone at the end of life due to illness or old age. The use of gravely ill and not expected to recover in my amendments matches the wording in the Marriage Act, and the Registrar General is familiar with making dispensations on that basis already. It is preferable to align this provision with that for marriage rather than for Social Security, because it is a more closely comparable situation. The provision is designed for cases where there is a high risk that the applicant will die before an important change to their legal status can be made, one that is important to accurately record before death. I would ask the committee to reject Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment and to accept the amendments in my name. I am, of course, happy to continue discussions with Pam Duncan Glancy, but I am hoping that what I have set out to the committee is a rationale for why it is more appropriate to align the requirements with that already recognised for marriage rather than Social Security legislation. On the basis of what Pam Duncan Glancy said, cabinet secretary, I am sympathetic to her amendment. I just want reassurance that are you expecting a Registrar General to make a clinical judgment on a person who is terminally ill rather than a healthcare professional? No, that is why I said that in practice this would be established through a letter from the applicant's doctor confirming that the person is gravely ill and not expected to recover, and the detail of that would be set out in guidance. It would not be for the Registrar General to decide. It would be on the basis of the clinical information provided to the Registrar General. However, it would not be on the basis of the bill. It would be in guidance. I thank the cabinet secretary for setting that out on the record. I am satisfied with the way in which you have described what you are trying to do. I was seeking to make this not narrower but broader, but I understand the cabinet secretary's rationale, so I will not press my amendment and I will vote for the cabinet secretary's amendments. The member has seeking permission to withdraw amendment 126, are we agreed? On that basis, I call amendment 127, the name of Russell Finlay, who is already debated with amendment 114, Russell Finlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we move to vote. All members who wish to vote yes, please raise your hands, and all those against, please raise. Pam, you were yes, weren't you? A few seconds. Is it just so that I can get my papers in order? No, no, no, it's okay. I'm sorry to hold up proceedings. You said 117. Sorry, it's 127, Pam. 127, thank you. Let's just quickly take the vote again just to make it clear, because Clarkson needs to take a note. All those in favour of amendment 127, please vote. All those against and abstention. That's two for against and one abstention, so the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 128 in the name of Sarah Boyack, group with amendment 71. Sarah Boyack to move amendment 128 and speak to both amendments in the group. Amendment 128 builds on point 278 of the committee's stage 1 report. It talks about the aim of this amendment is to require Scottish ministers to take steps to ensure that appropriate support and information is put in place to support any individual who is considering and or makes an application to a gender recognition certificate. In my opinion, the wording of the amendment gives the flexibility that we need. It would be for Scottish ministers to determine what the appropriate support and information is, but this flexibility will ensure that the information support provided can be tailored to the needs of an individual and that it can change over time, as is required with the experience of the legislation. The committee recommended in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government commit to appropriate support and signposting be put in place, and I strongly welcome that recommendation. It followed the evidence in the committee that you heard, particularly from the Children's Commissioner, who said in oral evidence that protection and participation rights are not mutually exclusive and we are looking for a process that recognises not only the growing autonomy of young people but the needs to support and protect them. The evidence heard by the committee reflects the concerns raised to me by constituents across the Lothians who have gone through the process of obtaining a GRC. They definitely welcome the simplification of the process for the future, but they have highlighted to me that one thing that would have been much more helpful for them would have been signposting and advice and support. They would have welcomed that before they transitioned, so they think that for future, particularly given that more people are likely to take the opportunity of a GRC, that we need to see support in place and provided for them. In some cases, it could be health support and intervention, but the latest public health Scotland data for June 2022 shows that only 70 per cent of children and young people referred to CAMHS were seen within the 18-week waiting time target. Similarly, the waiting times for gender identity clinics currently ranges from anywhere between one and a half and three years time, so there is a real issue here about could we make sure that a range of advice is available for people? I want to reiterate that it is not solely focused on medical support or intervention, although that is important, but there is a range of non-medical advice and support that could be provided to people who are considering going through the GRC process, including from the public and voluntary sectors. We are looking for signposting and a commitment in principle, but I have been quite careful not to be specific because I am conscious that, if it is too specific, the cabinet secretary will no doubt immediately rule me out of order. I am trying to frame that in a way that I hope will be helpful and reflect what the committee concluded in its evidence. I move the amendment in my name. Christine Grahame, to speak to amendment 71 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I speak to amendment 71, supported by Jackson Carlaw. This amendment inserts a new section, Publication of Information, about the process of setting out a duty mandatory on the Registrar General to publish online information covering inter alia, the effect of a gender recognition certificate, how to make an application for a scene, the requirement to make a statutory declaration before applying, the consequences of making a false application, and one of my amendments has actually changed that for 60 and 70-year-olds, which to date will not make that criminal fence. The catch-all, which is very useful when setting out these, is other relevant information that the Registrar General considers appropriate. This one is your all applicants can easily access information to inform them on their decision to apply for a GRC. I have also had clarification from the Scottish Government, and this addresses something raised by Sarah Boyack, that remains the intention that the national register would signpost 60 and 70-year-olds to appropriate sources of support. Similarly, NRS would signpost all applicants to information on how to make a statutory declaration, and addressing specifically the well-intentioned amendment of Sarah Boyack, I just think that it is too broad. For example, you say that ministers take steps. I do not know what that means. Have applicants access to appropriate support and information? Is that before the application process about transitioning more, or what about the appropriate support and information would be? Some of that has been dealt with in my earlier amendment in 39 about 16 and 70-year-olds, and of course anybody over that age, requiring taking advice and support and counselling from appropriate people, even from another adult. 16 and 70-year-olds, it is mandatory. It is not from other adults. I think that it is well-intentioned, but mine is much more specific and links into earlier amendments that were put in again for support and advice at the point when you even go and make an application itself. To some extent, that has tightened up the bill. That is all that I have to say, which was enough. I have said throughout the passage of the bill that it is essential that all applicants for a GRC have carefully considered this important legal step, understand the effect of doing so and are able to access information and guidance to inform that consideration. I welcome the discussions that I have had with Sarah Boyack. Sarah Boyack's amendment would place a legal requirement on Scottish ministers to take steps to ensure that those who are considering an application have access to, quote, appropriate support and information, but it leaves open a lot of questions about what specifically that appropriate support and information would be. It is not clear, for example, whether it relates to the process and legal effect of gender recognition or wider support for people considering transition generally. It also raises the possibility of legal challenge to the specific meaning of appropriate in this context. Just to reiterate that NRS will signpost people to other organisations who can provide specialist support to applicants. It is for those reasons that I cannot support Sarah Boyack's amendment and urge the committee to reject. Christine Grahame's more specific amendment sets out the information that the registrar general should publish covering the process of applying, the effect of a GRC, the statutory declaration requirement and the consequences of false application. That is in line with what the registrar general has already committed to in evidence to the committee, so I therefore ask the committee to support Christine Grahame's amendment. I am very supportive of Sarah Boyack's amendment and I am disappointed that you have highlighted that it is inconsistency. Despite Sarah Boyack saying at the outset that it was a generalised kind of probing although she has moved it, I do think that it could be complementary by giving Scottish ministers the duty to report on some of the things that Sarah Boyack is trying to bring forward, because it complements the reporting requirements that Christine Grahame is seeking as well as the data collection. Normally, with data collection, the Scottish ministers are responsible for that. I seek to change your mind and to work with the Conservatives and Labour to work together for something that we can all agree on, because, quite frankly, the process has not really had much of a cross-party consensus. I think that this is one area that we can work together on. First of all, I do not think that Sarah Boyack's amendment is really regarding reporting as such. It is about the appropriate support and information that would be made available to people. We have to be clear about what that is and who provides it, what it is for. If it is about the process, then that is already going to be provided for the additional safeguards in Christine Grahame's amendment to lay out the process specifically for 16-17-year-olds. I think that all of that is there. On Rachael Hamilton's final point, I have spent a lot of time in meetings with members across the chamber, including herself and others from the Conservative group, including Pam Duncan-Glancy and Sarah Boyack, as well as others from the Labour group. I remind the member opposite that Jackson Carlaw supported that. That is cross-party. We considered that and came together about it. It is unfair to say that there has not been cross-party consideration in my mind. I remind the member that we had a free vote within our party. Christine Grahame makes an important point that there has been cross-party support for various aspects of various amendments. That is a good thing. I have said previously and I have said already today that my door remains open for further discussions in advance of stage 3. I hope that others feel that I have had constructive discussions on where I have been able to support and work with people around amendments. You said that there were words that you felt were legally challengeable and that you specifically specified appropriate support. What would be legally challengeable there? I have kept it as a word that is not heavily detailed to give you that flexibility in defining what would be appropriate. It would be the ministers to judge what would be appropriate. That is where Sarah Boyack, as I have said to Pam Duncan-Glancy when we have had this discussion. It is about what does that mean? Does it mean that Scottish ministers would decide which organisations people should be signposted to? I could see that that would get us into a great deal of difficulty. Therefore, I would be very resistant to that. If it is about the process, then I absolutely agree with Sarah Boyack. The process needs to be made very, very clear. However, if it is about the type of support that people should receive, then I really do not think that it would be helpful for Scottish ministers to start identifying organisations that would either not be or would be deemed appropriate to provide support. Those are where my concerns lie, which is why I point again to Christine Grahame's amendment, which focus on the process of applying the effect, the statutory declaration requirement and the consequences of a false application. Having said that, I would be happy to continue to have discussions with Sarah Boyack in advance of stage 3, but I would ask for today's purposes that Sarah Boyack's amendments are not supported and that Christine Grahame's amendment is. I go to Sarah Boyack to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 128. Thank you very much. It is good to hear people's views on that. I do not have any objection to Christine Grahame's amendment. It is really good, because it will give a formal process about the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. However, there are wider issues before somebody potentially even gets to that stage where they need information and support, so it is having the wider range of support that I think is critical. That is why I was keen for Scottish ministers to be able to decide what those steps were. For example, there is interdepartmental work across different Government departments, whether it is education and health, whether there is wider support that is needed. It is also thinking about the range of support that is available, because the Scottish Government will no doubt be funding support going forward, not just within the Government's work, but with third sector organisations, charities and the Scottish Government. Does that already? I was trying to be helpful to say that that does not happen at the moment. I do not know—forgive me if you were listening—that amendment 39, which has been agreed by the committee, is on additional guidance, advice and support for young applicants. That is prior to them making that application. It must be the position that confirms the register of gender. The applicant has discussed the implications for the applicant to obtain a gender recognition certificate within an individual who has a role that involves guidance, advice and support to young people. It is there at the beginning. I heard that debate. I was sitting in my office listening to all the debates, and I totally welcomed that, but the people who were coming to me were not young. It is not just—it is particularly an issue for young people, I think, in 16, 17 and 18, but there are older people as well who need that advice. That is why I am saying that the advice that you have recommended for the register general is good, but there is other advice as well. I think that particularly the range of mental health support that is needed is counselling, but I think that wider advice is needed. It would be from a range of organisations, both voluntary and statutory. It is meant to be a constructive amendment. If the cabinet secretary is saying that she is prepared to discuss the term appropriate and that that is what is wrong with my amendment, I would be prepared not to move it today and come back potentially at stage 3, but it is just to clarify that I do not see it as replicating either the amendment that you are moving now, Christine, or the one that you moved earlier today, both of which are good amendments. That is taking it further and opening it out to the wider community of people that I think need support. Can I confirm if you are pressing or withdrawing your amendment? If the cabinet secretary is prepared to discuss with me the term appropriate, I am happy to not move or to withdraw the movement technically at this stage. If it is a total objection then, you know, but are you prepared to discuss the term that you identified in your comments? I am. I am pleased to be able to have further discussions with Sarah Boyack, but I think that what we want to avoid, just for the void of any doubt, is listing organisations that we deem to be appropriate for support. I do not think that that would be a wise thing for Scottish ministers to do, so if Sarah Boyack is happy to have discussions with that caveat in place, then I am happy to have further discussions with her. Absolutely, because those organisations will change over the years and they will not be a set list of the perfect list of people. I think that legislation will lead to more organisations. It is how do people know that they exist and that is what I was aiming to do here. On that basis, I am prepared to not to withdraw my movement earlier, but I intend to come back on this one at stage 3 after subsequent conversations. The member is requesting permission to withdraw amendment 128. Is that agreed? Yes. That has been agreed. amendment 5, on the name of Sue Webber, has already been debated with amendment 2, are you agreed to move or not to move? I am not. I am not. I am not. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed? I am not. amendment 6, agreed to. I am not. I am not. I am not. I am not. Amendment 49, 50, 51 and 52, all in the name of cabinet secretary and all previously debated. Invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 49 to 52 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 49 to 52? No objections, so therefore the question is that amendments 49 to 52 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed to. I call amendment 53 in the name of cabinet secretary grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 53 and speak to all amendments in the group. As the name suggests, the amendments in this group are of a minor technical nature. Amendments 53, 64 to 65, 69 to 70, 78 and 82 have been put forward at the suggestion of the Scottish courts and tribunal service. As introduced, the bill refers in a number of places to the role of the sheriff in either giving notice that a certificate has been issued or in giving copies of such certificates to the registrar general. While technically competent, the Scottish courts and tribunals service have suggested that, for the sake of clarity, those references should instead be to the sheriff clerk, as in practice it would be the sheriff clerk who would be carrying out this function. Amendment 79 relates to a consequential amendment to the 2004 act, which was inadvertently omitted from the bill at introduction. This amendment repeals the subsection of that act, which provides that, where a full GRC is issued by the gender recognition panel to a person who is a party to a marriage under the law of Northern Ireland or a civil partnership under that law, the secretary of state must send a copy of the certificate to the registrar general for Northern Ireland. The bill already repeals similar provision in relation to England and Wales and this amendment does so for Northern Ireland as well. I move amendment 53. I have no indications of amendment 53. Will the cabinet secretary to wind up and press up through amendment 53? There is nothing else to say, and I press amendment 53. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 54 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 55 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Sue Webber, already debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 56 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 32 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 93 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 57 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 58 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 83. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 59 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 33 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 34 in the name of Ros McAul, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul, to move or not move. I call amendment 8 in the name of Sue Webber, already debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour of amendment 8, please vote and all those against and abstentions. That is too far. Five against. The amendment therefore is not carried and section 8 is there for agreed to. I now call amendment 60 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 129 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 114. Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we move to vote. All those in favour, please vote and all those against. Too far, five against, no abstentions. It is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 61 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 62 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 47. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 94 in the name of Ros McAll, already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAll to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 63, 64 and 65, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. In fact, the cabinet secretary to move amendments 63 to 65 on block. Does any member object to a single question that has been put on amendment 63 to 65? No member objects, so therefore the question is that amendments 63 to 65 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 95 in the name of Maggie Chapman, grouped with amendments 1, 3, 0, 96, 97 and 1, 3, 2, Maggie Chapman to move amendment 95 and speak to all amendments in the group. We heard many other witnesses expressed their very grave concern with the provisions in the bill as it currently stands to expand the definition of a person with an interest who could apply for a gender recognition certificate to be revoked. That increases the risk substantially that someone who disapproves of a transperson's gender recognition certificate application will seek to use the courts to have that certificate revoked. Such vexatious or malicious complaints to the sheriff court to revoke a GRC simply because they do not accept the trans status of the GRC applicant should not be enabled. And if such applications for revocation ever do happen, they should be viewed as vexatious and or malicious and treated accordingly. One mechanism to reduce the opportunity to make vexatious or malicious applications for revocation is to clearly and narrowly define who a person of interest is. The current Gender Recognition Act 2004 defines a person with an interest quite narrowly, a spouse, the registrar general and the secretary of state. My amendment 97 replicates this narrow definition, including spouse, civil partner, registrar general and the secretary of state. That is to limit the likelihood of unsupported family members or others who disapprove of a transperson's right to be who they are, having the mechanism to challenge a GRC. My amendment 95 seeks to put in place a step before any revocation application gets to the sheriff court by requiring it to go through the registrar general's office first. The registrar general would then determine whether it was appropriate to escalate such a revocation application to the courts. However, Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment 130 is better than mine, so I will not press my 95 and will instead support hers. On the penalties for those who seek to revoke a GRC for vexatious or malicious reasons, my amendment 96 is essentially a probig amendment in an attempt to have a wider conversation before stage 3 to tighten up this bit of the bill. I will not move 96, as I think that Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment 132 covers this more effectively. However, I do consider that we need further conversation to make it absolutely clear that malicious or vexatious attempts to revoke a gender recognition certificate will not be allowed and will be taken very seriously when they do happen. Pam Duncan Glancy, to speak to amendment 130 and other amendments in the group. I thank Maggie Chapman for her comments on my amendments in this group. Let me first of all say that, unfortunately, I will not be able to support 97, because I believe that narrowing the list of people could prevent someone who has a genuine interest in someone's GRC using the person of interest in good faith provisions on the grounds of genuine concerns of capacity. However, the aims of my amendment as I have already been alluded to in amendment 130 and 132 attempt to add safeguards and proportionality to the process that would prevent people from using it maliciously. For that reason, I would ask people to support my amendments. Had the member pushed 95 in 96, I think that they were reasonable. However, I would ask members to support mine. I know from the evidence provided to the committee and through our own consultations that there is a concern in the trans community where they see potential for the misuse of the provision in the bill for a person with an interest to apply to a sheriff for a GRC to be revoked. I can understand that. We have set out in our stage 1 response why the provision is in the bill and I will do so again very briefly now. The bill allows for a person who has an interest in a GRC to apply to the sheriff to revoke a certificate on the ground that the application was fraudulent or that the applicant was incapable of understanding the effect of it or that the applicant was incapable of validly making the application. The person seeking to revoke a certificate would need to have a genuine interest in the certificate. It would have to affect them personally or professionally and they would be required to produce evidence of the ground on which the certificate could be revoked. It is a common statutory requirement that a person has an interest in a particular matter in order to bring proceedings to court and the courts are used to determining what amounts to a genuine interest. Amendment 95 and 130 would give the registrar general a preliminary role in assessing potential applications to a sheriff and refusing permission to apply to the sheriff based on whether the application is malicious and or that the applicant has a genuine interest. However, we can see no precedent for this type of process and that would considerably expand the role and remit of the registrar general in a way that cannot be supported. It is for a sheriff who has appropriate expertise to make judgments on whether a person has a genuine interest and whether their claim is valid. I do understand why Maggie Chapman and Pam Duncan-Glancy have lodged those amendments but I do not view that as a reasonable role for the registrar general to fulfil and I therefore urge the committee not to support them. Amendment 97 would restrict those who can apply for the revocation to the registrar general, a spouse or civil partner or the secretary of state. That is presumably intended to echo the current provision in the 2004 act, though it is not clear why the UK Secretary of State should be included here in relation to GRCs issued under the Scottish system. The grounds on which an application for revocation of a GRC can be made under the 2004 act refer only to fraudulent applications. The proposals in the bill means the grounds on which an application can be made also include incapacity or where the registrar general has issued the wrong type of certificate. In relation to the committee's recommendation to define who may be persons who have an interest, we consider that seeking to list such persons in the bill could lead to an appropriate category of persons potentially being omitted. Under my amendment 60, the registrar general will be able to apply to a sheriff before issuing a GRC but it is not the role of the registrar general or his staff to assess the capacity of applicants. The courts will be able to make that determination considering all the evidence. It is important to stress that provision around the capacity of applicants to understand the effect of a GRC is there to protect those applicants and removing those grounds could have negative impacts for some applicants. Amendments 96 and 132 introduce either a criminal offence or a power for a sheriff to award damages on the basis of a malicious application. I consider that to be disproportionate. I have serious concerns about criminalising applications to a sheriff in any circumstances on access to justice grounds. I am not aware of a precedent for such an offence and there would be human rights implications to consider. It is important to remember that the courts deal with many applications in many areas, including where issues have arisen among family members. I do not necessarily consider that where issues arise in the family in those circumstances, criminalisation would necessarily be a beneficial outcome for any party. On the power to award damages, that requires further consideration as how malicious is to be interpreted is not quite clear, since it is not a commonly used term in this context. If a person were to make repeated, vexatious applications to revoke a GRC or GRCs, there is an existing scheme in the courts reform Scotland Act 2014 that would allow the Lord Advocate in the public address to apply to the Court of Session for a vexatious litigation order. That would require the person to get permission from the Court of Session before making a further application. I know that that is not exactly what is proposed in Pamdell Glansley's amendment, but it provides a safeguard against people abusing the system. For those reasons, I cannot support any of the specific changes made by amendments in this group to reiterate that applicants for revocation would need to demonstrate that they have a genuine interest and that the sheriff would need to be satisfied with that. They would also then need to provide evidence to prove the grounds of their application. Although I am sympathetic to the aims of those amendments, I do not currently see what additional provision could be made in this bill to address those concerns without raising wider human rights and access to justice issues. Obviously, if there is something that can be added, I would be happy to work with both members ahead of stage 3, but I would ask that those amendments are not supported at this time. Maggie Chapman, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 95. I have nothing further to add and I will withdraw amendment 95, if the committee agrees. Members requested to withdraw amendment 95. Is that agreeable? I therefore call amendment 130, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, who is already debated with amendment 95, Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is not agreed, so we will go to the vote. All members who wish to vote yes, please raise your hand. So it is amendment 130, so all those who wish to vote for amendment 130, please raise your hands. Okay? All those against. So it is too far and five against, so the amendment is not agreed. Call amendment 131, in the name of Russell Finlay, or he's debated with amendment 114, Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so therefore move to the vote. All those who want to vote yes, please raise your hand. All those against and abstentions. So it is three, four and four against, so the amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 66 to 70 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 66 to 70? Therefore the question is that amendments 66 to 70 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 96, in the name of Maggie Chapman, or he's debated with amendment 95, Maggie Chapman to move or not move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 97, in the name of Maggie Chapman, or he's debated with amendment 95, Maggie Chapman to move or not move. Moved. Question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour of amendment 97, please vote now. All those against. That is one vote four and six votes against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 132, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, or he's debated with amendment 95, Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed to. So again, we move to the vote. All those in favour, please vote. And all those against. Too far and five against. The amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 9, in the name of Sue Webber, or he's debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. So we'll go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote. And all those against. It's too far and five against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. And section 9 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 10, in the name of Sue Webber, or he's debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move or not move. Up moved. So the question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. No. We are not agreed, so we move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 10, please vote now. And all those against. That is too far and five against. So that is not agreed to. And section 10 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 98, in the name of Ross McCall, or he's debated with amendment 83. Ross McCall to move or not move. Up moved. I call amendment 11, in the name of Sue Webber, or he's debated with amendment 2. Sue Webber to move or not move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, so we go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 11, please vote. And all those against. Too far and five against. Amendment is therefore not agreed to. And section 11 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 7 to 1, in the name of Christine Graham, or he's debated with amendment 128. Christine Graham to move or not move. Move, convener. The question is, amendment 71, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No. There is not agreed, so we move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 71, please vote now. Can I show that support? All those against. Okay, that's four, four, and three against. Amendment is therefore agreed to. Call amendment 12, in the name of Sue. Sorry. Could I withdraw my voting intention? That was meant to be a yes. I'm sorry about that. On 71, for Christine Graham's amendment, is that possible to do? If you can't do that, I can put it on official record that I supported. Okay, we haven't gone past the vote, so let's do the vote on 71. Let's do the vote on 71 again. Okay, no problem. Let's do the vote again. So the vote, the question is, on amendment 71, all those in favour of amendment 71, please vote now. Sorry. Okay, all those, all those. All those against. Okay, amendment 71 is agreed unanimously. Thank you. Call amendment 12, in the name of Sue Weber. Already debated with amendment 2. Sue Weber to move or not move. Okay, so the question is, on amendment 12, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Okay, we are not agreed. So we'll go to the vote. All those who wish to vote for the amendment, please raise your hands. And all those against. That's 2, 4 and 5 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to and section 12 is agreed. I call amendment 13, in the name of Sue Weber. They're moved. Moved. Okay, the question is, on amendment 13, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Are we not agreed? We move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 13, please vote now. And all those against. That's 2, 4 and 5 against. So that's therefore not agreed and section 13 is agreed to. So we made good progress and now seems like a good place for us all to break today. So that completes our first day of stage 2 consideration for this bill. We'll continue our consideration at our meeting next week. I want to thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance and that concludes our meeting for today.