 We will now move on to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have, the bill is amended at stage 2, that is Scottish Parliament Bill 30A, the marshaled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around 5 minutes for the first division of the stage 3 debate. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds, and then thereafter I will allow a voting period of 1 minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request to speak buttons or enter request to speak, RTS, in the chat function as soon as possible, after I call the group, and members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. We move to group 1, applications by 16 and 17 year olds. I call amendment 6 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, and I point out that if amendment 9 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 10 due to a preemption. If amendment 12 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 101101 again due to a preemption. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 6 and speak to all amendments in the group. As drafted, the gender recognition reform bill would lower the age at which an individual could apply to obtain a gender recognition certificate to 16. Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 in this group seek to keep the minimum age at which someone can apply for a GRC, which is a gender recognition certificate at 18. In Scotland, an individual under the age of 18 is not considered old enough to stand for election in this Parliament, nor can they serve as a juror, place a bet, buy or sell alcohol, get a tattoo or be permitted to watch certain films at the cinema. As with obtaining a gender recognition certificate, I agree that there is good reason for this. Earlier this month, the Parliament held a debate on human rights day in which the Scottish Government's intent to incorporate the UNCRC into domestic law. The UNCRC defines anyone under the age of 18 as a child. Moreover, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee heard from Susan Smith when taking evidence on this bill, but people do not cognitively mature until 25. This contention is also outlined in Scottish prison sentencing guidelines, yet, as drafted, this bill would confer the rights alongside the great burden of responsibility of applying for a gender recognition certificate upon individuals as young as 16. Worse still, it would—yes. I'm very grateful to Rachel Hamilton for giving away. If I'm called later, Presiding Officer, I will talk to the age of majority in the significant—well, the number of variances that exist around age of majority in Scotland's law. Rachel Hamilton and her group backed the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, which set the age of mental capacity for children in terms of being held responsible for their actions and their crimes at 12, two years below the de minima set by the international community. Does Rachel Hamilton recognise that age is not a guarantee of wisdom? Actually, 16 is the age at which most things in Scotland are now consolidating, and, certainly, if we can credit 12-year-olds with the capacity to commit crimes, we can certainly credit 16-year-olds with having the capacity necessary to understand their identity and apply for recognition of the same. I don't think he's comparing like with like of the capacity of age of criminal responsibility and obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Moreover, the Scottish Government's own equality impact assessment states that they need more up-to-date research because they need to collect the data on the impact of the mental wellbeing of young people. I think that it's really important that the Scottish Government's own impact assessment doesn't even back up their own argument, but thank you for your intervention. The relevance of cognitive maturity, the capacity of children to change and the conference of such a great responsibility on children seems, worryingly, misguided in this bill as drafted, group after group, expert after expert. Even an Irish senator, generally in favour of these reforms, spoke out against lowering the age in committee sessions. Last night, we heard from Rima Salam, who will also make her opinion to the Scottish Government on the lowering of age, but she hasn't yet had the opportunity to do so. Despite all of this evidence, when I brought these amendments to the committee at stage 2, the cabinet secretary rejected them on the base of an antidote. Does she believe that her opinion, based on that, is more valuable than the views of experts who gave evidence in committee, or indeed 81 per cent of Scottish public who were polled on the topic of lowering the age to 16 who thought that this was a bad idea? Children who are struggling with gender identity need this Government to support them, not to place a burden of responsibility upon them. That support could be provided in two ways by gaining a better understanding of their experience and by improving provision of services. Dr Hillary Cass's review into gender services provided this Parliament with a golden opportunity to improve our understanding and gain clarity on how we can improve services, yet it has been completely ignored, whilst this legislation was needlessly railroaded through Parliament. Don't Scottish children deserve the same level of care and safeguarding as those south of the border? I find it extraordinary that the Cass review was not taken into account. The interim report from the independent Cass review has led to the closure of the Tavis stock clinic in London, a move supported by the EHRC, but ignored by the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary has continued to play down the relevance of such an intervention in line with her policy of shutting down any conversation that may prolong the scrutiny applied to this bill. In responding to those amendments, the cabinet secretary explained why she believes that warnings from an independent review of child gender services in the UK are not linked to children obtaining a gender recognition certificate in Scotland. Does she believe that accessing gender services for children would have no bearing on their decision to apply to change their gender? Should we continue to ignore the opportunity to implement recommendations for improving these services before passing this bill? Concerned clinicians have yet to hear a single justification from this Government as to why they have chosen to ignore evidence that is deemed worrying enough to close down services in the south. On this point, I fully appreciate the sentiment behind Claire Baker's amendments in this group. However, the fundamental issue of lowering the age at which an individual can obtain a GRC remains a sticking point particularly for me, on which I cannot support these amendments for the reasons I've set out already. In the same vein, I understand the reasoning behind amendment 15 from Kelly Gibson, which ensures that applicants under the age of 18 must seek advice from someone such as a medical professional. Amendments 98 and 101 from Jamie Greene, which requires young applicants to be able to provide evidence that they have sought advice regarding obtaining a GRC. Amendment 99 from Christine Graham, which requires young applicants to provide to the Register General what role the individual who is giving guidance to the applicant plays. It is vital that safeguards, in my opinion, remain in place in order to make this bill workable. I absolutely appreciate that these amendments seek to introduce further safeguards for under-18s applying for agenda recognition certificate. However, they are fundamentally underpinned by an acceptance that people under the age of 18 should be enabled to obtain a GRC. That we are having a discussion about the need for extra safeguards for this particular group of people is an admission that there are concerns about this. I would urge these members who are concerned to consider the arguments that I have set out as to why now is not the time to extend the ability to obtain a GRC to children under 18. Jackie Baillie's amendment 105 similarly relies on this acceptance, although I understand that it comes from a position of attempting to clear up a potential loophole that would allow people, even younger than 16, to begin the process of obtaining a GRC. Nonetheless, this amendment stumbles on the same sticking point of making allowances for under-18s to apply for agenda recognition certificate. I call Claire Baker to speak to amendment 93 and other amendments in the group. I have introduced amendments 93 and 94 to raise the issues identified in Dr Hillary Cassie's interim review into gender identity services for children and young people in NHS England. I believe that it is worth highlighting those issues in the context of the proposal to lower the age from 18 to 16 at which someone can gain a GRC in Scotland. The interim report recognises that social transition is not a neutral act and may lead to young people taking a medicalised pathway. Acquiring a GRC is a potent form of social transition and while it is often stated that it is not a passport to clinical services, it would be an indicator that would strengthen the case for medical intervention. The stage 1 report from the Equalities Committee includes consideration of the Cass interim review and asks that the Scottish Government consider a full review into gender identity healthcare. It would be helpful to know if the Scottish Government intends to do so. There is little research or analysis of the increase in young people seeking to transition, a point made by the Cass report which highlighted persisting evidence gaps and areas of uncertainty. While I recognise the Cass review as looking at services in England, it does raise concerns that we should take into consideration. The interim review says that there has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means that it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service. There is a lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysmorphia. The mix of young people presenting to the service is more complex than seen previously, with many being neurodiverse and or having a wide range of psychosocial and mental health needs. The largest group currently comprises birth-registered females, first presenting in adolescence with gender-related distress. Primary and secondary care staff report feeling under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmation approach. Concerns over diagnostic overshadowing—many of the children and young people presenting—have complex needs, but once they are identified as having gender-related distress, other important health care issues that would normally be managed by local services can sometimes be overlooked. Those amendments are calling for a pause. It is asking for time to reflect on the emerging evidence on services for children and young people, but also to consider the reasons behind a high proportion of young women applying. A pause would not prevent any 16 or 17-year-old socially transitioning. They can change the vast majority of documents they have, their school, college or university have policies to support social transition. A birth certificate is rarely needed as identification, and as Scottish Trans highlighted in a briefing to MSPs last week, it is not a legal requirement to provide universities or employers with birth certificates. That is also the case if we were to retain the age of 18. As someone who has brought forward amendments at stage 2 and who was a member of the culture, tourism, Europe and external affairs committee, which scrutinised the census bill, I have held many discussions and meetings on this bill, and I have worked hard to understand the arguments while being prepared to question and scrutinise some assumptions and assertions that are being made. I am asking for caution. The class interim review has raised important issues around safeguarding, and I do not think that it is unreasonable to pause a reduction in the age to 16 and take full cognisance of emerging evidence and concerns. I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 98 and other amendments in the group. Can I first of all put on record my thanks to the many organisations and individuals who have sent members' briefings? I know that they take a lot of time and a lot of effort has gone into them. In particular, I thank the Stonewall group, LGBT Scotland, Amnesty International and the Quality Network. More recently, I thank the Quality and Human Rights Commission Scotland and Blackburn Mackenzie Murray. Amongst those organisations, they may not all agree with me or indeed each other. It is important to respect that there is a difference of opinions on many of the amendments that we will debate today, and I thank them for their efforts. My two amendments in the group to be followed by a third anomaly that will come on to is around the applications by 16 and 17-year-olds. I do understand and appreciate that this is one of the fundamental changes that the bill does. It does reduce the age from its current age in the 2004 act from 18 to 16. Throughout stage 2, a number of amendments which gathered cross-party support were accepted. I did feel that there was room for improvement on those, for many of the reasons that I believe that Rachel Hamilton has also given. As drafted at the moment in the bill that we have before we amend it today, section 3A talks about guidance, advice and support for young applicants. This is a new section that was added at stage 2. I think that it is a welcome addition. At present, it states that the applicant must simply confirm to the Registrar General that the applicant has discussed the implications for the applicant of obtaining a GRC with an individual. It then goes on to list two criteria of which that individual should be. My amendment 98 provides that when confirming to the Registrar General that they have discussed their application with a suitable individual, an applicant aged 16 or 17-year-old must also be able to provide reasonable evidence of that discussion if requested so. Amendment 98 adds no further criteria as to whom the person must have that conversation with, nor does it put unnecessary barriers in place. It simply allows for the Registrar General to request evidence that this conversation has indeed taken place. I will talk first on amendment 101, which is a follow-on from that. That then provides that when granting an application to a 16 or 17-year-old, the Registrar General must be satisfied that the applicant has received appropriate guidance, advice and support as detailed in section 3A. The Registrar General may reject the application if he or she is not satisfied about this. I am happy to give way. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Just in relation to amendment 98, I am interested to know what Jamie Greene means by the phrase be able to provide reasonable evidence. There is a danger in any legislation that we insert phrases like that that are potentially quite woolly legally. I am not sure what that means, but if the member could tell us, that would be useful. Jamie Greene makes a fair point. To be fair, if we had more time to discuss those amendments, it would have been an excellent addition to make an amendment that could easily have been tied up with more succinct language. Of the understanding that colleagues on those benches will likely oppose those amendments for simply not going far enough in terms of support and guidance, and the Government benches will oppose them because they think they go too far. I am somewhat stuck in the middle of this conundrum. The member makes a fair point. I have been uncomfortable with the rate and speed at which we have to address those amendments. For that reason, I will listen carefully to arguments that are made and the response from the Government of which I hope will contain some legal feedback on the wording of my amendments. The premise of them is simply to try and go a step further to how the bill is currently drafted to provide some extra comfort and safeguards so that young people are getting appropriate advice. Martin Whitfield's amendment 25 in this space does something similar, and I am sure that we will hear more about that in due course, as does amendment 15 from Kenny Gibson. On all the amendments in this group, there is a common theme, and there are two things that some of those amendments introduce with which I am comfortable. The first is the reintroduction of the concept of the medicalisation of the process, something that the bill itself seeks to remove. It is contrary, in my view, to the general principles of the bill, general principles that I do support. The other is simply amendments that seek to revert to the status quo on that of 18 years of age. Again, it is no secret that that is not a position that I would agree with. I have one further amendment in this group that I will speak to when called on behalf of another member who is unable to be here today, so I will reserve further comments until that point. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to follow Jamie Greene, and I echo his thanks to those outside of this chamber who have provided suggestions, advice and, indeed, commentary. Much effort has been spent in engagement with people over this bill, although I am not in agreement with some of it. I can thank all of them for reaching out, because that is our role within this place to listen to our constituents. I intend to speak to amendments 24 and 3 others. Amendment 24 is really just a technical amendment that paves the way for 25, which has already been mentioned by Jamie Greene. Indeed, it builds, to a certain extent, or sits as a complement to the previous amendment that we have heard. It seeks merely for the individual that that young person has spoken to to be named to be identified and addressed to contact them. I do not think that this is a huge reach forward or a reach into something that should not be protected or unknown. It is right that young people take their time to make decisions. There has been interesting arguments already expressed in this chamber about moving the age to 18, which I cannot find agreement with. Here in Scotland we support our young people throughout their time to make increasing decisions about themselves. They do so with a scaffolding that sits around them, not to influence those decisions but to protect them where those decisions are made, to give advice where it is sought. I think that identifying the person or indeed people or organisations that have been spoken to is a reasonable step to show that those discussions have taken place and that those discussions were appropriate. I understand having had discussions with the Government for which I thank them that there is some steps over the fact that it should be a conversation rather than a written record. I have to say that all my amendment seeks is to identify the name and contact address of that individual. It is not to go behind that into the discussion that has been had because on many levels I can understand the confidentiality that needs to exist for those discussions to take place properly. Indeed, for a young person to reach out to a trusted adult, their first has to be that trust. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Incorporation Bill defines children as persons under the age of 18. Does the member agree that 16 and 17-year-olds are still children? In Scotland, young people are aged 16 and 17, and I accept the wording of the UNCRC. What that seeks to do is to reinforce both the protections that exist for children but also as a vehicle for young people to question decisions that are made about them that do not encompass or hold up their human rights. I very much look forward to that point where we can hear from the Government as to when that comes back to this Parliament where we can indeed fully and properly debate it. To return to amendments 24 and 25, I believe that these are small steps forward that would reinforce confidence both for the young person and those around them to say who was it that you spoke to provide their name or indeed names if it is an organisation and contact. It does not seek to impinge on any discussions that happen. It is certainly not inviting a young person to share the details of those discussions or indeed risk criminalising them for doing so in error. This is merely asking for factual information that I believe is reasonable to give. The other two amendments in my name are 26 and 37. Again, 26 has the benefit of being a tiny technical amendment that facilitates 37 coming forward. In this one, the proposed amendment addresses the concerns about the capacity of 16 to 18-year-olds to apply for a certificate or indeed to understand the implications of possessing a certificate. It would allow a Registrar General to reject an application if they were not satisfied that the person was capable of understanding the effect of the certificate or indeed the importance of a statutory declaration. The Registrar General is additionally obliged to reject an application if they suspect that the young person is under any kind of coercion into applying for one. In law, young people aged 16 and over are presumed to have capacity and that is right, but if we like in the decisions that can also be made by young people of that age here in Scotland consent to refuse a lot of treatment in their own right, indeed refusing access to medical records should they choose, we must respect that consent. I thank the cabinet secretary for her meeting and letter that took place on 8 December and in particular paragraph 6 to quote, turning to my own amendment 60 also agreed by the committee at stage 2, this introduced a new power for the Registrar General to apply to a sheriff on the grounds that the GRC application was fraudulent or that the applicant was incapable of understanding the effect of obtaining a GRC or of validly making the application. If the cabinet secretary is content to confirm this on the record today and that the Registrar General, if they felt the young person lacked the understanding as to the effect of obtaining a certificate and that there is a vehicle open to the Registrar General, then I am minded not to push that, these two amendments on that point. I thank you for your time, Presiding Officer. Thank you, I call Kenneth Gibson to speak to amendment 15 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For reasons of brevity, I'll speak to only two amendments. My own amendment 15, which I move and which simply seeks to strengthen section 3A and amendment 6. The bill seeks to demedicalise self-ID transition and this amendment strikes a balance between that aim and the need for effective counselling, a move that I consider to be vital. After all, these days young people are encouraged to be counselled even when they fail an exam. The person to provide such advice should be clarified in guidance, be suitably qualified and could be a medical practitioner. However, it should not be a parent or teacher unless such a person is qualified to give counselling advice. We're deemed necessary by the council, the young person concerned could be referred to a suitable clinician. The cast review states that, I quote, the mix of young people presenting to the service is more complex than seen previously with many being neurodiverse and or having a wide range of psychosocial and mental health needs. The view goes on to say that once identified as having gender-related distress, other important healthcare issues that would normally be managed by local services can sometimes be overlooked. Collinitions should remain open and explore the patient's experience and the range of support and treatment options that may best address their needs. The cast review may focus on England as the experience of young people with gender distress here in Scotland any different. I think not. A senior child psychiatrist told the Guardian newspaper that in the last 5 to 10 years they have seen a huge surge in young women who want to become boys. They've changed their name and are keen to have hormones or puberty blockers, a development that often follows social transition represented by a GRC. The psychiatrist said that often these girls are children going through their normal identity and developmental problems with adolescence and finding a solution for themselves in this way. I'm a bit confused. The member seems to be concerned about demedicalisation and also the current medicalisation. Does he not recognise that demedicalisation will decouple the two issues and perhaps allow young people to explore whether or not they even want to pursue medical transition? In fact, I'm of the view that with proper counselling it may be that they do have to seek a clinician, but the point about counselling is that they do not have to go down that road. That's why, as I said, I'm trying to strike a balance between both positions that have been expressed so far today. There's currently no consensus among clinicians about the matter of parents of differing explanations for what might have prompted their child's gender uncertainty. Bayswater support represents the parents of roughly 500 trans adolescents. Members often describe their child's trans identities overshadowing other factors, including neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and ADHD. Social factors like bullying and not fitting in with their peers, emerging same-sex attraction, poor mental health and often puberty itself. Other parents believe the hypersexualisation of the female body, fuelled by the representation of women in popular TV programmes and on social media, and a child's early understanding of sexism made them feel it may be easier to love as a male than as a woman. Transitioning was once predominantly undertaken by middle-aged men, now it's teenage girls. Early experience of sexual assault can play an important role. D-transitioner Sinead Watson, who returned to living as a woman after identifying as a man for seven years, said that she was repeatedly sexual assaulting her teens and felt hated towards her female body. A 2020 study in the peer-reviewed academic journal Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry found that the degree of social transition did not significantly predict psychological functioning outcomes in a clinical sample of children with a gender dysphoria diagnosis. It claims that gender affirmation through transitioning socially is beneficial for children with gender dysphoria and could not be supported from present results. Instead, the study highlights the importance of individual social support provided by peers and family independent of exploring additional possibilities of gender transition during counselling. For some people, a pathway towards social and later medical and or surgical transition may be the right option. However, the examples that I gave show that for some young people this is just a transient phase and a manifestation of other conditions, experiences or circumstances in the young person's life. Therefore, I believe that my amendment will provide transadolescence in patients with extra support to help them to explore potential reasons for their gender non-conformity. I will unnecessarily ensure that no other important underlying health care issues or conditions that young people with gender distress have is overlooked. With regard to amendment 6, I recall reading very recently that on New Year's Day 2020, a 15-year-old boy was killed by a 22-year-old hit-and-run speeding driver and washer whilst walking to his grandparents' house. His killerhood, previous convictions for speeding and careless driving, avoided a custodial sentence because sentencing guidelines suggest that the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25 and a young person will generally have a lower level of maturity with a greater capacity for chains than an older person. However, that bill proposes to lower the age at which one can legally be perceived to have transitioned from 18 to 16. Yes, you can marry at 16 and vote in some elections and drive at 17, but one can't buy alcohol or cigarettes before the age of 18. Our society is inconsistent. Considering that bill, we must at all times ensure the welfare of the child or young person's paramount. At the centre of that often-fraught debate are children and adolescents and their loved ones who are often in great distress. No-one today is arguing that gender dysphoria does not exist. However, a number of children who believe themselves to mean their own gender rises exponentially amidst reports of teenage peer cluster effects, we must be cautious about who is recognised socially to have transitioned. Why? Because it will increase the likelihood that they will receive puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and, perhaps, surgery. Actions that are gender recognition certificate can only accelerate. Dr Hilly, Cassie's review, states that regarding a GRC, it is an important view as an active intervention because it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning. At primary, secondary and specialist level, there is a lack of agreement about the extent to which gender and congruence and childhood and adolescence can be an inherent and immutable phenomenon for which transition is the best option for the individual or a more fluid and temporal response to a range of developmental, social and psychological factors. A 2020 study by Sievert et al in the peer-reviewed academic journal Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry Divine social transition is often the first possibility to align with one's experienced gender and live in the preferred gender role, different from that at birth in almost all aspects of life. Irreversibility is of fundamental concern. Despite our different views on the bill, we can surely all agree that a gender recognition certificate leads 16 and 17-year-olds on a pathway of social transition at the very least. However, the Hippocratic Oath is quite clear, first do no harm, as elected representatives we too should pursue that philosophy. Social transition, followed by the prescribing of hormones to young people, which can have short and long-term side effects in themselves, encourages those who might not ultimately pursue a full transition on a path leading not only to profound regret but sterility and orgasmia and long-term health issues. I'm happy to give way. I just feel prompted to intervene to say that I think the member and I attended a meeting organised by one of his colleagues Ruth McGuire. I have to say that I've found that to be one of the most moving experiences that I've had in a very long time to sit in a room with two young people who were expressing profound distress, goes far beyond regret and I certainly felt that I couldn't agree more with what the member is saying on that. It's just that those two young people, and I know that they were representative of many others who have gone down a path and then found it impossible to come back up that path. Kenneth Gibson. Thank you for that, Mr Kerr. As you know, I was also present at that very moving and at times quite distressing meeting listening to these experiences. As for surgery, that should only be contemplated after serious consideration and counselling. Some people know their own minds, it was said in the stage 2, but of course some don't and we have to protect the most vulnerable of these young people. Allowing more time for reflection on this life-changing decision is important if we are not to experience an upsurge in ruined lives. People will regret becoming trans with all that means who then later seek to detransition. Allowing transition at 18 will still give those who do wish to proceed decades in their new identity. I believe it will also save many from the misery of making a decision too early in life from which they are unable to turn the clock back. As detransitioner Richie Herron told a number of his last month, it's a one-way ticket, I can't grow my genitals back. Colleagues, we're divided into those who genuinely support the bill, those opposed and those who may be undecided on the bill itself and the amendments. Others, for understandable reasons of loyalty, trust and their ambition, plan to vote as advised by their whip, but please think primarily of the young people concerned. Those who might be confused have underlying neurodiverse and mental health conditions and support amendment 6 to give those young people time and space to grow, mature and be better able to take the right decision. I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 99 on behalf of Christine Grahame. I appreciate that this is a somewhat unusual, perhaps unorthodox way of speaking to and moving amendments, but I'll do my best. The reason for this, as members may know, is that Ms Grahame is unwell and cannot be here today. But there were a lot of similarities in what she was proposing to do and my previous amendments, which I hitherto spoke to. I'm moving amendment 99 because I do feel that there is a compromise therein. The amendment provides that for when confirming to your Registrar General that an applicant aged 16 or 17-year-old has discussed their application with a suitable individual. Such applicant must also tell the Registrar General what role that individual has and how they know them. This is a step beyond what was agreed at stage 2. The initial amendment proposed by Christine Grahame, members who were involved in stage 2, will be aware of what was supported by my own colleague Jackson Carlaw. This amendment adds that provision so that when someone is inquiring about the consequences of getting a GRC, they must tell the Registrar what role that person that they spoke with has and how they know them. This, for example, will be for that person to say that they have spoken with a teacher or a family member or indeed a trusted councillor or another organisation. Asking for the young person to state who they have spoken to in my view is not an onerous ask. It's a sensible one, particularly in comparison to some of the other amendments in this group. Nor should it put a young person off seeking guidance and assistance. In my view, this will strengthen assurances that a young person has accessed much-needed advice and support and carefully considered their application without adding new evidence requirements such as other amendments proposed. The amendment has been widely welcomed by a number of stakeholders and organisations on the balance. When I saw the amendment, my initial thoughts were that I would support it anyway, because I feel that it is a compromise. However, it may be better worded than my own two amendments, which, as my colleague Graham Simpson rightly pointed out, could be subject to the vagaries of legal wrangling thereafter. That's not something that I wanted to achieve. I want to reflect briefly on some comments made by the last speaker, Mr Kenny Gibson. I think that he is right in saying that there are huge amounts of inconsistencies in the law and socially in how we recognise people of a certain cohort. For example, as I know from my time in the Justice Committee, we do treat the law, the judiciary treats 24 and 25-year-olds differently when it comes, for example, to sentencing guidelines. We ask 16-year-olds to vote for us in elections, but we equally do not afford them the same rights as us for a number of years, nor are they afforded the same repercussions for their actions as people older than them. I have held a long-held view that there are far too many inconsistencies in the application of law or the definition of what a young person is, who is it and how old they are and what rights and responsibilities are afforded on them. That's a much wider debate that we certainly do not have time for today, but he is right to point that out. How we square that circle I think will be a job for another Parliament. The issue, however, on that of the medical intervention that may or may not take place as a result of attending a GRC. This is where I would like to point out to the chamber that it has already been possible to obtain a GRC in Scotland for nearly two decades, and at no point does one have to medically transition to the acquired gender in order to receive and use that certificate. That is something that has already been happening for a very long time. Not everyone who achieves a GRC will go on to transition or will seek medical intervention or be introduced to any form of medication in doing so. That's something that has happened and that will continue. I'm not convinced that the member made clear that this will be further enhanced or any risk that more people will transition from a medical point of view as part of this new simplified process. I believe that I had one for Mr Simpson first and then a colleague. I thank Jamie Greene again for taking the intervention. I appreciate that he's not speaking to his own amendment, but I'm sure that Christine Grahame will be very grateful that he's speaking to hers. It comes down to language, I guess. Amendment 99 relates to guidance that a young applicant must seek. The amendment here says that the applicant must tell the registered general what role the individual mentioned has or how the individual knows the applicant. We already have in the bill that this advice must be sought. I'm just wondering, and I appreciate that it is not Jamie Greene's amendment, but if he could give his view on what difference any of that would make to what is already in the bill. At the moment, the bill in section 3A states that the young person, just to be correct and accurate on page 2 into page 3, must confirm that the applicant has discussed the implications of obtaining a GRC with an individual who has a role that involves giving guidance, advice or support to young people. That's point A, and I think that was a welcome addition. Point B then goes on to say that at least 18 and knows the applicant personally, both quite helpful and welcome additions. Amendment 99 goes further and adds to that by saying that the registered general must be told by the applicant what role the individual mentioned in section 2 has. The reason for that, I suspect, is that others are calling for example that that person must be a medical professional or a doctor or a suitably qualified medical professional to give advice alone and therefore I think limits the scope of what type of person can give that advice, but also importantly how that person knows the individual. I appreciate and I do accept that we could go further and perhaps with the benefit of time we could have added to this amendment. I probably would have added to it myself had we not had such a deadline. Members will recall that we all had extremely tight deadlines to deliver by midday on the Wednesday of last week, feels like a million years ago, but many of us were sitting in other committees and trying to draft amendments at the same time on our mobile phones. It's not ideal. None of this was ideal. I think we all need to make progress. None of this was ideal and I think yes, you're right, we could have strengthened many of these amendments but we are where we are on this and I do feel like it's a sensible compromise which is why I'm happy to support it. I'm not sure if the other member wanted to intervene still. Thank you Presiding Officer and I thank Jamie Greene for taking the intervention. It was just on an article that had been drawn to my attention in the British Medical Journal which says that currently 7% of people who apply for a GRC are, their application is turned down. So I was wondering when Jamie Greene was talking there about the medical intervention, the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which is obviously done by a doctor, do you believe that the Scottish Government must address the people who were refused a GRC previously by a doctor who would now be able to obtain a GRC through a self-id system in Scotland? I'm not 100% to understand what the member is asking me, but I'm happy to have a very lengthy discussion about it. I'm not sure it's relevant to this amendment. I think the premise of what's been asked is that those who have been refused this certificate in the past may now be able to apply for one. There are certain individuals, I believe, that are problematic in obtaining a GRC, and we're going to come on in a later group to discuss that very issue, perhaps come out very shortly in the next group. Yes, there are some sensible amendments that we should add to the legislation which adds some further safeguards and protections around a very specific cohort of people. The big point that I would say, and it may be just simply a point of difference, is that the current process does require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. I made that very clear in my stage 1 comments that that's a concept that I disagreed with for all the reasons that are already on the record. For that reason, I would be unwilling to support amendments that sought to reintroduce that medicalisation and that diagnosis of gender dysphoria to the process of obtaining a GRC. That's on the record, and I'm sure that members will respect my position on that. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I do not intend to detain the chamber for long, but I start by associating myself with Jamie Greene's opening remarks in thanking all the organisations and individuals who have been in touch with us because that has helped to inform the debate. I also thank the legislation team for all their work on amendments, the drafting and the redrafting, as we hone our thinking. I also want to support amendments in the name of Martin Whitfield as they are proportionate, sensible and reasonable, and I commend them to the chamber. I wish to speak to amendment 105 in my name and can I welcome the amendments laid by Christine Grahame at stage 2 of the bill's consideration because they have put safeguards into the bill to ensure that such a significant decision taken by 16 and 17-year-olds is taken with due care and support. I agree with her that a person applying for a gender recognition certificate has to have lived in their acquired gender for a period of six months rather than three. Where my concern lies is that effectively someone aged 15 and a half can start the process in order to obtain the certificate on their 16th birthday. For those who consider 16 as perhaps too young, that merits some reflection by the Parliament. My amendment effectively says that the six months starts on the person's 16th birthday. I would therefore be grateful for an explanation and reassurance from the cabinet secretary in the absence of Christine Grahame that they have no concerns that this might be too early and what safeguards they believe are in place to protect and support young people. I now call Jeremy Balfright to be followed by Maggie Chapman. I also want to start by thanking all the groups that have been in touch with me. I also thank all the constituents from across the Lothian who have emailed me over the past weeks and months. I am sure that all members have received lots of emails putting very strong arguments on both sides. Of all, we have to come to a view on that. I do appreciate the time that we have taken to do that. I want to stand briefly to speak in favour of amendment 6 in this section. The reason I do that is to follow through on what the First Minister said yesterday. In a TV interview, she said those words. This is a bill that does not give any new rights to trans people. She went on to claim that it only affects the process of obtaining a GRC. That would be true if Rachel Hamilton's amendments are approved this afternoon. If they are not, then that does give new rights to trans people because, as the bill stands at the moment, it will reduce the age from 18 to 16. I think that it would be helpful if the cabinet secretary intervened or spoke on me sections to clarify whether the First Minister's right does give no new rights. If the First Minister is wrong, can she tell us why those new rights are important and why did the First Minister make the statement that she did yesterday to the press? I am pleased to speak in this group. Can I too, like others have done, put on record my thanks to all those organisations and individuals who have worked so hard to get us to this point today? Those who have provided briefings, information, guidance, the parliamentary staff in committee, the legislation team and others who have supported the passage of the bill through the stages, and of course trans people themselves who have waited so long for this day. Extending the right to obtain a gender recognition certificate to 16 and 17 year olds is absolutely the right thing to do. It brings us in line with international good practice and, importantly, it allows us to align this important legislation with the age of legal capacity, which in Scotland is 16. At this age, young people can get married, join the army, work and vote in Scottish parliamentary and local elections. It is almost as if we trust them to make big life decisions on their own. I do not see why this is any different. Let us also remember that many young people have already socially transitioned by the time they are 16. This might include coming out to their 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, leave them open to a lack of privacy regarding their trans status. I have spoken elsewhere about my vehement opposition to any waiting periods living in their quiet gender and the reflection period. The former was extended to six months at stage two for young people. Retaining these time periods in any form means we go against international best practice. There is no evidence for these time periods to exist, and trans people and those who work with them and support them have told us repeatedly that there is no justification for these waiting times. In view of this, we certainly cannot support Jackie Baillie's amendment 105 that effectively means only trans people aged 16 and a half can apply for a GRC. That makes a mockery of one of the very principles of this bill of extending it to 16 and 17 year olds. Changing one's legal gender is not something one does on a whim. Those applying for a GRC will likely have thought about, considered and reflected on this decision for months, if not years. Let us believe young people when they tell us they know their own minds. Let us not pathologise them. Let us be clear that 16 and 17 year olds should and will be able to get a GRC and be recognised in law for who they are. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to be followed by Karen Mawchen. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats how grateful we are for all the work that has gone in both to the production of this bill, to get it to this stage and the briefings that we have all received? Can I also state on record how grateful I am for the respectful tone that this debate has been conducted with so far? There has been too much heat and hate around this bill and I am grateful for colleagues for expressing their remarks and their concerns or their support for the bill with such respect and I hope we continue in that vein. Listen to some of the well-crafted remarks from people who oppose the legislation or oppose it being extended to 16 year olds. You would be forgiven for thinking that we were somehow pioneers in extending gender recognition or reforming gender recognition in this way. We are not pioneers. We are seven years behind Ireland in this regard. We are behind the international curve. Right now, 250 million people around the planet live in jurisdictions where gender recognition is obtained through a system of law. That has not led to a correlation to some of the things that we have heard prophesied in the debates against reform or against extending it to 16 year olds. This Parliament has grappled with the concept of the age of majority since its inception. It did so for the 13 years that I served in the children's voluntary sector at times when I was participating in trying to influence legislation around exactly that. It did so in the years before and it has done in the years since. Over time, it is fair to say that we have started to see a natural coalescence around the age of 16 in terms of age of majority. We have heard some very eloquent speeches from the likes of Maggie Chapman about what capacity we credit 16 year olds with in our society. Of course, there is still variance, because we are always on a journey. Parliament is on a never-ending journey in terms of finding the right balance of law. One of such variance that I mentioned in my intervention to Rachel Hamilton is around the age of criminal responsibility. That rests now at 12. It was at 8. That is the age at which we credit children and young people with having the mental capacity to understand the impact of their actions and their decisions. The Conservatives backed that change to 12. If we could credit 16 year olds with the mental capacity to commit crime, to marry, to serve in our armed forces, it is only right that we credit them to recognise who they are and to want to have that recognised on the documents that we as a state require them to hold. Clare Baker expresses concern around the correlation between this and medical transition. It was a theme that was picked up by Kenny Gibson. I refer again to my earlier remarks about the people who have gone before us. It is simply a mechanism to have that recognition to the person you are transcribed on to the forms that you are required to hold. Medical transition is an important debate, but it is not this debate. It is about changing the law to remove the barriers and the trauma around having a person's gender recognition reflected on those documents that we currently ask of them. That is real trauma. The GRA is harming people every day. We cannot allow it to continue where the final decision about your identity is entrusted to strangers that you have never met. Jamie Greene spoke very well. In his amendment 98, I am not persuaded that providing evidence of that discussion with an appropriate adult will not create unnecessary barriers to 16 year olds, but I do support, and he spoke very well in support of the compromise amendment in Christine Graham's name for amendment 99. In conclusion, Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that if we credit 16 year olds with mental capacity to do so many things, life changing things in our society, we should have the trust in them and credit them with the mental capacity to understand who they are and to seek to have that recognised in the documents that we require them to hold. I feel that it is important to raise the serious concerns that many parents have raised with me and young people have regarding this part of the bill, especially considering how poor current support provision is for young people in this country, despite being the group and perhaps the greatest need of support. It is essential that young people can access the same level of psychological and social support as any person before making such a decision, and I do not see that this is available at all. My colleague in amendment 94 is quite rightly asking for a pause to this section of the bill. She raises very well and clearly this would not prevent 16 or 17 year olds from socially transitioning. I cannot think of many pieces of transformative legislation that would be passed before something as important as the cash review had published its conclusions, which, though not specifically focused on NHS Scotland, can clearly have great relevance here, and we should have the opportunity to consider its findings before we change the age. I intend to set out my wider arguments on the bill in group 13 debate, in which I have some amendments lodged of my own. My general position on the bill is that I will not be supporting it. However, I am intending to support amendments that I feel increase safeguarding provision. In that vein, I am happy to support amendment 6 and amendment 15. I do not think that children of the age of 16 is an appropriate age for such what many people would consider to be a very profound change. I want to take this opportunity to share with the chamber the view of a mother who wrote to me just a few days ago, and she wanted me to read out her perspective to the members in the chamber today. My 15-year-old daughter is on the autistic spectrum and is struggling with anxiety and depression. Despite showing no signs of gender incongruence before the age of 12, she is self-diagnosed as having gender dysphoria three years ago and currently identifies as male. I believe that she has been influenced by social media and current societal norms. The teen years is a time of flux and how she feels now may change over time as she matures. The school and the NHS have taken an affirmative approach despite my concerns as a parent. I do not agree that the Government should be lowering the age that young people can self-id to the age of 16 as socially transitioning is the first step along an often misguided path to medicalisation and surgery. I was persuaded and coerced that it was the right thing to do to call my daughter by the new name and pronouns when in fact this was bad advice and has led us down a very difficult path as a family. I believe that a watchful waiting and holistic approach is best looking at all the factors in a young person's life end quotation. There is also a large and increasing number of detransitioner voices and that is something that I feel has not been well represented in this process. The detransitioner's event that was mentioned earlier today, hosted by Ruth Maguire in the Parliament just a few weeks ago, and I would agree with the other members that have spoken on this so far that their stories were extremely powerful, heartbreaking even, and there was a real strong sense that they had been very much let down by those who should in fact have been protecting them. The question was put to them. Was self-id at 16 a good change? It was an emphatic no from the two young people. Neither of them supported self-id and they thought that having a bit of paper in your new gender would in their view only incentivise young people to seek to change how they looked in order to match up to their new documents. The age should be 18 and no lower in my view and in my opinion we should exercise extreme caution in this area. I now call Pauline McNeill. I just wanted to make a short contribution to this debate and also to seek some clarity on the number of points from the ministers. I start by saying that there is considerable public concern about age 16 in the bill and therefore it is right that it should be the subject of scrutiny and deep scrutiny. I would like to thank all colleagues for their contributions in this regard. We already protect young people who have not reached the age of 18 and I think we will continue to have those types of debates. I want to thank Jamie Greene, Jackie Baillie and Karen Walken for bringing important contributions to the debate but also for the importance of supporting young people. It is an important principle wherever you vote at the end of the day. I think that it is not inconsistent at all with recognising the independence of young people at 16. I think that it is important to note and I will continue to talk about this as we go on through the passage of these groupings. The model of the proposed legislation being a self-ID model whereas the 2004 legislation had many other requirements including a period of two years where documents are changed over that period. I think that it is quite important to recognise the substantial difference in having a GRC under 2004 and 2022. Here are the areas that I would like some clarity on from the Government. Many constituents and the LGBT constituents have said to me that they cannot, when they apply for college, they want to make sure that their certificate aligns with their gender. I am a bit unclear about whether colleges are actually asking for that. I am advised that they can ask for other documents. I think that it is important to clarify that particular point. I also think that the Government needs to be clear about why arguing for the UN rights of the child being 18 is a very important point for the Government to address and not anyone else as to why they have gone for 16. I will be listening very carefully to that answer. Finally, as Clare Baker has outlined and others have, there is a very important review on the table by Dr Cass. I am not clear why the Government does not seem to be listening to the pleas of Dr Cass to halt this provision at least until that is reviewed. Those are the areas that I would like clarity on before I make my final decision. I would be very grateful to hear it. Thank you, Ms McNeill. I now call on the cabinet secretary to respond to his amendments. I begin, like others, by thanking everyone who has helped us to get to this stage of the bill and also for the constructive tone that has been set so far. Two months ago at stage 1, the principles of this bill were agreed by a strong majority in this chamber with support from members of all parties. Following that, in the head of stage 2, I undertook meetings with many MSPs from across this chamber. Wherever possible, we worked constructively together to agree amendments to strengthen the bill at stage 2. As a result, more amendments were voted in at stage 2 than were voted down. 47 were agreed, 43 were not agreed and 60 were not moved. I have again met any member who requested ahead of stage 3 and have been able to agree some positive changes to the bill that are consistent with those principles that were agreed at stage 1. I am grateful to members of all parties for working with me on improvements to the bill. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comment about tone and the involvement of all members. I ask her to respond directly to a point that was made, albeit briefly, by Rachael Hamilton in her opening remarks. There may be one view, even a majority, that all the evidence of the views of the people of Scotland, as recorded in the poll after poll, records the view, incontrovertibly, that a very substantial majority of people in Scotland, ranging from 68 to 81 per cent, will pose the reduction of the age to 16. I say to Fergus Ewing that there have been many consultations and polls that we could point to. I could point to the two large public consultations at the start of this bill process, which, of course, showed support. I could point to the BBC poll that was conducted earlier this year that showed support for the bill, particularly among women, and support for reducing the age to 16. I acknowledge to Fergus Ewing and others that there is a difference of opinion about the bill. There has been a difference of opinion about age from the start. I said when I opened at stage 1 that the issue of age had been one of the most difficult to address because of all the issues that members have raised. I took a lot of time to consider those issues. Listening to the views of young people has also been an important part of that. Young people have said very clearly that they believe that they should have the ability to make those decisions. I will go on to say a bit more about that in terms of the age of legal capacity in a moment. The amendments that I have worked with members on include amendments tabled by Christine Grahame at stage 2, which I supported, and her amendment 99 today. The extension of legal gender recognition to those aged 16 and 17 with appropriate safeguards is one of the principles that the Equalities Committee showed clear support in its stage 1 report. That is an area strengthened at stage 2. However, there are amendments in this group that we cannot support. Amendments 6 to 9 and 12 in the name of Rachel Hamilton seek to revert the minimum age of application back to 18, and therefore I cannot support them. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. Will the cabinet secretary accept that accepting Christine Grahame's amendments, which give further support for under-18s, means that the Government is accepting that lowering the age is a problem? What I accept is that I have listened to concerns that have been raised and the need for young people aged 16 and 17 to have that additional support. That is why we have set out and agreed to the amendments at stage 2 and are supporting the amendments at stage 3, which are around making sure that the young person understands the process and that they have sought and undertaken appropriate support. I think that that is the right balance to making sure that young people are afforded the same rights, but in recognition of their age are given that additional support. I think that that strikes the right balance in this bill. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking this intervention. I just wanted to recognise for a moment that a young man did have his identity challenged in the Scottish Parliament moments ago. I wonder if she would agree that that is wrong and offer support to him in something that should never have happened. I am not aware of the details of what Emma Roddick is raising, but someone's details should never be revealed at all. That, certainly, I agree on the basis of what Emma Roddick has just told me. Amendment 93 and 94, in the name of Claire Baker, provides that the minimum age of applicants should be 18 until such time as the CAS review has published its final report. Given that, and I have said this on a number of occasions, there is no link between the outcome of the CAS review of NHS England provision of medical services and this bill, which is about trans people obtaining legal gender recognition in Scotland. I cannot support those amendments. Yes, of course. It would be helpful if the stage 1 report from the Qualitative Committee did ask if the Government would undertake a review into gender identity healthcare. It would be helpful to know if that was the Government's intention. I think that there are areas in the CAS review, principally, that there are an increasing number of young women who decide to go through this process. Do you feel that the Government has a proper understanding of what the reasons for that are as we are looking at extending this right to 16-year-olds? On the issue of the CAS review, it is important to recognise that the service model in England is still providing the services just on a different model, on a regionalised model. We have continued to say that we will closely consider the findings of the CAS review in the context of our work to improve NHS Scotland's service provision. I think that it is important to do that. I think that it should also make the point that, within those multi-professional health services, they have links to mental health services, to CAMHS and other supports to look at the young person in the round. I think that that will hopefully give some reassurance to some of the points that have been made on that. The effect of amendment 105 in the name of Jackie Baillie would be that the minimum age for an applicant would be 16 years and six months instead of 16. I think that setting a minimum age of 16.5 would be confusing. Of course, the principle of the bill is that someone will declare that they have been living in the acquired gender, and for young people that will be for six months. Of course, it is a retrospective look and commitment and declaration of the fact that they have been living in their acquired gender. I think that I was looking for reassurance about what safeguard she thought there would be in place if somebody was applying at the quite young age of 15.5. The person can only apply from 16 onwards. They cannot apply at 15.5. They can only apply from 16. I think that the safeguards, as we have already been talking about, are there around making sure that the young person understands the process and the commitment that they are signing up to and committing to. They are also able to say what support they have received and from whom. Obviously, there are other amendments that I will come on to in a second about some of the detail of that. It has been clear to me in listening to young trans people that they feel excluded from a system to access legal gender recognition, particularly at an age where a young person will want to have consistent documentation before moving on to higher and further education or starting the first job. I take Clare Baker's point about whether it is colleges or universities that are asking for particular documentation. Young people themselves are saying that they want to be able to get on with their life with all of the documentation reflecting who they are and how they are living their life. I do not think that that is an unreasonable thing to ask for. Young people in Scotland are empowered at 16 to leave home without parental consent to get a full-time job, pay national insurance, enter into a legally binding contract, consent to medical procedures, to marry, change their name and vote for members of this Parliament. Although, of course, it is possible, as others have done, to point to comparators for what they can and cannot do at specified ages. Applying for legal gender recognition generally aligns with the other comparable rights and responsibilities that young people obtain at 16. It aligns with the provisions in the Age of Legal Capacity Scotland Act 1991, where, under Scots law, a person over the age of 16 generally has legal capacity to enter into any transaction having legal effect. I will not be supporting amendments 98 and 101 in the name of Jamie Greene, which provides a 16 or 17-year-old applicant must provide evidence of the support that they have sought if requested, as it is not clear how a young person would evidence conversations that they have had if required to do so. For example, would there have to be a record of a personal conversation that they have had with a family member or with a trusted organisation or a counselling service, for example? I also cannot support amendments in the name of Martin Whitfield, which require the young person to provide the name and contact details of the person they have sought support from. A teacher, counsellor or a doctor or organisation that provides support to young people should not expect to be approached by a staff member from National Records of Scotland asking about confidential conversations that they have had with a young person. I would also point out that the bill already includes provision to allow a GRC to be refused or revoked for applicants of any age on the grounds of incapacity. As the register general explained in evidence to the committee, it is not for NRS to make a judgment about the capacity of an applicant. If they have concerns, they will apply to a sheriff, and it is they who can determine whether a person has capacity based on evidence. I hope that that gives Martin Whitfield the assurance that he is looking for. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. It is right to say that the bill, as it exists, will provide that power to the registrar general, albeit that the registrar general is not the person who will undertake the assessment as to capacity. That would be a court, rightly so, but the provision is there where registrar is uncertain, but on the assumption that there is capacity to begin with. The sheriff, of course, would have the ability to make further inquiries and look at the evidence. The registrar general does not have that, but he is able to raise those concerns if he has concerns about capacity. I also cannot support amendment 15, the name of Kenny Gibson, that requires that the support to the young person must be from someone suitably qualified. In many cases such support will be best provided by a supportive family member, for example. I do support amendment 99 in the name of Christine Graham, which provides that when confirming to the registrar general that they have discussed their application with a suitable individual, the young person must provide their role or how they know them. I think that that will strengthen the assurance that a young applicant has access to advice or support and carefully considered their application, without introducing new evidence requirements. With that in place, those of Martin Whitfield and others, I do not believe, are needed. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and I call on Rachel Hamilton to wind up and to speak with draw amendment 6. My position on allowing children to apply for a gender recognition certificate has been clear from stage 1 of the bill, as with so much of this bill, these provisions leave an abundance of unanswered questions. The Government, I believe, is deeply confused about the definition of a child. It cannot explain why it believes the CAS review has no relevance to this part of the bill. It cannot guarantee that it won't lower the age at which someone can obtain a GRC even further. It cannot explain how those provisions would interact with the educational provisions within the 2010 Equality Act and relying on the assertions from the Scottish Government organisations to reassure them that this is all right, does not make it all right. The holes in this part of the bill are glaring and they are there for all of us to see. That we are having these conversations around extra safeguards is an admission that members in this chamber are concerned. I would urge members to carefully consider my arguments that I have set out as to why maintaining the status quo for the age is important. Amendments and comments from my colleagues in the chamber have raised significant points, especially the arguments made by Clare Baker, Pauline McNeill, Kenny Gibson and Ash Reagan. If we keep the status quo on the age, I thank the member for taking an intervention on that point. Does Rachel Hamilton think it's wrong to weaponise neurodiversity and neurodivergent young people in this way, in this debate, and say that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves? I am very disappointed in Maggie Chapman's intervention. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful to lower the tone of this very respectful debate that we are all having today. We have a right to speak about our concerns in this chamber from any party, anyone can speak freely and openly. If we do not have a road bust debate on this, we cannot make good legislation, and that is a problem in this Parliament. I am grateful to the member for giving me a way. I am very understanding of why the member has concerns about the way that neurodivergent people may be being discussed. Can I say, as a neurodivergent person, that it is incredibly important that we think through this very carefully? I have something with a neurodivimental disorder that is neurodivergent in some other way. I may be approaching this issue if they are transgender, and it is important that we think through that very carefully indeed. Daniel Johnson makes a very important point. One of my family members is neurodivergent, so please do not ever intervene in that manner again, Maggie Chapman, because it is very upsetting from a personal point of view. The member has made clear that she is not taking intervention. I would urge members to consider the arguments that I have made. I think that we should look at this very carefully in light of the unanswered questions that I asked the cabinet secretary to address. The fact that they have supported Christine Grahame's amendment, which looks at giving support to lowering the age. That happened at stage 2, so it is clear that the Scottish Government has an issue with lowering the age. They have understood that two thirds of the Scottish public disagree with lowering the age, as my colleague has already highlighted. I have no more to add, and I move the amendments in my name. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed or are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, as this is the first division of the stage. The Parliament is suspended for five minutes.