 yn amlwg, mae Cllr Baker a'r ddweudio i fy ngyfnidol 6, Cllr Baker a'r ddweudio o'r ddweudio o'r ddweudio o'r ddweudio? O'r ddweudio o'r ddweudio? O'r ddweudio o'r ddweudio o'r ddweudio o'r ddweudio? Oliver Mundell? I see your guidance where members don't move amendments at stage 3. Is it open to other members to move them to vote? You are absolutely correct, Mr Mundell. Do I take it from that that you wish to move that amendment? yr ysgol iawn o'r ddweud. Ac efallai ddim yn gallu gweld cynlluniau i gael y cyd-dweud y cwestiynau na'u cerdd iawn ar gyfer o'i cyfanyddiedig, ond fe ddim gael'r ddweud rhywbeth a'r gyfer yr yr iechyd yma o'r cyfle oleистau o'r cyfrifwyr o'r cyfrifwyr o'r cyfrifwyr. Dechreu am yw pwg, Fyran i'r cyfrifwyr, a'i cerddiaeth i gael ar gyfrynyddiol i'r cyfrifwyr doedd the number of amendment 18, and speaks to all other amendments in the group. I have nine amendments in this group. They are 18, 22, 28, 39, AB&C 50, 52 and 53. I am also pleased to support and speak to the amendment lodged by Michelle Thompson. That is number 39, which I will come to in a moment. all 18 of the amendments in group 2 relate to criminals, specifically those charged with or convicted of serious offences, including rape and other sex crimes. Many of my amendments are substantially similar to those that I brought forward at stage 2. Any tweaks and improvements that I have made between stages 2 and 3 have been in response to concerns raised by the Government and others. Some of those concerns relate to compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights which I have addressed and I will come on to that. Today, Presiding Officer, it is important to restate what I said at stage 2. These amendments are not about putting barriers on the way of genuine trans people who are often marginalised and vulnerable. Women's rights campaigners and others with concerns about this bill are not conflating trans people with sex criminals. Those who attempt to frame their opposition in this way are irresponsible to do so, as I suspect they will know is a gross mischaracterisation. The accusation made this week from one former Scottish Labour MSP that trans people have become, when I quote, synonymous with sex offenders due in part, again quoting hysterical media outlets is typically ill-judged and inflammatory. No, Presiding Officer, I repeat that these amendments are entirely about those men who will inevitably seek to exploit the inherent weaknesses in the proposed new system of gender recognition certificates. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am very grateful to Russell Finlay for giving away. The way he is describing his amendments, he would be forgiven for thinking, Presiding Officer, that GRC represented some kind of passport in our society, that it opened doors for you. GRC is not a valid form of identification, it is not required to be presented in order to access a single sex base or any place where vulnerable people go for help or treatment or anything of the kind. This is simply a piece of paper that recognises legally your gender as it is, as you know it to be. We are making it easier for people to obtain that piece of paper, but it is not a valid form of entry or a passport to these bases. I disagree with Mr Cole-Hamilton. This is not just a piece of paper that fundamentally changes many aspects of society, and I will come on to that. The proposed new system is radical—some might even say experimental—where someone, anyone, can simply declare that they have changed sex, and that will be taken at face value and facilitated by the state. My amendments are intended to prevent those male criminals who already lie and deceived, commit serious wrongdoing, and to whose victims are almost always women and girls. I agree with what Shona Robinson said at stage 2, and I quote, I want to be clear from the start that the real threat to women and girls is predatory and abusive men. However, I strongly disagree with what she went on to say, again quoting—and this perhaps chimes with Mr Cole-Hamilton's point—that there is no evidence that those men who would obtain a GRC in order to abuse women or that that has happened in any other countries that have similar processes. The United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, is clear. She said the bill would potentially, and I quote, open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it. She added, this presents potential risk to the safety of women in all their diversity. Importantly, she also means the safety of trans women. She also said the bill, again quoting, does not provide for any safeguarding measures to ensure that the procedure is not, as far as can be reasonably assured, abused by sexual predators and other perpetrators of violence. In my notes, I have placed a marker here in anticipation of an intervention about what someone else from the United Nations has said. It did not come, but I turn to Victor Madrigal Borlaws, who is the UN expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He has said that there is no evidence of such abuse from other countries that have adopted gender self-id unsurprisingly. Mr Madrigal Borlaws is the UN expert who Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP Green ministers are choosing to listen to and agree with, but is he correct? I do not believe that he is. More specifically, I do not think that Mr Madrigal Borlaws has shown any evidence to support his claim of there being a lack of evidence in other countries. The claim is, I believe, disappointingly naive at best, dangerously false at worst. Others agree, Murray, Blackburn and Mackenzie, which is made up of Dr Kath Murray, Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa Mackenzie, have conducted critical work around gender recognition reform. The policy analysis group examined Mr Madrigal Borlaws' assertion and found them to be seriously deficient. They say that it is demonstrably untrue that no cases have been reported of violent men obtaining access to women's spaces using a GRC. In most countries they say that there has been little or no effort to record such incidents. If you do not look, you will not find. In some countries, publicly recorded data has become fundamentally compromised by replacing a person's sex with their gender identity. I now turn to the specific amendment starting with number 18. Put simply, this would only allow someone to seek a GRC if they are not a registered sex offender. That is someone who is on the sex offender's register. At stage 2, the previous version of the amendment was more robust. It was an absolute and unconditional ban on registered sex offenders being able to obtain a GRC. When I met Shona Robison, which I was grateful for that, she advised me that my previous approach might have been incompatible with ECHR although she was not willing to share the legal advice on that. I have added a right to appeal. Amendment 50 means that a GRC applicant who is on the sex offender's register could bring their case to a sheriff who would make that decision. Connected to both amendments 18 and 50 is amendment 28. That is largely technical in that it would ensure that a GRC applicant who is also a registered sex offender would be required to disclose that. Amendment 22 is not a reheat from stage 2. It is entirely new. However, it has its roots in stage 2. In response to my wider concerns about registered sex offenders exploiting GRCs, Shona Robison told me that the justice secretary, Keith Brown, had a plan. That plan is for him to introduce changes to existing regulations around the management of sex offenders. Essentially, we are told that registered sex offenders will have to notify the police if they seek a GRC. We may be able to take it in trust that that will happen, but we do not know enough detail. On December 9, I wrote to Mr Brown but I have yet to receive a reply. Even if we did have Mr Brown's plan in front of us, it strikes me that this attempted fix has only come about because of the stage 2 amendment. I ask why we are SNP ministers not concerned about registered sex offenders seeking to exploit GRC until so late in the day. As far as I am concerned, that plan appears to be reactive, lacking in detail and not much more than a last-minute sticking plaster, which is really not good enough. The next amendment is number 39, which has been lodged by Michelle Thomson. I expect that we hear a very personal account from Michelle Thomson about this. I will therefore keep my contribution brief and focused on its purpose and practicalities. Number 39, we prevent anyone who is charged with rape or another sexual offence from being able to seek a GRC until after the case against them has been disposed of, whether by way of acquittal or conviction. The primary purpose of this is to prevent alleged rapists. It is worth reminding us of what the legislation says, that only a man can commit rape as the crime is defined by the use of male genitals from declaring that he is female. I previously asked the SNP justice secretary and a very senior police Scotland officer about what would happen in the following scenario. Would a traumatised female victim have to call her male rapist, she and her, in the High Court? It sounds absurd, ludicrous and unimaginable, but the answers that I got back were worryingly vague and completely unconvincing. I regard the imposition of a GRC ban in such circumstances as proportionate and similar to bail conditions that are applied by courts on accused people every single day. Bail conditions can prevent someone from travelling overseas, limit their movements, who they can communicate with, enforce a curfew. Such conditions are clearly more onerous and restrictive than temporarily stopping someone from seeking a GRC. At stage 2, my version of that amendment was more general. It sought to prevent anyone charged under all solemn proceedings from seeking a GRC until the case ends. At stage 3, amendment 39 specifies only those charged with rape and sex crimes, so I turn to amendment 39A, B and C. 39A is a paving amendment linking to B and C. 39A would pause a GRC application for anyone who is charged with crimes of domestic abuse and violence. 39B applies to anyone charged with fraud. The thinking behind 39B is similar to 39 to guarantee the prevention of male criminals using and abusing, exploiting the lax new GRC laws to taunt, torment or to retraumatise their victims. Turning to 39C, it seems sensible to not allow someone who is accused of fraud from being able to acquire a new identity with such ease as the bill intends. A fake identity is a tool of many a fraudster. A new identity, delivered by the state, would be a gift, and I believe that potentially risks fuelling further acts of fraud. As with 39, 39B and C are proportionate, only being in place until the criminal proceedings come to an end. I turn to amendment 52. This would allow a sheriff to revoke someone's GRC in the event of that person being convicted of rape or sexual assault involving the person's genitals at birth. Let's restate what the law says. Rape can only be committed with male genitals. That is unambiguous. There have already been deeply worrying cases in Scotland and elsewhere where male sex offenders have decided to identify as women before then going on to commit sex crimes using their male genitals. This should not be happening now, but it is. We most certainly should not be passing a bill that would enable more of it. Not only would this be an insult to victims, it would make a mockery of crime statistics. Think about it. A trans woman with a penis and a GRC rapes a woman, then the law will say that this crime was committed by a woman. Utterly perverse and an affront to every woman in Scotland. I had a similar amendment at stage 3 at stage 2. It stated that a sheriff must revoke a GRC in such circumstances. However, in an attempt to be ECHR compliant, 52 changes from the word must to may. Amendment 53 adds further clarification to that, that the removal of a GRC in such circumstances is not an absolute and that a sheriff would have heed of all the relevant facts before making a decision. I would like to quickly address some of the other amendments in this group. Gillian Martin's amendment 44 would allow the chief constable when applying for a sexual offences prevention order to prevent the person from applying for a GRC certificate. That would include the chief constable having to notify the registrar general of their application and the making of any interim order that should prevent the person from applying for a gender recognition certificate. The outcome of any order application must be communicated to the registrar general by the chief constable. An application for a gender recognition certificate made in breach of an order would be treated as if the application had never been made. I will be supporting this amendment because it represents a strengthening of the existing provisions in the bill. Currently, there is nothing in the bill preventing predatory men from applying for a GRC. A sexual offences prevention order must be made on application to a sheriff court by a chief constable. They apply to offences listed in paragraphs 36 to 60 in the sexual offences act 2003, which is similar to my amendment seeking to ban sex offenders from applying for a GRC. However, there is a crucial difference. As per the sexual offences act, a person is always subject to notification requirements if they are convicted of defence set out in the act, although, of course, the time period subject to requirements will vary. Whereas sexual offence prevention orders are far less common and are not required when a person is convicted of sexual offence. Information on sexual offence prevention orders is not regularly published, as far as I can tell, but just to compare the latest data that was publicly available on 19 October 2020, Police Scotland confirmed that there were 6,016 registered sex offenders in Scotland compared to 668 offenders that they managed with sexual offence prevention orders. That means the number of registered sex offenders, the out number of offenders subject to these prevention orders by around 9 to 1. While the amendment is a welcome step, it is not enough. I would prefer the Scottish Government to endorse my proposals, which, as I have demonstrated, are more comprehensive. Amendments 40A through to E are all sub-sequential amendments to Gillian Martin's and insert sexual risk orders into the original amendment. Those are the equivalent orders used in England and Wales, and, as I understand it, offenders subject to those orders are monitored by Police Scotland should they choose to locate here. It is welcome that this type of order is included, too, but it will not substantially change the number of people who will be impacted by the substantial amendment outlined in number 40A. Amendments 41A are consequential amendments to the substantial amendment of 40A. Members will note that we will shortly reach the next time limit and we still have a further group still to debate. As a consequence, under rule 9.a.5a, I am minded, Minister for Parliamentary Business, to accept emotion without notice to propose that the time be extended by 30 minutes. The question is that the time limit for debate and amendments be extended by 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I now call Michelle Thompson to speak to amendment 39 and other amendments in the group. First of all, I will point out that I shall only speak to my amendment 39 in this group, and I feel that the case of the other amendments linked to has been put very eloquently by Russell Finlay. First of all, for the record, I state that I cannot begin to imagine the angst that trans people suffer and I offer an open heart to those who wish to live with dignity and respect in their chosen gender. My biggest concern about this bill is regarding bad faith actors, about whom the First Minister herself has also recognised concerns. My amendment talks specifically to men applying for a GRC who have been charged with a sexual offence but not yet convicted and placed on the sexual offender's register. It does indeed simply seek to pause an application for a GRC until any court case is being resolved. In stage 2, and again today, Russell Finlay pointed out that a woman could end up having to refer to her attacker as she. Do the people in this chamber understand how that could indeed represent an opportunity for abusers to exert power and control over their victims? My first point concerns risk. Risk involves both probability and outcome. The probability of the situation that I depict occurring is low, but if it were to occur, the outcome on the victim could be devastating. Because of my own history, I still suffer from post-traumatic symptoms. Failings of desperation can resurface, sometimes with a sudden need to sleep. I can have lost days of depression. I can have an acute need to feel safe. I have bouts of anxiety. Such has been the distress caused by this bill. I had to go home one day in floods of tears and withdraw from a debate. I am not looking for sympathy. I have privilege. I have agency. The impact of trauma falls hardest on the weakest, the poor and the disenfranchised. I have a voice. They don't. Who, in the past six years, has spoken for them? My second point is that, in those six years, the Scottish Government has not undertaken or published any qualitative impact assessment on traumatised women. The committee failed to meet with female sexual survivors, creating further distress. I thank the cabinet secretary for our meetings. I really do, but I must comment further. I know that my amendment will be opposed by the Government on as-yet-untested legal grounds. My final point concerns the recent case, which was won by the Scottish Government, where it argued that a man with a GRC becomes a woman for all purposes. The logical extension of that position is that the Scottish Government also regard a man who has been convicted of rape or sexual assault as a woman for all purposes. Is that really the Government view and what message does it send to women? Does the Government understand that they are putting the rights of a GRC-seeking man charged with sexual assault or rape above the rights of the woman who is the victim? One solution was for the register general to question whether the applicant had been charged with a sexual offence, but I was informed that this could send a message that all trans people were sexual predators. We all agree that that is ridiculous, but the reasoning is also ridiculous. Most insurance companies ask about criminal convictions, not because they believe that all those seeking insurance are criminals, but because it is directly relevant to risk. I leave all colleagues and the Scottish Government to answer the question posed by Roddy Dunlop KC. He said, and I quote, I can conceive of no sensible basis upon which this amendment might be rejected. This would not affect trans rights in any way. It would nearly stop those rights being abused by men who are not trans. Why would one want to aid and abet such men? I move the amendment. I now call Jolene Martin to speak to amendment 40 and other amendments in the group. I speak to amendment 40, 41 and 42, which are in my name, and I seek to address the risk that might be presented by some applicants, notably those on the sex offenders register. I thank my colleague Jamie Greene for supporting me on the order of paper. The cabinet secretary confirmed in stage 2 that, before the bill is implemented, the Scottish Government will amend notification requirements for those on the sex offenders register to include having made an application for a GRC. That will mean that additional information will be available to help to identify an individual and inform their subsequent management under multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPA. That adds to the information that those on the register are already required to provide to the police, such as their name, address and passport, so that the police are fully informed about information relating to a person's identity. Other stage 2 amendments in the bill allow for the issue of agenda recognition certificate to be prevented where the application is fraudulent, but nothing so far does that on the basis of risk, and that is what I wanted to address. My amendment 40 provides the ability for the chief constable to notify the sheriff after a risk assessment is carried out on applicants who are on the sex offenders register, and should that risk be unacceptable, Police Scotland will apply for a sexual harm prevention order, or sexual offences prevention order, and that would prevent the applicant from obtaining it. I thank you first of all, but I am only privy to data from 2020 that 1 in 10 register sex offenders are subject to those orders. Does the member have any more up-to-date numbers on that? I don't think that the numbers really matter, because as long as we're looking at this, I come from a background that I did a lot of safety work around oil and gas. Just because something is very unlikely to happen doesn't mean to say that you shouldn't be closing or mitigating for that risk. That's the position that I come from in everything when I look at law. Just because maybe one person might get through doesn't mean to say that you've got to be proportionate, but at the same time you've got to recognise that something could happen when you're making law. I'll look at that the same way. I'll just find my place. Should the risk be unacceptable, Police Scotland will apply for a sexual harm prevention order, or a sexual offences prevention order, and that would prevent the applicant from obtaining a GRC, but that should stop the application. Once either of those orders are in place, the chief constable must inform the register general, and the register general must take no further steps on the application until that order has ceased to have effect, and that could have a time frame that the sheriff thinks is proportionate. That will not have any effect on any other applicant. What I mean by that is that the process that we are debating in this bill is supposed to provide trans people who legitimately want to obtain a GRC, a dignified, respectful and private process, and that's a process that I support. I have constituents who have had a very traumatising experience with the current process, and it's absolutely right that we reform it, but a GRC is for trans people. It's not for sexually violent individuals who want to exploit any systems. It's not—these are people who are, by very definition, exploitative, and my amendment ensures that those with sexual offences history who pose real harm will not be able to exploit this system. That will mean that any sex offender coming into Scotland from elsewhere in the UK will also be subject to the notification requirements, as they are resident here. My amendment makes use of existing police powers under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Act 2016, the protection of children and prevention of sexual offences act 2005 and the sexual offences act 2003. The amendment allows the chief constable to inform the register that an application to a sheriff for sexual harm prevention order is being made, an order that contains prohibitions or requirements necessary to protect the public, children, vulnerable adults from sexual harm from the person against whom the order is made. My amendments would allow for an application for a GRC to be paused to allow for an application for a sexual harm prevention order, and that would involve Police Scotland notifying the register general that, based on on-going risk assessment and risk management under MAPPA, they intend to apply for the prevention order. The national records of Scotland would then pause the application process and not issue a GRC pending the outcome of that process. It would then be for a sheriff to consider and agree to the order based on the evidence put forward. That is evidence coming forward from agencies that know that person. They are well aware of the history of that person. I believe that this is a stronger process than the current system allows. The gender recognition panel does not use risk assessments to make their decisions. One of the reasons that I am for reform is because the gender recognition panel can sometimes seem quite arbitrary to people. I referred earlier to someone that I know in my life who felt that the process was very traumatising when they were refused a gender recognition certificate because they had never spoken to anyone in the panel and they could not understand that. I am confident that what I am proposing protects people against the harm that sex offenders may pose if they try to exploit the having of a GRC. A GRC is for trans people, not creditors. I want to go on to talk about my amendments 41 and 42 and explain how that process will affect applicants on the sex offenders register. I want to be clear that trans people will not be asked to make any declaration in relation to the sex offenders register on the application form. I am pleased that Stonewall and the Scottish Trans and Equality Network have supported my amendments and made it clear in their briefings that the measures that I propose directly address this harmful conflation that there is of trans people and sex offenders that were sometimes seen in public discourse. It is our job in this Parliament to mitigate any risk no matter how small. Trans people do not pose a risk, sex offenders do. I understand the concerns that many have had around sex offenders applying for a GRC and I share them to a certain extent, but we must do everything that we can within their powers and within human rights legislation to prevent sex offenders from exploiting processes that might allow them to further offend or abuse other people. I get what Alec Hamilton said about a GRC and not a gateway, but it could be used to confuse people, to exploit people. I feel strongly, as others do, that I had to find a way to safeguard against this in a way that was competent. The amendments that I have put forward are fully compliant with existing human rights legislation, particularly the human convention of human rights, which is where other previous amendments, as Russell Findlay has mentioned at stage 2, did fall down. It is a competent amendment that I have worked with the Government on to get right, and I hope that those who want to mitigate the risk that sex offenders pose can see it as an effective way to safeguard against them. The register would not be able to grant an application for the GRC for as long as a sexual harm prevention order is enforced and the offender could only reapply as and when the duration of that order has ended. It is to the sheriff how long that order is in place for, and it is an established process that they are used to considering. To summarise the effect that I am taking together, my amendments will mean that those in the sex offenders register will not be able to receive a GRC without the risk of them having been assessed by the existing agencies who know them. It is my firm assertion that the strengthens even the current process where no risk assessments are done at all, prevent exploitation of the GR process by harmful sex offenders and affords women and trans people additional protection from those offenders. I want to thank Jamie Greene for supporting all my amendments in the order paper and the colleagues who have told me that they support this so far. I would ask everyone to support it. Thank you, Ms Martin. I now call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 40a and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will start by moving the amendments in my name. I want to start by saying, as I have many times before, that members across this chamber have also said that the threat to women and girls, of course, is from predatory and abusive men, and there is no evidence that such predatory and abusive men have ever needed to apply for legal gender recognition to carry out their behaviour. That has not happened in the other countries that have introduced similar reforms. Russell Finlay referred to the evidence from the UN independent expert, Victor Madrigal, bore laws, who made the point that there are now around over 300 million people living in countries that have adopted a statutory declaration-type approach in their country, and there is no evidence of those issues and concerns coming to fruition. That was not the characterisation that was put forward in the evidence session, the additional evidence session that the committee ran last night from Rheem Al-Salam, who is, of course, the UN rapporteur with a special mandate for violence against women. She said that the evidence is there. She said that the evidence has not been collated and analysed and put together in place, but the evidence certainly is there. Is the Government concerned at all that the impact assessments on the effect of this legislation has not taken place and that we are increasingly collecting data on the basis of gender identity and not on sex? First of all, on the issue of how data is collected, the member will be aware of the chief statistician's guidance on this, which is about the way that data should be collected is on asking the question on male-female with a voluntary trans question. I think that that is important because it is about gathering all the evidence and that is what public bodies should follow. There has been a lot and we will come on to some amendments around the data that should be collected with regard to this piece of legislation. There will be amendments coming forward around the three-year review on what data should be collected. On the point about Rheem Al-Salam who I also met with during that meeting, which was very constructive, there was no such evidence brought forward. We had a discussion around some of the general concerns that are voiced, but that is not the same as hard evidence. We also pushed to hear about some of the safeguards that she has described other countries have. Again, there were no such safeguards that we were not already putting in place or intending to put in place. However, as I say, it was a constructive meeting and I thank her for that. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. It was reported to several weeks ago in the Sunday Times that over the past three years, several hundred, I think over 300 registered sex offenders have changed their name plainly in order to disguise the fact that they are sex offenders to those with whom they deal. Can the cabinet secretary explain how it will be if we reject Mr Finlay's amendment that there will not be additional risk, as Michelle Thomson has argued, from men mascurating and applying for a GRC in order to proceed with their nefarious purposes so that they have even changed their name before they apply for agenda recognition certificate? First of all, let me be very clear that under the arrangements in Scotland—I cannot speak for what the arrangements are elsewhere, but the arrangements in Scotland under the MAPA arrangements are the arrangements that manage the sex offenders who are on the register require the notification of a change of name, a change of address and what we are adding into the bill is the application for agenda recognition certificate. All of that is already in place. I want to make some progress and I will bring in. The bill also, importantly, does not change the equality act, which is, of course, reserved legislation that we cannot modify, a point that is now enshrined in the bill following a stage 2 amendment. I recognise that some people have concerns and fears that, of course, are genuinely held, and I have, throughout this process, tried to address those concerns. I would point out—I think that this is a point that Gillian Martin referred to as well—that the current process—and although, yes, someone has to show that they have gender dysphoria, that process that has been in place for 18 years does not bar sex offenders or anyone who has committed an offence from applying, and the current assessments made by the gender recognition panel are not based on risk of harm. Following stage 2, the bill now introduces mechanisms to allow for a risk-based approach that, in many ways, goes further than the current system. While I believe—yes, of course, yes—Misha Thomson. My speech's risk assessment needs to be looked at in the round. It's not just the risk of a— Ms Thomson is your microphone on. As I was trying to make clear in my speech, when we look at risk assessment, you have to look at all the key stakeholders in that risk. Can I ask you to give a sense about the risk of further traumatising victims? That is as important as the risk assessment around managing offenders. I am going to come on to Michelle Thomson's amendment in a second, but I absolutely take the point. Whether it is our court processes or any other processes, we have come on leaps and bounds how victims are treated within our processes. That is something that is absolutely independent of politicians, but the way that victims are treated should be respected and should not be further traumatised. I want to just make a little bit of progress. While I believe that the likelihood of so-called bad actors seeking to abuse the process is very low, based on all the evidence from other countries, I have listened to members seeking reassurance and therefore proposed a proportionate approach to provide useful safeguards based on assessment and management of risk in individual cases. I do not think that that is a bad thing that we have listened to. Let me make some progress and I will try to come back to you. As I set out to the committee at stage 2, before the bill is commenced, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans will introduce regulations to amend the sex offender notification requirements, so that those on the register are required to notify the police with details if they apply for legal gender recognition. 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 MAPA. 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. If they believe that an application is fraudulent, they could apply as a person with an interest to a sheriff to revoke a GRC, or the Registrar 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 will be possible to prevent someone on the sex offender register from fraudulently obtaining a GRC. The amendments in the name of Gillian Martin further strengthen the risk-based approach. Police Scotland, after considering the evidence of risk in relation to a specific case, can already apply to a court for a sexual offences prevention order or a sexual harm prevention order, and that would prevent a person applying for a GRC. The amendments would require the chief constable to inform the Registrar General and the Registrar General to take no further steps on the application until the order has ceased to have effect. Let me just finish this part and then I'll sit you in. I therefore support the amendments in Gillian Martin's name. I wanted to come on to Michelle Thomson's amendment. Amendment 39 in her name provides that the Registrar General must pause an application from someone charged with certain offences until their case has been disposed of. I sympathise with what those amendments are seeking to achieve, and anyone hearing Michelle Thomson's testimony could not fail to be moved, and, of course, as others across the chamber were. However, we consider that there is a significant risk of the amendment being incompatible with ECHR and is such a risk of it being out with legislative competence. To bring it into effect, the Registrar General would be required in a second. We would be required to ask every applicant if they had been charged with a sexual offence. I think that Michelle Thomson recognised that we are talking about a very small risk here. However, after having met Michelle Thomson on a couple of occasions and heard how passionately and how sincerely she feels about this, I looked at what more could be done. That is why we have proposed a solution that I think would meet the aims of her amendments in a way that is compatible with ECHR. The approach in those amendments is to extend the process that I described earlier in relation to prevention orders so that it also applies to a sexual risk order. A sexual risk order is a civil preventative order designed to protect the public from sexual harm and, unlike the other types of order, there is no need for a previous conviction or equivalent. This new approach can allow a GRC application from someone accused but not yet convicted to be paused, based on an assessment by the police of the risks involved. I believe that the amendments in my name in combination with those in the name of Gillian Martin will allow for a risk-based approach building on existing police action that the police can already take in relation to the management of offenders. I consider that this approach will achieve similar aims to those of Michelle Thomson, but taking a risk-based approach rather than a blanket ban on persons who are charged or convicted, I will take your question. Thank you very much for that. At stage 2, there was no secret around the amendments that we lodged and discussed and were ultimately rejected. I subsequently met the cabinet secretary and discussed them again. I attempted at stage 3 to make them ECHR compliant and they were lodged, and it was only just past 10pm last night that we got a letter saying that they may not be ECHR compliant. That all just seems so slapdash and half baked. Today, in your summing up, you have suggested that they are not ECHR compliant, but it is not an absolute. I wonder whether you could share the legal advice around this, because members are voting with only half a picture and it is really not good enough. I will come on to the provisions in the bill having to be compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. I cannot share the detail of the legal advice, but I think that Russell Finlay would acknowledge that I was very clear with him and others where I thought that amendments were out with the competence of this Parliament or were in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. The letter that was sent to members at around 7.41pm last night was to put beyond doubt that those amendments would put the bill in jeopardy. Speaking to people, writing to you, I think that we all, as a duty of legislators, are making good law—well, hang on a minute, let me finish my point—and making good law are required to take on board when the legal competency or the potential breach of European Convention of Human Rights is at stake here. What I have set out in that letter could not be clearer in that regard. Russell Finlay? I do think that it actually can be clearer. The letter seems to suggest that it is a risk of non-compliance, but what appears to now being said in the chamber is that it would be an absolute non-compliance. Can you clarify which it is, please? I can only say that it was a risk because it would then depend on the action that was taken in a court process. We have been here before with pieces of legislation where ministers have been very clear to Parliament that an amendment is either out with competence or is in danger of breaching ECHR, and we have ended up in court because of those issues. All I can say to members is that I am trying to be as honest as I can about the potential implications of some of those amendments. I have set those out in the letter for the avoidance of any doubt. I just wanted to seek your clarification of the role of the Presiding Officer in selecting stage 3 amendments and what role the Presiding Officer in Parliament plays in making sure that amendments before us are ECHR compliant. I understand that that point might have been addressed earlier, but just to say to the member that, in case there is any confusion, the issue of looking at criteria and determining admissibility is not looking at the issue in terms of whether the matter is within legislative competence as far as amendments are concerned at stage 3, they are not the same process and perhaps that has caused a bit of confusion. I think that this is an issue that the Parliament needs to look at at some point, because there is no requirement for amendments to be within legislative competence, there is a requirement for bills to be within legislative competence, but for amendments the Parliament does not look at the legislative competence of amendments, they leave that to the Government. As the minister responsible for this bill in the Government, that is why I am telling members that there are issues and risks associated with the amendments. We have had a discussion about the fact that the cabinet secretary's opinion that the amendments are not legal, but she is not actually detailed on what specific grounds the Government considers them to follow within. I know that she is saying that that is detailed in her letter, but I am not aware that the letter is actually a matter of public record, it is certainly not before the Parliament, so could she actually explain why she believes these amendments fall foul of the ECHR? I was going to come on to the detail of that in the group 13, because we get into some of those issues more directly around the particular amendments that have been raised. I set out in the letter, and I think that it was given to members of the press, as I understand and some of that was reported, but essentially it is looking at a number of areas of competence, article 8 in terms of ECHR, right to private life, article 14, prohibition from discrimination and so on. I was intending to go into more detail on that under group 13. I should also say that it is not my opinion, I am not a lawyer, I have to go by what the law officers tell me in terms of the legal advice that I am given, which I am not a liberty to share the detail of other than the generality. I am grateful again and I understand that, but ultimately we are going to have to vote on these amendments before some of those issues will be elucidated in the debate in group 13. While she is citing particular articles, she is not actually detailed precisely why those amendments fall foul of those elements of the European Convention of Human Rights, and I do think that Parliament requires to understand the Government's thinking before we vote on those particular amendments. Members are aware that I am constrained from disclosing the details of the source of the legal advice that has been provided, not least by the ministerial code. We routinely obtain legal advice on the competence and effect of amendments of any bill, and that is the same for those amendments as for the advice on the competence of any amendments lodged to a bill. The law officers, as members will be aware, have the right to refer a bill to the Supreme Court if it includes the provision that they consider to be outwith competence, but that is of course a matter for them, not for the Government under the Scotland Act. All I can say, Presiding Officer, is that I have tried to make the views of the concerns about those particular amendments known. It is therefore for members to make a judgment about whether they accept that or whether they do not, but I had to lay out the potential consequences of accepting amendments to the bill that could breach either the Convention of Human Rights or, indeed, be without legislative competence. No, I want to make progress on the points about the amendments. The amendments in the name of Russell Finlay, as I set out in some detail to similar amendments at stage 2, I believe are disproportionate, and we consider there is, as I have set out, a significant risk that there be incompatible with ECHR, and as such a risk that they are outwith legislative competence, and I do not support them. What I have set out is why a risk-based approach is important here, because if the issue here is to try and deal with a tiny, tiny risk that may never happen, then that risk has to be dealt with on a proportionate basis, and that is about making sure that if an individual poses a risk that the police have the ability to do something about that risk. The outcome, if that is what members want, and they are saying the outcome they want is to prevent someone who the police believe is a risk, whether or not they have been convicted to stop them obtaining a gender recognition certificate, then the measures already set out stage 2, in addition to those set out by Gillian Martin, and in addition to the amendments in my name, will do that. If that is what the outcome people want, then that is what can be achieved by those amendments. I am very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way. I just wanted to clarify here, are there circumstances that the Cabinet Secretary believes that a convicted sex offender who is still on the sex offender's risk can get a GRC? I have literally just spent the last 10, 15 minutes outlining why someone who poses a risk, and presumably that is the case that Brian Whittle is referring to. If someone is on the sex offender's register and the police believe that there is a risk of them misusing a GRC for nefarious purposes, or that they are fraudulently applying for a GRC because they absolutely have no intention of living in the acquired gender, then, of course, as I have set out, those amendments will prevent someone obtaining a gender recognition certificate in those circumstances. Under the current system that has been in place for 20 years, there is no such impediment for someone on the sex offender's register obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Those amendments will put additional safeguards into the process that are not there at the moment. I should say to the member that that is actually of some interest to the UK Government who may also be looking at whether it does that as well. I cannot support the amendment 22. As I have said, we have made a clear commitment to introduce regulations before, no thanks, before the bill comes into force, to expand the existing sex offender notification requirements, to include notification of having made an application for gender recognition, which is what the amendment seeks to do. It is a more appropriate way to make that change through the existing regulation-making powers that are available. As I have said before, that will provide the outcome that people want of a risk-based approach that is proportionate, that is legal and is compatible with ACHR. I urge members to support those and to reject the other amendments. Members will note that we have now, in fact, passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. Taking into account, in particular, that there are still members who wish to speak. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4a open bracket, small sea close brackets, to allow debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I call Maggie Chapman. I want to speak against all of the amendments in this group, apart from those in the names of Gillian Martin and Shona Robison. I find the dog whistles inherent or implied in some of the amendments in this group, those that equate trans people with sex offenders to be most disturbing. Indeed, we know that trans people are more likely to be the victims of abuse than the general public. We should certainly not be asking trans people to state that they are not sex offenders when they apply for a GRC. I thank Gillian Martin for stating that so clearly. It would also seem that some people in this chamber would benefit from a better understanding of human rights, particularly perhaps those that enshrine the right to respect for private and family life. That includes the right to be recognised in one's real gender. That right applies to everyone, even those who have committed crimes or are suspected of having committed crimes. Several of the amendments in this group, as we have heard, if passed, could cause the legislation to fall foul of international human rights conventions. We know that, indeed, we have heard from every single party in this chamber that predatory men do not need a GRC to abuse women. They are the issue here, not trans people. Let us not fall into the trap set for us by those who do not support the reforms for this bill at all. Trans people are not the problem. Let us not add hurdles for them in their application process. I want to speak in favour of amendments 40, 41 and 42, in Gillian Martin's name, 40A to E, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, 39, tabled by Michelle Thompson, who I believe spoke very powerfully this afternoon. 18, 22, 38, 50, 52, 53 and 39, A and B, tabled by Russell Findlay. I will do so quickly, Presiding Officer. First, let me make absolutely clear that I do not believe there to be a link between the trans community and sexual offenders. It is important that we make that point up front and continue to emphasise that. I do accept that, as we open up the process by which a person can apply for a gender recognition certificate, we must ensure that it is robust and that so-called bad faith actors cannot abuse the system. It is reasonable for us as legislators to ensure that there are checks and balances in place so that those with ill intent are prevented from accessing GRCs. For that reason, I welcomed the amendment in Gillian Martin's name, agreed with the Scottish Government, because that will allow for a pause to an individual's GRC application if they are subject to a sexual harm protection order or a sexual offences prevention order. It is right that, in those circumstances, a proper risk assessment takes place. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to bringing forward regulations to ensure that there are notification requirements with regard to GRC applications for those on the sex offenders register. Those regulations, together with the amendments being debated today, would result in the police being able to notify the registrar general of the need to pause a GRC application from an individual on the sex offenders register until a sheriff had determined whether it should proceed. That is very helpful movement from the Government and, indeed, I would recognise Gillian Martin's amendment helps that. I would invite the Scottish Government to confirm on the record, though, that that is indeed their intent. As such regulations would be crucial to achieving the safeguards, which I believe are the intent and purpose of the amendments lodged by Gillian Martin. I do also recognise that there are some concerns about timescales and ensuring that those regulations are passed prior to the bill commencing. On that basis, we support Russell Finlay's— I can give Jackie Baillie and the chamber a categorical assurance that those regulations will be in place before this legislation is commenced. That is very helpful reassurance, because we were concerned about the timescales. On that basis, we were supporting Russell Finlay's amendments 18, 28 and 50, which placed the safeguards on the face of the bill by requiring a person subject to notification to first seek an order from the sheriff, allowing their application to proceed. Putting that on the face of the bill ensures that those safeguards come into force when the bill is enacted. We also welcome the amendment setting out an appeal process being in place, which allows the sheriff to decide the circumstances under which sexual offenders may be able to apply for a GRC. Finally, we are supportive of the intent behind amendment 39 in the name of Michelle Thompson. That would pause applications for a GRC where the applicant was subject to on-going proceedings relating to sexual offence charges. However, we cannot support amendment 39C, which would bring people convicted of fraud into this category. We believe that that is actually too broad a suite of offences, which could include those convicted of offences, which would have no bearing on the application for a GRC—for example, those convicted of benefit fraud. Finally, I will explore the issues of competence when I come to amendment 127 in group 13, but for the purpose of this debate, we support the amendments from Michelle Thompson. Members across this Parliament are right to listen to the voices of women who are concerned about the system being abused by bad faith actors intent on doing harm. Those amendments are a reasonable and proportionate means of providing that very reassurance, which is why Scottish Labour will vote for them today. I thank members for the debate. It is very healthy that we have extended the time period. I think that this group of amendments is a very important one, and it really deserves a proper airing. The Government absolutely deserves to be scrutinised on any claims that it makes, and I think that that has been done for the most part very respectfully today, and it is helpful to members. I also commend the comments made by Michelle Thompson for very eloquently and sensitively providing us with a real-life scenario of what a lot of this means to people, because a lot of the discussion is around the what-ifs and the maybes, and the risk exists whether it be small, large or otherwise. I think that we should always members reflect very carefully on what she has said and what she asks of Government. I can also thank Gillian Martin for her comments. I think that her philosophy on this bill and the sentiment by which she has expressed it mirrors that of mine. That is, of course, I stand here. It is no huge secret that I want to improve the lives of trans people, and at every stage of the process I have sought to protect that and stop that being undermined. However, we are listening that there are very genuine and valid concerns out there that I think have been expressed by members, as expressed by a number of amendments that we have seen. Not all of them I agree with due to the technical nature of them, but in principle, yes, I have much sympathy for them. I think that what Gillian Martin has sought to do with myself, and it is not the only unlikely pairing that we have seen in this debate, Christine Grahame at stage 2 with Jackson Carlaw, Russell Finlay with Michelle Thompson on a shared ambition to strengthen safeguards on myself and Gillian to ensure that there is perhaps a way through that which is competent and sensible. My hope is that, through all of this, a compromise is acceptable to those both with very valid concerns about the consequences of the legislation and also those who were quite happy with it at stage 1 and wanted absolutely no change to the bill at all. We have heard comments of that nature from other sides of the chamber. The concerns of many around the bill have been largely focused around the possibility of those who will fraudulently obtain a certificate and what they will do thereafter with that certificate. The sort of spaces they will access and the sort of nefarious actions as others have put it that they may go about. There have been many debates, very unhelpful ones, about the validity of those concerns coming from many. That is not something I wish to rehash here. It is exactly why, through this process, I have both submitted amendments, had some passed and have another cohort of amendments still to come. It is also why I support Gillian Martin's amendments. I have submitted amendments that will ensure that a crime committed using a fraudulently obtained certificate will become an aggravated offence. Those people will receive a harsher of punishment and that should act as a deterrent. That is part of the process. That is not all. I have hoped to introduce measures that will remove a fraudulently obtained certificate from individuals and will come on to that in a later group. In addition, I am supporting Gillian Martin's amendments that will give Police Scotland the power to apply for sexual harm prevention order for individuals that they believe could abuse the simplified process. I said that at stage 1, and I made it clear that whatever your views on the bill, we are simplifying the process for obtaining a GRC. That will inevitably result in two things. One is a potential increase in the number of applicants. That is a fair commentary on what may happen, but others—this is the important one—is that there has been a perceived reduction in safeguards. Therefore, I think that there is a duty on us to reintroduce those safeguards where we are able to competently and sensibly. It does remain the case whether we like it or not also that, due to international human rights law and the ECHR, such changes on the face of the bill may leave the bill if passed at stage 3 in legal limbo, much like many other pieces of legislation. I cite the example of the UNCRC legislation. That is not a place that I want to be in. It may be a place that others do want us to result in. I have listened very carefully of intent to the debate today between what the cabinet secretary has signed, which is claiming to have taken robust legal advice on what the consequences of those amendments are. I am sympathetic to that on the premise that I do not want those to become a buyer for the bill to become law in the future. However, I am also listening carefully to the comments made by Ms Thomson, Mr Finlay and others who are right to scrutinise the Government on the provenance of those claims, the veracity of them and the robustness of them. I am yet to be convinced, to have to say, that those amendments will inevitably lead to such legal problems in the future. It was interesting to hear Jackie Baillie reiterate some of that. This has been a difficult conundrum, I have to say, for people like myself who do support the premise of the legislation, but also absolutely, from a moral point of view, do not want to see the wrong type of people using this process for the wrong reasons. I am sure that there are some people who think that Ms Martin's amendments simply do not go far enough. I believe that they are providing a safe and competent route through and navigation through what is a difficult conundrum to address, but I want to reassure people that, along with further provisions that can be approved, further provisions that I and others will introduce, those will act both as a deterrent and a barrier to those wishing to abuse the system at the same time as making a positive change for the lives of trans people. I only want to further comment, and that is on the amendment 52, which we forget is also part of this group. That is around the revocation of our certificate. I would say to my colleague Russell Finlay that he made this point very eloquently. He has an amendment in this group. I have another amendment 115 coming up in group 10, which we will discuss at some point tonight, or goodness knows when. That would also automatically revoke a GRC where an offence has been committed, which is either a result of making a false declaration or by committing an offence where the aggravation would kick in. Those circumstances would result in an automatic revocation of a certificate. I think that that is the right thing to do, and I have not heard anything to the contrary. I would ask him and his colleagues to support that amendment when it comes around. I thank everyone for their thoughtful and measured contributions in the main. In my opening comments, I spoke about international evidence, which has been relied on by the Government, but I expect that I hope to hear from the minister some elaboration on exactly what that is, because the evidence is that there is no evidence, and I found the selectivity around that to be revealing and rather superficial, as was indeed the whole issue of ECHR compatibility. It seems to have been pulled out the hat late in the day in order to perhaps cause some people to have a bit of a wobble. The member has just said that it has been pulled out with the hat late in the day. Will he acknowledge that every stage of the process in all of the meetings and at stage 2, I made it very clear that there were issues about ECHR compatibility with his amendments? I do indeed acknowledge that there were issues raised about compatibility, but what seems to be unclear from the to and fro that I had with the cabinet secretary earlier is that the absolute nature of this is at a risk or is it a non-compatibility. One minute is black and white, the next minute is shades of grey, and I am none the wiser, and I think that some other members feel the same way. I do not want to contradict an elder statesman such as Mr Ewing, but I think that he may have referenced 300 registered sex offenders changing their names, but I think that the figure is actually quite a bit higher. It is in the region of 500 plus, and they have been able to do so since 2019. They are able to do so under the existing mapper arrangements. In the last year in Glasgow a woman was raped and murdered in her own home. The man who did so had previously raped a woman in her own home. The man who did so was legally, under the existing arrangements, allowed to change his name and was living allegedly under an asoon name in the community when he committed this crime. It is inevitable, as Jackie Baillie and others have said, that bad faith actors will exploit and abuse a new system of self-id. Although the police and others operate the mapper system very well and professionally, there are hundreds and hundreds of people involved. The probability of error arising where we cannot keep track and cannot trace people and the system simply does not work as it should in theory means that there is additional risk created unless we stop registered sex offenders accessing GRCs. In a word, yes, absolutely. I was going to come on to that because the case that I referred to to the system clearly did not work. It was absolutely tragic and there will be the usual inquiry that will not be made public. In lessons we will be learned quite what they are, no-one knows. What is being proposed by the Government's amendments falls far short of what is needed. The only reason they are even here today is because we pushed amendments around sex offenders at stage 2 and into stage 3. I find the amendments that the Government are backing to be quite technical. They will create additional work for an under-resourced and overstretched police force, who already have to monitor thousands of sex offenders in the community. Inevitably, as Fergus Ewing just so well articulated, mistakes will be made. Who decides, as we know from the most recent data, only around 1 in 9 registered sex offenders are subject to such monitoring restrictions. I would like to quickly touch on the contributions of others, which were very thoughtful and helpful. I would like to thank Michelle Thomson for her bravery in talking so openly about her trauma. However, Michelle Thomson does not need my sympathy or indeed the sympathy of anyone else here. What I suspect she would like to see happen is for members to take serious thought about doing what I believe is the right thing and backing her amendment. For the reasons that I have mentioned in respect of registered sex offenders, my amendment number 18 is also very important, because it is an absolute safety net. It is clear, it will be understood, whereas what is being proposed is open to interpretation. It relies on more work to be put in the police and is inevitably going to lead to tragedies taking place, I believe. I will conclude by thanking Labour for giving consideration to what we are proposing and offering their support. I urge members to reiterate to give amendment 39 and amendment 18 their support. Can I clarify that the member is pressing amendment 18? The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. I point a word from Craig Hoy, who is joining us remotely. My app appeared to stutter. I intended to vote yes. I just wanted to check that the vote has been recorded. Thank you, Mr Hoy. Your vote was recorded. The result of the vote, I point a word to Stuart McMillan. My app seems to have frozen and I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr McMillan. You did vote who was recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 18 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 59, no, 64. There were two abstentions and therefore the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 94 in the name of Claire Baker already to be. Excuse me, we will have to clear the galleries now. Thank you. We will clear the galleries. Thank you very much. We will suspend the sitting for a few minutes whilst this happens.