 Felly mae gennym eu cyfnodau o'r amddangos, rydyn ni'n gwybod yn gwneud y ffordd y bwysig yw 9.8.5B i ddim yn gweithio'r bwysig o'r ssiad. Rydyn ni'n gweithio George Adam o bobl yn y barololion, o'r bwysig o'r s6m 07734 o'r bwysig o'r ssiad. Rydyn ni'n gwneud yn gweithio'r bwysig o'r ssiad. The question is that motion S6M-07734 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I can also inform the chamber that business managers have agreed to move items of business other than consideration of stage three amendments to tomorrow afternoon. A business motion to give effect to that will be taken at the conclusion of proceedings on amendments. Mae nhw'n gwybod i'r pwg 14 o'i wgfugir o'r certyffic ac i ddod o gwelleg y diwrnodau nifer. Rwy'n cael y Gwyfosod 55 o'r cyffinidol yn ei gweithio o'r fawr i'r gweithio'r cyffinidol, ac i ddod o gweithio'r cyffinidol. Rhoo'n gweld i'r pwg 15 o gweithio i ddod o gwelleg y diwrnodau nifer. o bobl yn rydyn ni'n credu o'r ddraenol i'r brifyddoedd. Gall wnaeth yr Ysdyn nhw'n rydyn ni'n ddodg rydyn ni'n credu o sylw, ddych chi'n dros y brine o'r ddweud o ddafodol i GDC yn Ysdyn ni'n gwneud o'r fil o anghofu ond ei bwysigau hynny o anghofu wrth chatrwydd Ysdyn ni o rawr i'r rydyn ni'n gwneud o sylw. I just like to take this opportunity to clarify a point raised in a briefing that was received by MSPs from Murray, Blackburn, Mackenzie. They say that it's unclear whether or not the bill in front of us removes access to the UK gender recognition panel for people living in Scotland. So I just want some clarity if the minister is able to provide that to the chamber. Can whether or not people living in Scotland will continue to be able to obtain a GRC from the UK gender recognition panel, or will that route be closed? Cabinet Secretary? Well, they will until this bill and act is in place, because obviously there'll be a delay until commencement, and not up until that point. That route of course will be open to people, and then the new route will be open to people once this legislation is enacted. That's another important point that I should make. Whether or not register entries in the rest of the UK will be updated is a matter, of course, for the UK and Northern Irish Governments. Provision for sharing GRCs can still be made in a section 104 order, if agreed. On Monday I met with the UK Minister for Equalities, Kimmy Baddanoff, where we agreed to continue to work constructively together on those matters, and I'm sure that that will continue to be the case. I move amendment 55. I thank the cabinet secretary for the information shared so far. I am tentatively wanting to support this provision, as I noticed it's in the gender recognition act 2004, so presumably it is not necessary to replicate the provision in the bill. However, I would like to get some clarity if that is the reason for the removal of the provision from the face of the bill. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary can confirm that this or if it is being removed for another reason. For example, if the entire provision of copying gender recognition certificates no longer be deemed necessary due to technology, if that is the case, could the cabinet secretary confirm that she has spoken to each register general across the United Kingdom to confirm that this is the case? I hope that the cabinet secretary can provide clarity to the public and myself with those answers before we vote on this amendment. As I said, the reason for this is to future proof this bill against the possibility that the UK Government may decide not to recognise Scottish GRC, so it's just a practical measure to take if that's the case. I should add that that's not the case, and I hope that the UK Government will decide to recognise GRC, but we have to make the provision just in case it does not. Provision for sharing GRC can still be made in a section 104 order if agreed. I know that officials from the Scottish Government and the UK Government have been working very closely and very constructively for a number of months around some of those issues, so I hope that that provides some clarity to Jeremy Balfour. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 55 in the name of Shona Robison is yes, 119, no 3, there were four abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 112 in the name of Ashragan, already debated with amendment 54. Ashragan to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 113 in the name of Ashragan, already debated with amendment 54. Ashragan to move or not move? The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 113 in the name of Ashragan is yes, 60, no 66, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 114 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 108. Jamie Greene to move or not move? The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 114 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 98, no 14, there were 14 abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 115 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 108. Jamie Greene to move or not move? The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 115 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 100, no 10, there were 17 abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 116 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 108. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? The amendment is being moved. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 116 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 37, no 76, there were 12 abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 117 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 54. Pauline McNeill to move or not move? The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 117 in the name of Pauline McNeill is yes, 59, no 67, there was one abstention, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 118 in the name of Claire Baker, already debated with amendment 54. Claire Baker to move or not move? The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 118 in the name of Claire Baker is yes, 57, no 70, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 119 in the name of Claire Baker, already debated with amendment 54. Claire Baker to move or not move? The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm sorry, my at one refresh, I would have voted yes. Thank you, we'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 119 in the name of Claire Baker is yes, 56, no 70, there was one abstention, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 120 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 54. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Jeremy Balfour. After and load, I would have voted yes. Thank you, we'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 120 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 59, no 67, there was one abstention, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 121 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 54. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 121 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 59, no 67, there was one abstention, the amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 15, review of the act. I call amendment 56 in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jackie Baillie to move amendment 56 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am hopeful for success with these amendments, not least because I worked with the Government to deliver them. Stage 2, the Equalities Committee, agreed a number of amendments from MSPs of different parties. The purpose of these amendments was to review elements of the bill and any impact which the changes to the process for applying for a gender recognition certificate may have made. This included an amendment lodged by my colleague Pam Duncan Glance who placed a duty on ministers to initiate a review within three years of the bill coming into force and it also covered a number of issues, including the need to review the operation of section 22 of the 2004 act. The cabinet secretary said in accepting the amendment that this could form the basis of incorporating other review items at stage 3, including those that were agreed at stage 2. The Scottish Government has worked with members across the chamber to develop the set of amendments that bring together all the strands of review. Using the new section 15B of the bill as amended, as a base, this creates a single provision review and I am happy to move them all in my name. Amendments brought forward by other members and agreed at stage 2 are all incorporated into this overarching provision. Jamie Greene's amendments, which placed a duty on ministers to report on the impact of this act, on the placement of transgender people in prison, are included. Claire Baker's amendment requiring a review of the operation of section 22 is included, as is Pam Duncan Glance's amendment, which already contained a related provision. An amendment from Maggie Chapman, which requires a review of the impact on trans people of the time periods for living in the acquired gender and the reflection period, is also included. Amendments 56, 60 and 91 remove those individual provisions and replace them with the new single provision, covered by amendments 80 to 83 and 84, and adds gender identity healthcare, whilst not changing the intent of those agreed amendments. My other amendment strengthens the existing provision, added by Pam Duncan Glance, and reflects the views of members across the chamber. Amendments 85, 86 and 87 extend the scope of the review beyond that, currently required by section 15b. The additional areas covered by those amendments were asked for specifically by Labour members and include the impact on the provision of services by Scottish Public Authorities, whether any other amendments to the 2004 act are appropriate and whether any changes to the guidance required by amendment 54 are also appropriate. Amendment 90 provides for a number of items that the report of the review must set out, including any changes that Scottish ministers consider that it would be appropriate to make to the time periods required by the bill, both before and after an application is made, the age at which a person can apply and the process for 16 and 17-year-old applicants. Amendment 76 varies the wording of section 15b in relation to the timing of the review. The bill currently requires Scottish ministers to begin the review no later than three years after section 2 comes into force. That would be altered to be as soon as practicable after the end of the period of three years, beginning with the date on which section 2 comes into force. That is to ensure that three full years' worth of data is available for the review to examine and provide Scottish ministers with a little flexibility in the case of unforeseen circumstances that could prevent the review from starting. Amendment 78 expressly sets out that, in carrying out the proposed review, Scottish ministers must have regard to any data provided to them about the effect of a person obtaining a gender recognition certificate. The amendments also include that the review will include any other steps that ministers intend to take as a result of the review. The review may, of course, include further matters, not explicitly covered here, but must, as a minimum, cover those items. The existing provision in the bill that the Registrate General is not required to publish information if it risks identifying an individual who has applied for a GRC will also still apply. Amendments 75, 77, 79, 80, 81 and 89 are largely tidying amendments, which are necessary to make the section read correctly as a whole. Those amendments bring together a wide range of areas that must be reported on when the bill is commenced. They are comprehensive and, collectively, reflect the views of members from across the chamber, as well as the views of Government. They provide reassurance that the provisions of the bill and their effect will be monitored and reviewed, taken together, I believe that they provide a sensible way forward, and I hope that all of Parliament will be able to support that. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendments 76A and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. An amendment in my name aims to ensure that we consider properly the impacts of the acts and that we therefore comprehensively review it over time. Amendments for my colleagues Jackie Baillie and some from the Government have just been outlined to seek to ensure those reviews. My amendment ensures that we do this four times with the first review taking place within three years of the bill commencing. Scottish Labour knows how important the operation of this bill is and that some people have concerns about it. It is therefore essential to consider what further changes could be needed to the process further down the line to ensure that it works for trans people and the wider public. The amendment seeks to monitor that. In short, it is designed to ensure scrutiny so that, should improvements be needed or, indeed, concerns raised come to pass, Parliament cannot address them. I move the amendment in my name. I call Russell Finlay to speak to amendment 83A and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today is the shortest day of the year, but it perhaps feels like the longest, and I will try not to make it any longer. I want to begin by explaining what I had hoped to do in this group, which is largely about future scrutiny of the bill. A UK Government statutory instrument was introduced last year. That made it no longer an offence in England Wales to disclose information about a person's GRC status for the purpose of the management of offenders. To my surprise, the SSI was not emulated by the Scottish Government by way of an SSI. UK-wide consistency is important for trans people and the general public. We are already aware of the potential for confusion and other repercussions between the home nations of the UK. I think that the Scottish Government in action on this perhaps tells us something more generally about the lack of safeguarding considerations in relation to self-ID. Presiding Officer, I attempted to introduce the statutory instrument another way by lodging an amendment to the bill. However, it was deemed to be not within the scope of the bill by the Presiding Officer. I mention it because it relates directly to Jackie Baillie's amendment number 83, which asks for ministers to review the prohibition of disclosing someone's protected information in relation to a GRC. I agree with Jackie Baillie that this should be reviewed by the Scottish Government. However, I believe that such a review should also ask and assess whether it is appropriate to disclose someone's GRC status for the purpose of managing offenders, just as the UK Government statutory instrument already does for completeness. It is worth recording that this amendment is linked to my amendments 30 and 31 from group 8. However, for members' information, number 83A could be passed separately to them. I now turn to my final amendment. Separate to this bill, I believe that the Scottish ministers should consider bringing forward the SSI. Amendment 134 relates to this. It is fairly straightforward in that it would oblige ministers to provide an explanation of the reasons that they might choose not to. I will now briefly address some of the other amendments in this group, which Jackie Baillie has described as being comprehensive and collective. I will support both amendments 83 and 91, since they generally seek to achieve the same thing. Jackie Baillie's amendment 56 is a consequential amendment to 84. It requires any review of the bill to include the impact of the legislation on the placement of trans people in prisons. I will support the amendment so that we can properly establish the impact of the bill on women's safety in prisons. Amendment 84A is a technical, consequential amendment to 84, which I will also support. Amendment 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 89 are also technical, and I will be supporting. Amendment 60 removes section 14B from the bill, removing the review of time periods set out in this section. I understand that various amendments from Labour MSPs are effectively replacing that provision, so I am happy to support it. Amendment 60, also from Jackie Baillie, is a substantive amendment that alters the initial review period of the act, originally set out in sections 15B and 76A in Pam Duncan Glancy's name, further alters this review period. I am pleased to support amendment 78. It requires ministers to consider relevant data about the effect of a person obtaining a GRC when carrying out a review of the bill. That should be common sense for the Government. Amendment 82 requires ministers to report on the impact of the bill on transgender people, specifically those below the age of 18. I do not support under the age of 18 being able to apply for a GRC. I will therefore support this amendment, since at least it will measure, analyse and report on the consequences of this bill on those under the age of 18 who do seek a GRC. Amendment 85 will require any review of the bill to include the impact it has had on the provision of services by public authorities. I will support that amendment and also amendments 86 and 87, which require a review of the bill to consider any further amendments necessary to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Amendment 90 requires a review to consider changes that can be made to this piece of legislation. Amendment 90A determines the length of the review period. I will be supporting both. Amendment 88, in the name of Ruth Maguire, would require the impact of this bill on disclosure Scotland to be considered. My own earlier amendments sought to include disclosure checking applicants, which would be administered by disclosure Scotland. They were unsuccessful, but nonetheless I will support this amendment. Thank you, Mr Finlay. I now call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 84A and other amendments in the group. It is just a very small amendment to include in the list of data to be collected to include those with a GRC and those without for completeness. I surely wanted to say to the amendment that was to add to the substantive list in the amendment. I now call Ruth Maguire to speak to amendment 88 and other amendments in the group. I will not be pressing amendment 88. Deputy Presiding Officer, I commend Pauline McNeill for her remarkably short contribution in that group. I would like to chat briefly to two amendments 84 and 90. 84 is a replication of an amendment that I submitted at stage 2. It is very welcome, one that is good to see it make a return. However, it seems to include an additional clause at the bottom of amendment 84 for the benefit of members that any impact that amendments made to the 2004 act by this act have had on the provision of gender identity healthcare by health boards and special health boards. It was not quite explained why that was added. However, I would know that it is a welcome amendment, given that group 17, which will come on to you shortly, will also discuss a similar issue. At least that is on the face of the bill. The second amendment that I wanted to look at was amendment 90. Clearly, there has been a lot of division over pretty much every amendment that we have had to discuss over the last few days, but I would hope that there is some consensus among members around amendment 90, which I think is a welcome addition. What it says is that, as a result of the review, should that amendment pass, it makes clear that ministers must set out any changes that it considers appropriate to meet three very specific things. The period of living in the acquired gender amendment periods, the age at which a person can apply for GRC and the process for 16 and 17-year-olds. Those three issues have by and large been issues of debate and division. What I am not clear, and this is maybe where I will ask the cabinet secretary to respond, is that, as a result of amendment 90, not just setting out any changes that are proposed by ministers or the Government of the day, it is unclear what then happens thereafter. For example, what happens next if such changes are quite substantial in any direction to the major provisions that underpin the legislation, would that be presented to Parliament via a primary legislation or a reset of the bill? Would it be through secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure, or would it go through the appropriate committee of the day? I do not think that it could quite specify that. If it does specify it later in the bill, I would be grateful if ministers pointed me in that direction. The only reason that I mention it is because I think that it is important that, if, after this review period, it is not that far away, possibly in the next Parliament, if it transpires, that members of that Parliament are able to scrutinise any proposals and changes that would largely replicate the debate that we have just had this week and could reopen that. Those decisions must be held to account and rightly debated by members of any Parliament. I would ask the minister to perhaps reflect and comment on that in closing remarks. By the way, it is good to see those coalesced in a single report and requirement, which I will support. I want to begin by thanking all of those involved in the discussions that led to the amendments in Jackie Baillie's name. As we have heard at stage 2, committee deliberations covered many different issues on which different members wanted reviews. My own amendment that was accepted at stage 2 to review the impact on trans people of the living in the acquired gender and reflection time periods and report on what changes to these might be appropriate, given that review is captured by amendments 82 and 90. This bill deals with a process that affects trans people, and so I believe that it is right that its impact on them is at the forefront of the review process. I am grateful to all of those who worked together to ensure that those amendments are presented in a coherent and consistent way and present, as Jamie Greene has just identified, a clear review process. I think that this shows some of the best of the consensus and compromise working that we have undertaken across the chamber as part of the post-committee process. Were it up to me, I would not have included some of the reviews that are now part of this process, but I agree that this is actually the best way forward, and I thank all of those for working on the amendments that we have in Jackie Baillie's name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I agree with members that it will be important to review the impact of this act, as with all legislation. As I undertook to do so at stage 2, I have worked with members to coalesce a number of areas raised at stage 2 into a single review requirement and was pleased to be able to work with Jackie Baillie to bring those forward. Those amendments reflect a number of helpful conversations with members across the chamber, where there were suggestions for additional areas to review and report, including from Maggie Chapman, as well as amendments agreed at stage 2, including Claire Baker and Jamie Greene, and to expand on the provision lodged by Pam Duncan Glancy. Amendment 76A and 90A, in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, would require the Scottish Government to review the impact of the act after three years, eight years, thirteen years and eighteen years, and we think that this is a disproportionate review requirement for a bill that is about an estimated 250 to 300 trans people per year being able to apply for a gender recognition certificate. As with all legislation, Pam Duncan Glancy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The review period that I have suggested is that the bill is reviewed four times. The reason that goes on for that length of time is to allow the proper collection of data and understanding of the impact of the act. I do not think that that is particularly well characterised in the way that the Cabinet Secretary has just set out. I hope that he should agree with me that review over a period of time so that we can get proper longitudinal analysis of the positive, presumably, impacts that this will have on trans people. I concur with my colleague Maggie Chapman in that regard, but also of other impacts that may or may not transpire. Of course, there will need to be further reviews after the three years, but to say that they have to be so specified in terms of every five years, we do not think is proportionate. As with all legislation, the operation of the act will be kept under review and can be updated as needed by the Parliament. However, as I say, the amendment is disproportionate and I am not able to support it. I also cannot support amendments 83A and 134 in the name of Russell Finlay as they completely duplicate what has already been provided for in the bill. We will review whether further exceptions are required under section 22 of the 2004 act and we will set out that in due course. I cannot support amendment 84A in the name of Pauline McNeill because this is already covered by the amendments in the name of Jackie Baillie, which contain provision to review the impact of the act on the accommodation of trans prisoners, including both those with and without a GRC. That was introduced by amendments brought forward by Jamie Greene and agreed at stage 2 and incorporated into this one overarching review and report section of the bill. I do not support the amendment in the name of Ruth Maguire, which would require us to review the impact of the bill on disclosure Scotland, but I heard Ruth Maguire say that she did not intend to move that amendment anyway. In terms of the question that was asked by Jamie Greene around if any changes are required after the review, how would those be done? I think that it depends on what those changes are. For example, making exceptions under section 22 could be done by regulations or some other things that could be done by regulations, but fundamentals, like the requirements for issuing a GRC, would require primary legislation. It is various, depending on the seriousness of the change that is required. I suspect that Parliament would want us to come back to Parliament with any substantial changes of that nature. I think that I will just leave that there, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I now call on Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press a withdrawal amendment 56. I will be brief, Presiding Officer. I think that there has been a considerable degree of consensus around the chamber with those amendments as members acknowledge the importance of keeping this legislation under review. This is intended to address the concerns expressed to all of us and to ensure that the legislation works effectively for those applying for Agenda Recognition Certificate. I am grateful to the Scottish Government for their support and I move amendment 56. Thank you, Ms Baillie. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. Therefore, there will be a division and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 56, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is yes, 121. There are three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We now move to group 16 on operation and impact of the act. I call amendment 122 in the name of John Mason. Group with amendments as shown in the groupings. John Mason to move amendment 122 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I confess that I would rather have been at the carol service this evening, but here we go. I would like to speak to amendment 122 concerning prisons and we will mention some of the other amendments in the group. I think that one of my colleagues will speak more about amendment 71 and the issues around human rights. Over the course of the discussions around the bill, prisons have featured prominently and especially the question of who should be in which prison. The cabinet secretary has already said this evening that guidance is being reviewed and that is welcome. Having asked a number of questions in the past, my understanding is that each case is currently decided on its own merits. Therefore, someone born as a man but identifying as a woman could be placed in the women's prison if they are reckoned not to be a threat to women and also if they were reckoned to be at risk by being in a men's prison. It is important that the risk to other inmates and the risk to the prison person themselves are both taken into account. This is a reasonable approach as far as I am concerned and this amendment seeks to confirm what is, I understand, the current position. By contrast, in a country like the United States, I understand that an inmate can demand to be placed in a woman's prison even if they might be considered a threat to women and I think that it would be a mistake to go down that route. I would also support Pam Goswell's amendment 57 if we are going to be truly inclusive, we need to be sensitive to both ethnic minorities and to religious groups. We should not be saying that modern, secular, western culture is somehow better than other cultures or for that matter than previous cultures in this country. A review and a report make absolute sense to me and Brian Whittle's support-related amendments, I would be broadly in support. There are already problems around the world on this topic of sport and at the very least we need to keep a watchful eye on how things develop. Thank you. Thank you Mr Mason. I call Pam Goswell to speak to amendment 57 and other amendments. That has been a new business motion being agreed for the timetable of today's events, because obviously there are people in the gallery expecting the bill to either pass or fail tonight and there has been no guidance as far as I can tell whether that will be taking place. Presiding Officer, when most recently in the chair did indicate that the business aside from the stage 3 amendments would be taken tomorrow and that a business motion subsequent to a discussion at the bureau this evening would be put before the Parliament at the end of the stage 3 amendments this evening. I'm not sure maybe Mr Lumson missed that, but I would now call Pam Goswell, point of order Oliver Mundell. Apologies Presiding Officer. I'm just seeking your clarification under rule 2.2 on what basis we continue to sit because the last business motion we passed, which indicated a decision time, was motion S6M-07320 and it advised that decision time would be at 6.30 today. Clearly the bureau is met and I made a decision to change that. It's just not clear why a business motion wouldn't have been brought to the Parliament as a whole and some members have already expressed a concern at the change to decision time. Other members have expressed concerns about the fact that portfolio questions now won't get to take place and surely if a decision has been taken by the bureau it would be reasonable and proper to expect such a decision to be put before the whole Parliament so that we can properly revise the business motion. I just explained to Mr Lumson to his point of order that, in fact, as the Presiding Officer herself indicated a while back, in fact there will be a business motion put to the Parliament at the end of the stage 3 amendments session this evening. Of course the member will be aware in terms of the standing orders that the Presiding Officer can make consequential amendments to the business programme as the business proceeds and changes in line with those proceedings and that is where we are just now. So I would like to call, if I may, Pam Gozo to speak to amendment 57 and other amendments in the group. Thank you Presiding Officer. My mission, since I stepped foot into the Scottish Parliament, is to ensure that communities, whether that be BAME communities, people with disabilities or other marginalised communities, no longer go unheard. This Parliament is supposed to be striving to be more accountable, to be more diverse and inclusive yet has failed to listen to stakeholders who will be largely impacted by the bill. I am disappointed to see that so many across this chamber, aside from my colleagues and several others, have failed to listen. For many people, knowing the biological sex of a health professional carrying out a medical examination or treatment is extremely important. Under medical care, we are often at our most vulnerable. Amendment 57, in my name, seeks to address concerns that a self-declarational model may exacerbate existing problems with section 22 of the 2004 act. This amendment creates a requirement on Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a report on the impact of this act on patients where knowledge of the biological sex of a health professional carrying out a medical examination or treatment is required, including on religious grounds. I hope now that I can answer the member John Mason's question earlier on in group 13 that he asked. Religious women and groups have expressed concerns that this legislation could interfere with the requirements of their religion. For example, for many religious women, practicality in the Islamic faith is a religious requirement that they shall not let another man touch or see their body. Those women therefore feel more comfortable using the services of female GPs, carers and other medical professionals. I would like to provide the chamber and Presiding Officer a real example. My mum is a practising Sikh. My auntie is a practising Muslim. When normally they go to the doctors, my mum would ask that. I am with my mother and my sisters. My mother and my auntie would ask the question when they see a female in front of them. I am sorry if my terminology is not right, but I am trying to put it in the simplest form, how people like my mother and my auntie would feel. When they go, they see that there is a woman in front of them—a biological woman. They are quite happy to have their smear test or whatever checks they have to have—cancer checks for the breasts or anything. However, if normally they see a gentleman on the other side—a biological male—they will normally ask whether it is possible that we can have a female to do that check-up. It is never a problem. I must say that the medical NHS is fantastic. It is so accommodating that they are always there to help. I want you to tell me—my mum, my older mother sitting there—how can she ask what she is asking for? How is she doing it? She is going to break her religion because she cannot ask and they cannot tell. My Muslim auntie is going to break her religion right because she cannot ask, they cannot tell, she is scared. Is the right word coming out? Can I say trans woman, trans man, can I say biological man, biological woman? Can I ask? Some of you can actually laugh and snigger about this. I am sorry. I thought that this was a diverse Parliament, but I really did. I have mentioned this in the committee as well. I really try to bring the practicality out of this. This is not political. This is about religious beliefs. We need to listen to those people or provide them with the right guidance and law to make sure that nobody is out there discriminating, nobody is out there breaking anybody's religion. We must ensure that this bill does not infringe upon the right to freedom of religion. According to international human rights law, the obligation to fulfil human rights means that states must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights, but here with me today I have letters from both the Muslim Council of Scotland and the Scottish Association of Mosques. Those letters, presiding officer, are not based solely around the freedom of religion that this bill calls into question, but they are about concerns for women, for children and for vulnerable individuals. Let me remind this chamber that these religious organisations are not alone. Other religious organisations were frightened to come to the committee to voice their concerns, and we heard this from a private session, so it is not something that I am saying hearsay. It has basically been voiced in a private session. Presiding officer, I am not going to ignore those voices, like others have in this chamber. I appreciate what Pam Gozel is saying and I am listening to her carefully. I wonder if she would agree with me that even if not every person of faith needs that single sex care that we have to listen to those who do. Pam Gozel? Presiding officer, I thank the member for saying that question, because she must be psychic that I am going to go on to this next. Absolutely, we need to look at its not just religious beliefs but its the amount of care that we provide for different people, diverse people. Early on, Jeremy Balfour highlighted that care, so I want to go on a little bit on to this, on to my next bit of the speech in my amendment. I have been contacted by so many people who are concerned about what that means for vulnerable individuals, such as those with disabilities, those with a carer and those in care homes. A particular letter that stuck with me, which is something that I did raise in a previous session too, was when a constitution wrote to me to ask what this bill would mean for an elderly woman in a care home and whether she could be guaranteed a female carer to wash and dress her. As it stands, I cannot answer in confidence how this bill will affect this elderly woman. Ultimately, by removing all safeguards to the process, the bill opens up the GRC process to a group of unknown size and characteristics. With the existing privacy protection in section 22, many service providers will simply not be at the liberty to confirm to a patient whether the individual treating her is biologically female. Therefore, I ask the Scottish Government to fulfil their obligation to take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. In the absence of amendments to the privacy protections, which were included in my amendments at stage 2, but no surprise again voted down, the least that the Scottish Government can commit to do is to monitor the impact rights by monitoring the impact of the act on patients with the knowledge of the biological sex of a health professional carrying out a medical examination or a treatment that is required, including on religious grounds and setting out any steps that they consider necessary in response to any concerns expressed as a result of the review. My colleague Jeremy Balfour has also proposed amendments 13 and 14, which ensures that this legislation does not negatively impact the freedom of thought, conscious and religion. I state in article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which I support. Similarly, I support amendment 71 by Ash Reagan, which aims to have the same effect. I support amendment 122 by John Mason, which ensures that this act does not change how prisons currently operate. I also support my colleague Brian Whittle's amendments 58, 59, 67, 68, on the impact that act on sports as biological males poses a biological advantage over biological women and increasing the number of GRCs could lead to more trans individuals participating in sports. Finally, I support amendment 131 by Tess White, which calls on ministers to have to consult with women and girls on how the impact of the act on women and girls should be reported. I urge all members to back my amendment 57 in my name. I now call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 58 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to follow Pam Goso. I urge the chamber to support her amendments. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to my amendments in this bill. I say from the outset that, although I do not think that I should have to, I am going to, that I, along with every MSP that I know in this Parliament, is in full agreement that every person should be treated equally, irrespective of colour, creed, religion, sex or gender. We all should recognise the specific challenges that the trans community has had to face, and we should all want to create laws that protect them and their human rights, the same as every other person. However, as I have said before, you cannot create equality for one section of society by creating inequality in another. My amendments 58, 59 and 67 speak to the impact of the bill on sport as the bill is currently drafted, which will be significant. The need for the Scottish Government to publish guidance and collect data on the impact of the bill, as others in this debate have asked for in their situations. The committee deemed sport important enough to include in its investigation, but apparently it did not deem it important enough to take evidence from any sportswoman despite the committee being offered that option. Instead, it decided that trans activists and men would suffice. It speaks to a global issue, where women participants are being warned not to speak out when confronted by the prospect of competing against biological males, silencing those most affected. Some have been threatened with expulsion from the sports teams and others have even been threatened with expulsion from college or university. However, it is surely must be right that all are heard and those with genuine concerns are not automatically castigated and branded bigoted or transphobic. Those amendments put a responsibility on the Scottish Government to report on the impact on sport of the act. Those amendments would require the Scottish Government or the Registrar General to publish information, guidance or reports on the operational impact of the provisions of the General Recognition Reform Act Scotland when implemented. No, I'm not. Sorry. I'll take the intervention from Shirley-Anne Somerville. Sorry, who's the member taking the intervention from? It's Shirley-Anne Somerville. Could we have Shirley-Anne Somerville, please? For an intervention on Mr Whittle. Hello. Mr Somerville, can you hear us? I think if we could maybe continue with Mr Whittle for the moment and we can double check whether Mr Somerville is actually seeking to make an intervention. Thank you, Mr Whittle. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will give way to my colleague. Brian Whittle introduced the idea that certain athletes were being challenged in terms of their preferences to whom they would compete against on the basis of the threat that they would be removed from universities or colleges. I think that, in the interest of clarity, I would like to know if that happened in Scotland or somewhere else, because that is a massive big concern. Mr Keck, could you please speak to the front so that the microphone can be held? Yes, I understand that. The compulsion to want to look at the person one is speaking to is quite strong. I understand that. Thank you for the education. I understand that. I know that I am grateful to the chief tutor. Mr Keck, can we please get the intervention completed? My intervention is completed, but I have so many people willing to help me. Excellent. Mr Whittle. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank my colleague for his intervention. The fact is that this is happening across the whole of the United Kingdom and globally. I first came to my attention in the USA and Australia. It has happened down south, and it has now happened in Scotland. That is happening globally. I am not asking for any data to be collected that is not routinely collected by many sports already. Members and competitors are categorised by sex, age and disability. By sex, many sports now give the option male, female and non-binary. That kind of data is necessary to ensure that sport offered takes its membership into account when delivering fairness for competitors. I am going to quote the equality and human rights commission submission here. I think that this would be an interest to the cabinet secretary at this submission, because what I am about to quote contradicts quite a lot of the position that the cabinet secretary took when taking other amendments around guidance and reporting in the Scottish Government. Many amendments such as Jackie Baillie's, Claire Baker's and the appointment Neil Rachel Hamilton's, Sue Webber. The equality and human rights commission in this submission said this. We have highlighted several areas where the effect of the bill's provision on the operation of the protections from sex discrimination in the equality act is unclear and has urged further consideration before legislative change is made. Additional requirements to publish information and guidance and to publish reports on the impact of the legislation, for example, on the provision of single sex services, on trans people, on religious groups and in sport, could usefully assist in ensuring the effective implementation of the act and in monitoring its impact in practice. We recommend that such amendments should be considered. I would be really interested to hear the cabinet secretary's response to that. The equality and human rights commission go on to say that these amendments seek to insert specific provisions in the act in dealing with the implications for single sex services and the definition of and data collection on the protected characteristic of sex in the equality act. By broadening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposals have significant implications for the operation of the equality act in Scotland. Whilst the equality act makes provision to treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently from others sharing the same legal sex in certain circumstances and where justified, for example, in relation to occupational requirements, separate and single sex services, sport and communal accommodation, such provision does not apply in every context contemplated by the act. There is a reason we must support these amendments. I have stated many times in this place that sport should be available and participation encouraged for all, irrespective of background and personal circumstances, which, of course, includes trans athletes. Sport globally is, in turn, all trying to deal with the trans community's participation in sport. It varies from sport to sport, country to country, even in the United States, state to state. It actually means that some trans athletes participate as women locally but must compete as a man nationally or internationally. There is precedence here for the trouble that sport gets into when trying to approach issues like that. Intersex athletes have been in news a lot in recent years as high-profile runners, such as Kikastro Semenya and Dooty Chand, come under scrutiny for having some physical features commonly associated with men. World Athletics say that intersex women like Semenya, who have XY male chromosomes instead of XX female ones, account for just over seven in every thousand elite female athletes. Or, to put that in context, 140 times more than in the general population, with a still higher podium presence. Kikastro Semenya won the Olympic 800 metres and dominated the event for several years. She is an absolutely wonderful athlete. Burundi's Francine Nayan Sabah won the 800 metres silver medal and Kenyon Margaret Wunmabi won the bronze medal. Initially, they were banned from competing, then they were told to compete and they must take testosterone-suppressing drugs to compete in certain events, which made Semenya sick. All have subsequently been banned from competing in events from 400 metres to a mile. Semenya is currently in a legal battle with World Athletics to be allowed to compete in her preferred events. By coincidence, I got a call this morning from Frank Dick, who was the director of coaching at UK Athletics, and now one of the most celebrated coaches in the world working across many sports. As it happens, he was the director of coaching for the South African Olympic team for the 2016 Olympics and worked with Semenya's coach. He told me that not only was Semenya destroyed by the sports inability to deal with her issues, her family and the community from which she came from were destroyed. I'm extremely grateful for the members' contribution and illustrating some real-life examples. Given his experience and knowledge of the subject that he is eloquently speaking to, notwithstanding the wording of his amendment, which talks about reporting requirements and presenting numbers to Parliament, does he have any ideas on what the solution to this conundrum might be? It sounds like, A, it's very complex. I'm sure that lots of members, wherever their views will have a lot of empathy with those organisations in approaching what those are, quite sensitive and difficult subjects. Is there a solution to that? He's obviously read my mind because we're coming on to that, Mr Greene. What I was saying in conclusion to that bit is that rather than protect intersex athletes, sport has a clumsy approach, has caused them harm. Much as I believe the same thing will happen, and is happening, is currently happening to trans athletes. To Mr Greene's question, Kenyan Olympic bronze medalist Margaret Wambui competed alongside Semenion 2016 in the 800m event. She, too, was barred from competing in her preferred race due to her elevated testosterone levels. Wambui, who also refuses to take medication to reduce her testosterone levels, suggested that world athletics introduce a third category to international sports competitions to include intersex people. Here's a quote from her. She said that it would be good if a third category for athletes with highest testosterone was introduced because it is wrong to stop people from using their talents. Who could disagree with that? Those are wonderful athletes who need the opportunity to participate. I concur with what she says there. She has tried that. In the New York marathon, she introduced a non-binary category. This year, the entries to the category increased by 300 per cent, which tells me that those in that category are now feeling validated and more confident about having a place in sport, which is exactly what we want. However, there is still a significant issue to settle in that the transwomen who won that category and collected the $10,000 prize money finished outside the top 1,000 overall finishers. Tell me that that is not a situation that is not open for exploitation by the unscrupulous. Checks and balances are still needed, and there is a long way to go. Sports national governing bodies are unsure of the legalities in which they can act, and they may leave themselves open for court action on the grounds of prejudice, or conversely, if a trans athlete is injured or injures a fellow competitor, then the sport may be left open to legal action for failing to take appropriate action to protect the safety of participants. In other words, many sports are not taking any action for fear of making the wrong decision. Clear guidance is required from the Scottish Government. It cannot be subjective. I was asked by a national governing body if they took action to prevent a trans athlete from competing on grounds of safety, or on grounds that the trans athlete had a material advantage from the section in which they went through puberty, would they be acting illegally? It is not just national governing bodies, who have to make the decision on sport. Teachers and coaches have exactly the same issue when selecting teams. I am one of those coaches, and I am qualified as a senior level 4 coach. I am a former chair of the Scottish Athletics Coaches, and I am a member of the European Coaches Association, and I do not know. The follow-up from the wrong decision is significant here. In the case of a male and female athlete of the same size, the male athlete can generate approximately 160 per cent of the force a female can. A person born male transitioning to female retains many of the male characteristics that give a huge unfair advantage. I would never have to talk about the cue angle at the hip, that is the angle between the hip and the knee. When a woman goes through puberty, that angle changes into a position where they can give birth. That really impairs their ability to apply force. Male athletes have a bone density of about 30-33 per cent more, they have muscle mass of about a third more, they have a greater lung capacity and a bigger heart. Women have to deal with menstruation when competing in sport. I was highlighted by Dean Asher Smith and Elise McCallgan in the summer. Also, women have to go through menopause. In the case of trans men competing in women's sport, if they are transitioning, they are likely to be going through hormone replacement therapies, hormones that are illegal according to the World Anti-Doping Association because they give women an unfair advantage in terms of muscle growth and exercise recovery. In other words, it is tantamount to legalised doping. It is generally only at elite level that anti-doping is present, which leaves every other level of competition open to a significant inequality. I want to give an example of the difference between male and female sport. I am going to go all the way back to 1985, when the German Democratic Republic athlete Marita Koch broke the world record for 400 metres. Of course, the German Democratic Republic had a state-sponsored doping programme. She ran a time of 47.60, and since 1985, not one single woman has got anywhere near that mark. What if I tell you that last year, that mark was beaten 10,000 times by men? I want to talk about Caitlyn Jenner—I have spoken about her before—and she brought the issue of the trans community to the fore. She has done incredible work in that area. In 1976, Caitlyn Jenner won the male Decathlon Olympic title. She states that trans women should not be able to compete in women's sport, and she should know that. Surely we cannot have women excluded from sport as they are currently being, because politicians cannot openly discuss concerns and develop decent law that is fit for purpose. I do not think that that is just happening at elite level. It is across all age groups and abilities in our schools and in our sports in this country. Let us not forget the potential impact on the insurance of sports and teachers and coaches. With an increased risk comes an increased cost. The chamber may not want to recognise risk, but you can be sure that the insurance companies will. When change is being considered, it is an absolute requirement that consequence is anticipated. In stage 2, the cabinet secretary told me that she cannot be expected to decide which sports are affected. The cabinet secretary does not need to, because sport has done that already for you. It is why sport has a women's category to ensure health, fairness and safety. There are more than 1 million women and girls participating in sport in Scotland, and it has been a long fight to try to get equality between men's and women's sport. We have come such a long way in my lifetime. In setting this bill, it is imperative that the Government considers the impact of the bill across all of society. It does not pass the buck and negates its responsibilities for the changes that it proposes. We must protect women's rights and sports, as well as ensuring that trans rights are protected the same as for every person. There has been an accident at the back of the chamber. I wonder if we could suspend for a minute.