Well, hello and welcome to understand men now. I'm Jonathan Asley of JonathanAsley.com and I'm so excited to be shooting this short video for you today. Our topic, what makes younger men fall for older women? Really quickly, before we get started, if you post a question on this particular video, one person is gonna get a very special surprise for a free gift. So post a question and then after a little bit of time I'm gonna reach out to one of you and give you a free gift. All right, something special from Jonathan. Okay, why do younger men like older women, okay? This was a question that was posted to me on a recent video and I wanna lean into this for a little bit because I actually had the privilege of talking to some young men about older women one day. In fact, this was back when I was in the insurance business and I used to recruit and train younger guys and I was actively dating after my divorce and I got into it asking questions because they were telling me how they actually appreciated dating older women. Now, before I get into that, I wanna make a kind of an observation because I know a lot of women feel like they're too old to be dating. I get this comment specifically in the area of when they are, this is for folks in midlife. For those that are in their 50s and 60s, they see a lot of men who are on dating sites and they're asking, they're seeking younger women, okay? And I wanna talk about this just for a second and to lean into this because a lot of judgment is centered around this idea of age and there's age discrimination. And what's so fascinating to me is women discriminate in their 50s and 60s just like, man, I know a lot of women in their 50s, 60s don't wanna date men their own age. I've heard the term, I don't wanna become a nurse, I don't wanna become a purse. So there's age discrimination going on in both sexes. Oftentimes men seek younger women from that physicality perspective.   Let's just call it luggage and just think that sounds a little nicer. But that could be a couple of reasons why and I can understand why a lot of women are frustrated and they also, many of you might, some of you are watching this might be feeling like I'm too old to even date. I don't want older men and I'm too old for younger guys but I'm here to say that a lot of ladies get attention from younger guys. So I wanna talk a little, I'm gonna go into a little bit deeper of why would a younger guy be interested in older women? And as I shared with you a moment ago, I was talking to a few of my colleagues back in the insurance days. And it was interesting to me. So these were 20-year-olds who are actively seeking 40-year-old women. These men, I'm sorry, they're mid to late 20s actively seeking women in the early 40s, even mid 40s, maybe even 50s. And what was one of the guys said that was fascinating to me was that one of the benefits of dating an older woman is you don't have to worry about getting her pregnant. Oftentimes, these older women already have children and they didn't have to worry about the idea of getting someone pregnant. So they could have all the sex they want with someone and not have to worry about getting them pregnant. So that was number one. Number two was they said older women are really horny. They love to have sex. So women in their 40s and 50s have a very high sex drive compared to women in their 20s. This was the perception of some of the guys I was talking to. I thought that was fascinating. In addition, they tend to be, he also said, women that were older with younger men, these were from the male perspective, said that the women tend to be more appreciative. They tended to be more appreciative. Okay, in other words, women, so men dating in their own age bracket, they're worried about getting them pregnant, some of them don't have necessarily a sex drive yet because I've been told that women's sex drive really kicks in when they're in their 30s and 40s. And the women of their own age don't appreciate the guys. So a lot of younger guys will go seek out older women because they're being appreciated for their efforts. There is one more thing I'm gonna share with you in a minute, but I'm gonna tell you one of the downfalls that a lot of guys say is dating older women is that they also, the women who are older have a built-in shame going on inside of them in the senses that they're not shame, that's not the right word. It would be more fear, fear of rejection because as they get older, they're afraid that the guy will leave. So that causes a barrier in the relationship.  And I've heard that from guys, tell me that they've noticed this facet happen to them. And on some level, that's a very fair fear. That's a very big fear because the truth is, I'm gonna tell you what they said was the main reason why they wanted to date older women was they literally could get all the sex they want without all the baggage and complications and they have a built-in exit clause. Bum, bum, bum, they have a built-in exit clause. And what they said, these were the guys who told me, is that they said they can spend all this great time sowing their oats with these older women and then they get a chance to say, hey, I've gotta move on because I'm gonna find a woman that I can have children with. So they have a built-in exit clause and no older woman is gonna begrudge a guy for wanting to start a family with someone. Now, does that mean men do this, these younger men do this disingenually? Not necessarily, what was interesting is with the guys who shared this with me, it was more, I had to uncover this because it was under the subconscious of what was going on but that built-in exit clause is there and that's what I wanna protect you ladies from is to recognize that while most men are good guys, they're not disingenuine, the one of the challenges of being with a younger guy is you're gonna have to risk the fact that he might leave for a woman he could start a family with. Listen, I'm not here to judge whether you choose a younger guy or not, you just have to be aware that that could be an exit clause for him. So before you give your heart away to a younger guy, just recognize that this might be a fun experience but unless you two are truly aligned in your life vision, you can blend lives together, you share the same values, you have good healthy communication skills with one another and you have chemistry, it's gonna be a real big challenge because the age difference for the guy who wants to have a family is gonna become an issue and not every guy wants to start a family but just know that that could be his built-in exit clause, whether he knows it or not on a subconscious level it could exist there and that's what I wanna caution you on the younger guy and the older women. Hey, I was in a relationship once with a woman who was 10 years older than me, great relationship but that age became a barrier at some point only because there was kind of differences between us because there was a full, almost there was a decade but almost a generational difference and it did cause friction in our relationship and while I loved her and adored her dearly, not that age was the deciding factor but it's better to find people that you're more aligned with because that has the greatest chance for success and I mean the closer you're on age, the better chances you have. It's not an absolute but that's my invitation for you. Okay, I hope you got value from this video, don't forget if you ask a question, I'm giving a special gift to someone it's gonna be about understanding man speak so for that one special person, post a question, let's get a conversation going and I'd love to give out this free gift to one of you. Maybe two of you, we'll see. All right, I'm gonna wrap up this video as I always do first giving myself a big gigantic Jonathan Bear hug.  Oh, my Bear hug is of self love. I'm gonna ask you to turn to someone and give them a hug as well because hugs are a great source of love and we can all use love in our lives. Thanks so much and wishing you a super duper wonderful day. Bye bye now.


Digga I have Brett here who came believing for his miracle and he received it tonight for a year and a half now has been struggling with pain in his stomach and pain in his lungs due to alcohol use and drug use. Year and a half now He's been three months sober now. Tonight. He came believing for his miracle and Explain to me what it was like when you sensed the Lord working this miracle. Oh, it was overwhelming I felt a sense of peace and I felt his presence on me and it just knocked me back on the chair I've never felt anointing so strong before and I felt this discomfort discomfort in my lungs and that's been Every night for about a year and a half. I can't even sleep. I can't even You know, I've just thinking about that constantly I feel like it's hitting me my walk with God and I feel like it once I feel hit the chair the presence or the Pain that discovered was gone. All right, and how long have you dealt with that? Year and a half now and that was from explain that explain to me because I know you said something about Alcohol and drugs. How did how did the alcohol and drugs affect your your body? Well, it caused mitral valve prolapse in my heart so like a kind of a regular heartbeat type thing and then Just this ball in my stomach and this pain right here that would not go away for for a year and a half now So and then now I don't feel it anymore. So Lift your hands Stretch your hands so we're to pray for him said he's never sensed anything like this Sir, the Holy Spirit is on this platform with us But when you glorify the name of Jesus The presence of the Holy Spirit Manifests Father Thank you for freeing this man from every addiction Thank you for marking his life Now father, I pray you put your fire in him And let him preach your gospel and let the captives go free in the name of Jesus and the church Thank you for watching and counter TV Don't forget to subscribe and click the notification bell Also, help us spread the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit Make a one-time donation or become a monthly supporter by clicking on the donate link now


So, what would you like to watch in the last event? Good, that's the question. Since they never left, they always stayed, but still when my daughter came back, it was a real success. Because of my doctor advice, but I didn't say much. But I know that my students, my best hangover for them, will actually still live in Washington. And my daughters are not born. Very good for them. Guys, get some food while you're here. You pray and they're not coming back and it's a very bad message because people love jobs. A couple of days later, someone from my team came and walked into my office and said, the comeback of McDonald's started in the full conversation. We still have a press conference. You love McDonald's. Thank you.


s little support from the Scottish Government when it comes to the practicalities of implementing this kind of law. They said that there is a sense that these rules are handed down from MSPs in Avery Tower and it is left for everyone else to deal with the consequences. The consequences in this case will be, for example, places of worship and low-paid frontline workers having to work out how to pull a single-sex spaces themselves. It cannot be right that we invite these legal contradictions and then expect people like religious organisations and low-paid workers to navigate resulting legal minefield. There must therefore be clarity on the relationship with the Equality Act on the face of this bill, and that is why I have put my amendments forward. Scottish Labour has sought throughout this process to focus on the bill and its drafting and to reject the culture wars that have dominated some of the discussion, casting trans people as threats or women as bigots is not helpful. What we need is good law and clear guidance, and that is what I and my party are working to achieve. Although many concerns relate to issues that are not in the bill, we understand that some people, including women, are frightened that they will lose some of the rights that they have, particularly on single-sex services. We know that those are rights that they have fought hard for. Colleagues will know that it is the Equality Act 2010 introduced by the last Labour Government that provides protection from discrimination for women and trans people, and it is our view that nothing in the Gender Recognition Reform Bill will or should affect that. In the case of gender reassignment, it is clear that protection from discrimination exists whether or not a GRC is in place and whether or not the person has undergone medical treatment for transition. The protections in the Equality Act 2010 also allow single-sex services, such as women's refugees, to exclude men and trans people in certain circumstances. It is Scottish Labour's view that the Equality Act is reserved cannot be altered by devolved legislation, and therefore it is our understanding that those protections will and must still apply if the bill passes. This is a matter of great importance for many people concerned about the current reforms, and we recognise the desire for reassurance. That is why I am moving this amendment. That protection allows for the operation of single-sex spaces and works as an exemption to the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or gender reassignment, but only when it is proportionate response to meeting a legitimate aim. For example, in the case of a women's single-sex service, a trans woman without a GRC could be excluded on the grounds that they are legally a man. A trans woman with a GRC, and therefore legally a woman, could also be excluded but on the grounds that they have reassigned their gender and sex on their birth certificate. Both of those exemptions for the protection and dignity of women accessing services must be protected. That is why we support both Reform of the Gender Recognition Act and continued implementation of protections and provisions within the 2010 Equality Act. I therefore believe that it should be clear in the legislation that nothing in it modifies the protections in the Equality Act. In proposing this specific amendment, I am seeking to ensure that, should it pass, it is clear that Parliament believes that the GRA must be considered alongside the Equality Act. It is also my belief that reading the Equality Act in as a whole is crucial, because it is the interaction of all schedules in the Equality Act that bring its strength. Only including aspects on sex from the Equality Act could mean, for example, that at a later date it was assumed that we did not give importance to gender reassignment, which is concerning for a number of issues. Specifically, that element could be really key in applying some of the previous exemptions that I spoke about when protecting single sex services. That is why I believe that my amendment, which focuses on the act in its entirety, affords the best and strongest protection for trans people and women and all of us. It covers the protections in section 11 and in section 195, as others in this group seek to do. I believe that we will carry the confidence of the public. I will therefore abstain on several amendments in the grouping that pick out specific sections of the act and on Jeremy Balfour's ECHR1 previously discussed on this basis. My amendment seeks to cover all of those, without separating them from the other aspects of the Equality Act, which I believe bring its strength. I will also support amendments that are seeking guidance on how the two acts work together. That, I believe, will be essential if the public are to have confidence in the law and for organisations to be clear about what they can and can't do. My colleagues have spoken about that already. My amendment ensures that any future dispute over Parliament's intention in passing the gender recognition reform bill is made clear. Each and every protection and provision of the 2010 Equality Act will and must continue to have effect, despite the passage of the bill. I move amendment 151. I have already outlined to the committee the rationale and purpose of the amendments in relation to occupational requirements and exceptions. I emphasise that this is about ensuring that rights that already exist in the 2010 Equality Act can be exercised. While I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has indicated support for amendment 156, notwithstanding the potential for amendment stage 3, amendment 151 commits the Government to producing guidance on occupational exceptions, which clearly sets out the interaction between this piece of legislation and schedule nine of the Equality Act and crucially section 22 of the 2004 act. While the Cabinet Secretary set out in the previous discussion the basis on which exemptions can happen, I hope that she recognises that section 22 is having a chilling effect on the operation of these exemptions. While the Equality and Human Rights Commission have issued guidance on occupational requirement and exemptions, the interpretation of that guidance in public bodies across Scotland is leading to confusion, which Pauline McNeill outlined in her contribution. The Government may argue that it is not their role to issue guidance, but it is not unusual for additional guidance to be issued. For example, in education, Education Scotland provides guidance for schools in respect of the Equality Act 2010 on discrimination. It says that it provides an authoritative, comprehensive and technical guide to the detail of the law, providing an overview of obligations, describing it as an essential reference that should be used both to develop and review policy. The EHRC itself, in a briefing for stage 2, said that the UK and the Scottish Government must also ensure clarity for employers and service providers on the law. I do not believe that it is outwith the boundaries of the Scottish Government's powers to provide clarity on those issues. If we go back to the quote that I gave from the Government's 2019 consultation in the scenario of information being held by an HR department, the Government consultation said that it is appropriate for information about a person's trans-history to be shared in a strictly limited proportionate and legitimate way. It would provide much-needed clarity if the Government were to set out this assurance in guidance, which employers could use on the occasion that they wished to exercise an occupational exemption, which they are able to do with the support of the Equality Act when it is proportionate for a legitimate aim. It would also provide clarity for service users, as it would emphasise the EHRC guidance and make it clear the circumstances in which they can expect an occupational exemption to be considered. That would provide clarity for the provision of single-sex services. While there may be questions or challenges, the legal framework in which decisions are taken would be made clear. I will say that I have taken notes of the points that have been made by members throughout what was quite a lengthy session. Occasionally, I consulted with officials on those points. I would have thought that that was an entirely appropriate thing to do. On the amendments that relate to the interaction of the bill with the Equality Act 2010, I support amendment 37. I cannot support any of the other amendments in the group and consider some of them to be outwith legislative competence. It is appropriate that I provide the committee in connection with Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment 37, with an explanation of the way in which the bill does not modify the Equality Act 2010 and of the way in which, although a GRC can affect the treatment of people in accordance with the 2010 act, the bill does not change the effects of obtaining a GRC. As I have said before, the bill does not modify the reserved provisions of the 2010 act, which includes not changing the protected characteristics and the single-sex exceptions under the act. In line with that, the amendment uses modifies, which has a technical meaning that refers to modifying rules of law by means of a sexual amendment repeal or otherwise. As I also confirmed in the stage 1 debate, the effect of a GRC upon the sex of a person for the purposes of the protected characteristic of sex is not changed by the bill. The effects of a GRC were provided for in the 2004 act, and those effects are not changed by this bill. The effect of a GRC upon the protected characteristics of sex is a matter of the application of the rules in the 2010 act, and those are not altered by the bill. The application of the rules in the Equality Act 2010 is not for the Scottish Government to explain or advise on for very good reasons, because, as I have explained previously, the 2010 act provisions are reserved. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as a reserved body, not Scottish ministers, provides a code of... The other people want interventions, so I'll let the cabinet secretary finish this area. Provide a code of practice and guidance on the effects of the 2010 act. The bill also does not change the provisions on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment contained in the 2010 act. Do you want me to finish? Maybe if I could finish on this. As I've explained the effect of the bill, however, I have had discussions with MSPs who are keen to see a provision in the bill on interaction with the 2010 act. Members have said that in moving their amendments. The amendment in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy provides for the avoidance of doubt that the bill does not modify the 2010 act, so I can support this amendment if the committee chooses to agree to it. It covers the entirety of the 2010 act, rather than specifying sections or elements. I was going to go on to amendment 23 and 104, but maybe I'll point to... Let's take the interventions that we have just now. I've got Rachel Hamilton, Daniel Johnson and Claire Baker. I want some clarity on the relevance of a GRC under the Equality Act. Does the cabinet secretary believe that a GRC is relevant under the Equality Act or is it irrelevant? Last, well, two weeks ago, the Scottish Government was arguing in court that a GRC changes someone's sex under the act. Can you explain... I'm going to take the other folk before you come back, because I think they're all kidding now. They all suggested they wanted to intervene at roughly the same time. Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, convener. I accept what the cabinet secretary is saying in terms of the narrow scope of the law, but I wonder if the cabinet secretary would consider the following things. First of all, while the legislation does not alter the Equality Act, it's very much dealing with the same landscape. There are concepts and considerations that, in terms of the practical implementation of public policy, public bodies will have to think about that at the same time that they're considering the Equality Act. Therefore, as a practical, if not a legal consequence, I think that there is overlap, as there always is in terms of legislation. Indeed, I would go further with what the cabinet secretary acknowledged. In terms of other legislation, the Government is on the record stating that the law has an effect to communicate. It's not simply about the regulation of what can and cannot be prosecuted. It's also about communication and the wider social impacts. In that sense, the cabinet secretary also acknowledged that there are consequences that go beyond the strict scope of the law, which very much will need to be contended by public bodies. I don't think that the cabinet secretary answered that in the last section. The point that the EHRC made about the increased number and scope of that, having an impact on the application of the Costs Act in Scotland, would she acknowledge that point? Indeed, what is the Government's response to it? Clare Baker, and I've also seen Pauline McNeill, Jamie Green and Fulton MacGregor. Sorry, I hadn't indicated, convener. I think there's been confusion. Sorry, Pauline McNeill. It was just a simple point, cabinet secretary. You said that it does not modify the equality bill or the effects of obtaining a GRC. That's fine, but what's confusing is that the Government is arguing that legal sex, opposed to biological sex, includes those with a GRC. So it appears as though the Government's definition of sex includes people with a GRC. You can see that, that would be my definition and many people disagree with that. That is disputed, but you can see why your statement that it does not modify the bill or the effects of it, well it does. It does change it if your definition of sex is not biological sex, so I think that you need to clear this matter up. What is the Government's definition of sex for the purposes of the Equality Act? Jamie Green. I'm far less titled than Mr MacGregor is, so I'll do my best. Cabinet secretary, just on amendment 37, which I believe you've stated, you will support. First of all, amendment 37 just says, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this act, et cetera. It's a very narrow bandwidth. You used the same argument against amendment 111 by saying that, for the avoidance of this doubt, amendments of that type are completely meaningless in the face of legislation, so you've asked the member not to push that amendment, but for the entirely opposite reason you're asking members to support 37, which is worded very similarly, and no doubt has the same meaningless effect. So I think what members are asking for by a whole series of amendments is that the purpose of the act may not necessarily be the same as the effect of the act, and we won't know the effect of that until after the act is enabled. I believe that there may be a compromise to be had in the catch-all reporting requirement that the Government has indicated that it will be willing to open to members. So I wonder if some of those other amendments, which look at the interaction between another piece of legislation and this act, may be best suited in that place if the Government is not willing to support them all. I do feel that the Pam Duncan Glances is so limited and narrow in its scope that there is some room for a constructive working with members ahead of stage 3. Thanks, convener, and it's on a similar vein to what Jimmy Green asked there. Cabinet Secretary, I know that the Government isn't overly keen on a huge number for avoidance of doubt amendments, but I know that you were looking at Pam Duncan Glances particularly, because it encompasses a wider remit. I wonder when you are responding to the interventions, if you think that it does, if Pam Duncan Glances, if you are suggesting that we support it in the committee, it does support it, if it does capture the intent of amendment 111 and to what extent. Brian Whittle. Thank you, convener. You indicate that you're not going to support my amendment, but by removing some of the safeguards, you are, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, having a significant implication on the operation of the Equality Acts in Scotland. Here's the reality. If we do not prepare guidance for sporting governing bodies, for coaches, for teachers, you can't hide from the impact of this bill. It's not if women are going to get injured here. It's not when, because it's already happening out there, and I have to say that I've seen this personally. As you know, I have three daughters, one of them is a young teenager in a combat sport, standing opposite a trans woman, bigger than me. That's the reality of what's happening out here in Scotland right now. Thankfully, that trans woman recognised her advantage and played within herself, but that will not happen all the time. Women are going to get injured if we do not clarify what the rules and regulations are for sporting governing bodies, coaches and teachers. That, I'm afraid, is factual, because it's already happening across the world. Thanks, convener. I'll try to come back on all the points and questions that have been raised before coming back just to finish the other amendments. Rachael Hamilton, first of all, it's worth just pointing out that the Equality Act 2010 protects the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment, and it protects gender reassignment whether or not someone has a GRC. The point about the 2004 act and the effect of obtaining a GRC is the same in section 9 of the 2004 act. None of that changes that and essentially enables people to change their birth certificate to be in line with their acquired gender. That has been the case for 18 years, and that remains the same. I'm not going to comment on the court case, other than to say that the position of the Scottish Government is exactly the same as the Equality and Human Rights Commission has set out in court. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has set out in court their position. We agree with that position. There is no difference in terms of the position. I don't have the devolved matters, because that is with regard to the gender representation on public boards. Can you tell me whether the EHRC's point of view is regarding other aspects that are devolved or reserved? The EHRC's position is on the effect of a gender recognition certificate, as it has stated and is on the website in terms of the position and the effect of a GRC. That changes none of that. I'm not going to comment on the court case, other than to say that our position is exactly the same as the Equality and Human Rights Commission's position, which the member has agreed with on many times. Sorry, but the rest of the UK is not reforming the law, cabinet secretary. We are not changing the effect of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. That does not change the effects of it, which was laid down in the 2004 act. That has not changed at all. It is exactly the same. There is no change to the effect. That is the position. In terms of the practical effects that Daniel Johnson said, as I have said previously, the guidance here is led by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. If Daniel Johnson is asking me, would we be intending or prepared to work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in terms of whether that guidance needs updated post the passing of this bill? Of course, we are, as a Government, more than happy to work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on doing that, but it would have to be led by them because they are the lead body in terms of the guidance, but if you are asking me, will we work with them if it needs to be updated in the light of the passage of this bill, then I can give a commitment that we will do that. Can I just deal with the other amendments first? In terms of the explanation that I gave to Rachael Hamilton in the 2004 act, answers Pauline McNeill's point that the 2004 act is not changed in terms of the effect of obtaining a gender recognition certificate, but that, under the Equality Act 2010, the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignments sit alongside each other as protected characteristics. I think that, just finally, I am sorry if I have missed some points, Brian Whittle, in terms of the guidance, I mean, given— The intervention on— Right, okay, and I will come back to that. Thank you. It is just because you were on my amendment. I hope that you would address a significant question around the exclusion. You said that the 2004 act sits along the 2010 act. Forget your definition versus my definition of sex. What I am interested in is how you use the 2010 act for exclusions. I have said in my submission that you have a minister who is telling health boards that they cannot exclude people, and if they exclude them, it may be discriminatory, but it is completely unhelpful for the purposes of this debate. I would like an explanation from the Government somewhere along the line, but if I use the Glasgow Life example, I think that some bodies are confused or potentially not implementing the section of the act that allows them to make that proportionate legitimate decision for a legitimate aim, they are actually saying that they will not make any exclusions. That is not what the act says. Given those examples, that is why I think that surely the Government has got to step in here and say, hold on a minute, that you are allowed to make exclusions under the 2010 act. Do you see my point? Yes, I do see your point. The exclusions are exactly the same and it makes no change. The updated guidance that the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued should be followed by public bodies, and that is clear. It is clear that it is proportionate. Clearly it gives some guidance in terms of proportionality of applying those exceptions, but if a public body deems that it is proportionate to exclude transwomen or transmen for that matter, with or without agenda recognition certificate, it is entirely within the 2010 act for them to be able to do so. I do not think that I can be any clearer than that. Jamie Greene's point popped back in my head about the avoidance of doubt. It is not something normally that we would have on the face of the bill. However, the reason that I felt it was important to have this on the face of the bill was because of the discussions that we have just had for absolute clarity—I am going back to Pauline McNeill's point—that it is stating the obvious and the facts of the matter, which is why, from a point of view, why would we need to because that is the absolute law and the facts of the matter. It cannot change the 2010 act, but we felt that it was important because of the importance of the discussion and the need to reassure that putting it on the face of the bill was proportionate. What then is not required is for different elements of the 2010 act to be pulled out and put on the face of the bill, because the 2010 act covers all of that and there is no change. That is the clearest way of moving forward. On Brian Whittle's point, I accept the need for sports governing bodies to be clear about what relates to their sport. Each sport is different in relation to the treatment of transgender athletes. We have seen different governing bodies develop and change their guidance in the light of the rulings and evidence that they have taken and the rulings that they have made. That is entirely appropriate. Sport Scotland updated its guidance last year in order to try and help with that. All governing bodies need to apply the principles of the Equality Act. I think that trying to legislate in this bill for something that governing bodies have already demonstrated that they are doing, they might not have all done it in the timeframe or to the satisfaction of Brian Whittle, but many of them have done it on the international stage. We have seen changes in policy emanating from that. I think that because of the nature of sport being so different from one governing body to another, that is where those discussions and changes should happen and our best place to happen. In Scotland, following sport Scotland guidance, Brian Whittle wants to come back. I appreciate it and let me come in here. What I am saying to you here is that sport is not doing this well. Sport is doing this really badly. It has a history of doing this really, really badly because it does not know how to apply this rule. Pauline Neill has given you an example of Glasgow Life, who is not applying the legislation in the Equality Act properly. That is happening across the board. It is not sport to sport. If there is power and speed involved in a sport, then transwomen have an advantage. If we do not make sure that all sport understand, and not just national governing bodies, I am talking about teachers and amateur coaches like myself. If we are not absolutely given the clarity from the Government on what happens here, women are going to be put not just at a disadvantage, but they are going to be put in danger. I do not understand for the life of me cabinet secretary why the Scottish Government does not understand that we have to have guidance really clear across the whole of the country. The guidance is provided already through the Equality and Human Rights Commission and through governing bodies. You are talking about two slightly different things. In terms of a public body and the way in which it manages its spaces, the guidance is there through the Equality and Human Rights Commission around the proportionality of who would be excluded from certain spaces within sports provision. If you are talking about competition and athletes competing at whatever level, then, of course, it has to be specific to that sport. That is why we have seen very public changes of sports governing bodies, making those changes in the light of the evidence and research that they have done. Each sport is very different from the other in terms of the physicality of athletes. Therefore, it has to be specific to that sport. I cannot see how you could possibly legislate for every scenario in every sport within a bill that is about the process for obtaining agenda recognition certificate. However, if the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes that guidance is required to be revised again in the light of the bill, then, of course, we will work with them in doing that. However, the guidance is already there, and sports governing bodies are changing their policy in certain circumstances. I am telling you what is happening out there. Sports national governing bodies are not making the right decision because they are frightened of ending up in court. That is what is happening out there. I can go through as many as you like. Some power and speed-based sports are making one decision, other power and speed-based sports are making a different decision to the detriment of women. That is happening out there, cabinet secretary. We have a paper here that tells you what the rules are. Tell me why, if the rules are clear, why that is not being applied across all of sport because it is not working, cabinet secretary. Something has to be done properly to deal with that. I cannot speak for all governing bodies, but I am aware of some very public positions that have changed within a number of sports governing bodies in the light of them, looking at their sport, looking at all the issues that Brian Whittle has raised, and changing their policy in relation to transgender athletes on the back of that. That is the right and proper way for each sport to look at the rules that they have, because each sport is very different in how athletes, in terms of the unfairness in competition, are not the same for every sport. To try and legislate for sport across the board when every sport is so different—I just cannot see how that could be done—is much better to allow, as sports governing bodies are doing. I am sure that members around this table are aware of those changes of policy that have been very high-profile. Many are already doing that, and it is for them to lead what is appropriate for their sport within the law, addressing the 2010 Equality Act and making sure that they are in line with that, but it is entirely for them to do that within the existing rules. I do not see how you could legislate for a couple of indications of people wanting to come in, but I do not know how much you have left to conclude. I will turn to the reasons why I do not support amendment 23 and amendment 104, because they select out section 11 only of the 2010 Equality Act and the bill cannot change section 11. We have got the catch-all Pam Duncan-Glancy amendment that I referred to earlier. I also do not support amendment 24, which selects out section 195 of the 2010 act, and the bill does not alter the exceptions in section 195, which provides for certain exceptions for sex, gender reassignment and discrimination in relation to sport. I do not support amendment 110, which focuses on collecting data on sex, because its effect on interpretation of the bill is unclear, nor do I support amendment 152, which requires that the functions under the bill must be exercised in accordance with the 2010 act. The requirements of that act do not impact on who can and cannot obtain a GRC or the process for obtaining a GRC. Let me turn to amendments in relation to the Equality Act 2010 and guidance. As I have said, it is for the UK Government or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission as the reserved body to issue guidance on the Equality Act. It is the statutory non-departmental public body established by the Equality Act. In relation to the 2010 act, the EHRC have published guidance for individuals, for organisations and the public sector. They also published updated guidance earlier this year on protecting people from sex and gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the act. They have also published a statutory code of practice, which assists service providers with understanding the relevant issues in relation to the act. They are the correct body to do so. I also said earlier on that, if they want to update their guidance again after the bill has passed, we would welcome that. On the basis of all that, I cannot support amendments 25, 74, 75, 101, 103 and 151. There are another four members, so we will take them all in turn and then come back to cut some. Thank you, convener. I am really grateful to be let in. It is just going back to the points that Pauline McNeill and I are making. Are you able to set out for the committee the content of what the Scottish Government argued in its position in court two weeks ago? What did you go to the court to argue? I am sure that you are not protected by legal constraints on that. My other question is relating to Brian Whittle and others. Their concerns around the interaction of the GRC with the Equality Act is, do you think that women's rights to manage their boundaries around the opposite sex matter, or not you, but the Scottish Government? Thank you, convener, for allowing me to come back in. My point was on my amendment number 37, just to address a couple of issues that have been raised. I do not share the view of my colleague Jamie Greene that it is narrow. The purpose of that amendment is deliberately broad, so that it takes into consideration all the aspects of the Equality Act. Every one of us around this table today has said that, regardless of the argument that we are pushing forward, for example, with Brian Whittle's arguments around women in sport and trans people in sport, that everybody is keen to also say that we support all protected characteristics, including trans people. That is important for us all to remember that, and sometimes that gets a bit lost. That is one of the reasons why the amendment that I have put in in my name is so broad in that sense, because I want the whole act to be read in and relevant. I do not think that we can pick it apart like that in bits and pieces. It was written to allow groups of people to live in a society where we all have to live with one another. Sometimes, there are situations in which we have to ask questions about what those protected characteristics rights mean for those protected characteristics rights. We have discussed a lot of them today, and pulling bits out of it, I fear, does not allow us to consider it in its entirety, as my colleague Daniel Johnson said earlier about the act's ability to be context-specific, and I think that that is really important. That is why the amendment is read the way it is. I also want to say that, on the points back for the avoidance of doubt, members will be aware of a pepper v heart approach, which is that you have the opportunity in proposing an amendment to give clarity about why you are doing so. I hope that that was helpful. For avoidance of doubt, it is not without precedence, but it is rare. It was used previously in the Marriage and Civil Partnerships Act, and I thought that it would be an appropriate mechanism to make sure that the bill is read with the whole equality act, representing and understanding and protecting the rights of all the people in the equality act, including in all protected characteristics. I appreciate the opportunity, convener, just to come back in and give a bit of explanation for that. I hope that members will find that helpful. My amendments make clear that the equality act needs to be taken into account when considering the final GRA bill. If the bill is passed, can women be absolutely confident that men will not be present in spaces reserved for women, be that in single-sex hospital ward, in women and girls sporting activities, in women's refuges or in those spaces reserved for women to practice the religion? Thank you, convener. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments in this group. I hear the cabinet secretary say that it is for the EHRC to issue guidance in this area, but public bodies, including Education Scotland, have provided guidance in addition to EHRC guidance around the equality act on discrimination. They described it as a reference that should be used to develop and review policy. It is a tool. It is whether the Government could look at the approach that we should take to provide more guidance in this area. The EHRC, in a briefing that it sent to members in advance of this stage, said that it has written to the Scottish and the UK Government to get clarity for employers and service providers on the law. It is saying that it provides guidance around occupational exemptions, but it has written to yourself and to the UK Government to see the role there for Governments to provide clarity for employers and service providers. I would be interested if you had a chance to see that letter and respond and what the difference is between the guidance that Education Scotland has issued on the equality act. The guidance was last February 2021. It is described as technical guidance, but it is an authoritative, comprehensive and technical guide to the detail of the law. I think that I will press the amendment today. You might feel that the amendment oversteps what the role is, but do you recognise that there is a role for the Scottish Government in providing guidance on how the operation of the equality act is carried out in Scotland? We could have a further discussion before stage 3 about what role the Scottish Government has here in providing that public bodies and employers in Scotland know how to use the law effectively. On Rachael Hamilton's question, I am not going to talk about a live court case other than to state again that the position of the Scottish Government is no different and that it is entirely consistent with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, entirely consistent with its position entirely. On the second question—I was not sure if I caught it—I think that exemptions under the 2010 act matter, of course they do. If that was Rachael Hamilton's question, of course they do. That is why I have said on numerous occasions that those exemptions are important and should remain and are not affected by the bill. Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment put that beyond doubt if there ever was any doubt. Pam Duncan Glancy gave an account of why her amendment is important, and I do not think that I need to say anything about that. I can confirm to Faisal Choudhury that absolutely the single sex service exemptions apply. They just have to be proportionate, so the guidance sets out the proportionality. It gives examples, the HRC guidance gives examples of the type of services that they would envisage being exempting transwomen, for example, from accessing. They talk about what it means in terms of proportionality of a service provider. In terms of Clare Baker, I will need to look at the letter that she is referring to, and we will have a look at that. However, I am happy to have further discussions with Clare Baker on that. It is getting the balance right of being very clear about the lead organisation around those matters, whether employment law is again reserved, and we would look to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to lead on that. That does not mean that we do not have an interest and that we cannot work with the HRC around further guidance that they may wish to develop on an issue, but it is about the lead organisation and recognising and respecting that lead organisation's role. However, I am happy to have further discussions with Clare Baker. Is there any further thought that we can put to that, if that would be helpful for her? Thanks for that answer, cabinet secretary. However, the EHRC guidance supports my amendments. The EHRC seems to think that it is not only relevant, it is important to clarify for the purpose of cross-border certainty. I quote, by burdening the group of trans people who will be able to obtain legal gender recognition, the proposal has a significant implication for the operation of the Equality Act in Scotland. This significant implication means that it is important for us to put as much clarity on the face of the bill as possible. The clarity on the face of the bill comes from the overarching, for the avoidance of doubt, amendment in Pam Duncan Glancy's name. If you start to pick out differing parts of the 2010 act, you give more prominence to different elements of the 2010 act, and that itself just creates confusion and opaqueness. Having the whole act beyond doubt, for the avoidance of doubt, is clear. In terms of the operation of the 2010 act, as I have said on a number of occasions, that is for the EHRC to lead on. In terms of the cross-border issues that Foisal Troudry said, we are working with the UK Government around a section 104 order, and we will continue to work with them, as we would with any piece of legislation around any cross-border issues. I want to ask the cabinet secretary what is your interpretation of the Equality Act 2010? My interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, in its entirety, or specifically? Do you not think that it should be more clear? Do you not think that removing some to accommodate somebody else? Do you think that it should not be balanced? Should it not be given equal opportunity to everybody and listened to everyone? The Equality Act 2010 protects the characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. It protects all those characteristics. It is a good piece of legislation, and it is entirely untouched by the bill. I have said that on a number of occasions, but we are now literally putting that on the face of the bill for the avoidance of any doubt. For the avoidance of any doubt, in relation to the briefing, which the cabinet secretary has seen it anyway, I just want to refer to it specifically. Foisal Troudry mentioned it previously, so he says that we have highlighted several areas where the effect of the bill's provisions 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. They refer to all the amendments, including mine, in 11101 and all the amendments in the group, but they say that the Government recommends that such amendments should be considered. Given that you are relying on saying that it is a matter for the ECHR, I hope that—I suspect from what you have said that you are not supporting 101, but it is important to get on the record that, even if the ECHR has said that they should at least be considered, because they themselves would welcome that clarity. It seems that it is the Scottish Government that stands alone saying that you would not accept further clarification. I am grateful, convener. I echo Paul McNeill's point there, but I will go further. If we are going to accept your logic, cabinet secretary, that there is essentially nothing impact and that it is open to public bodies and, indeed, others to use the exemption set and the Equality Act, could you just, before the record, clarify that it is proportionate and reasonable to do so? That public bodies and, indeed, others can distinguish between people on the basis of whether we want to describe its physical characteristics, however we want to capture it. I recognise that there are issues around the terminology and the difference between legal definitions and commonplace, but it is open and, indeed, that they should, where it is fair and proportionate, those distinctions, such as school trips, shared accommodation or others. You might not want to pick out those particular examples, but that public bodies can and, indeed, should use those distinctions rather than simply using declared gender identity. I can absolutely confirm that, because that is what the Equality Act says. As I have said probably quite a few times now, the bill changes none of the protections and exemptions under the Equality Act, so I can absolutely say that. Public bodies should look to the guidance for the guidance in terms of how they apply that to their own particular circumstances, and it has to be proportionate, as Daniel Johnson has just outlined. All of that is there, and I can confirm that. The point that was made by Pauline Dassby, who asked me a question. The ECHR's briefing says that it should consider these amendments. Yes, so we have. Let me be absolutely clear that we have considered every single amendment, and we have gone and looked at it, whether it is required or not, and what the effect of it would be on any unintended consequences, all of them, every single one of them. For clarity and simplicity, by having the protection or the catch-all clarity of Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment is the clearest way of being absolutely, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is no change to any aspects of the 2010 act. I think that to then go further than that brings a lack of clarity, and hopefully my answer to Daniel Johnson could not have been any clearer around those exemptions that will continue to be the case. Thank you, convener. Obviously, there has been a fulsome discussion around these groupings. Just to speak to Daniel Johnson's amendment, I think that we must address the policy impact of reforming law. Most people here today have said that, although the bill is well-intentioned, the reform is well-intentioned, the bill is actually clumsy. All of us have said that we need clear and robust guidance from the Scottish Government around the interaction of the quality act. My colleague Pam Gozzle is also correct that the Scottish Government is brushed off concerns by stakeholders. Pauline McNeill is right that public organisations should not be left in the dark, legislation should be clear. The new laws, we believe, and if the cabinet secretary is hearing what we are saying on behalf of stakeholders and our constituents and others, the general public is that those laws will not be workable and they are not clear enough. It is important that the public are reassured that the bill will not harm women's rights and others, particularly around the areas that protect against discrimination, such as pay or representation on public boards or the protection of single spaces. In, for example, domestic shelters and rape crisis centres, I agree with both Foisal Childry and Pauline McNeill that it is down to the Scottish Government to tell us what the effect of a GRC is for the purpose of the Equality Act. Pam Duncan-Glancy says that she wants to see the Scottish Government make good law and clear guidance, so we are all agreed on that. We must give the public clarity, and I will question the clarity that her amendment gives. As it stands, the Scottish Government is failing to put a firewall between the GRC and the Equality Act, but at the same time it is making GRCs available to a much larger and wider and diverse group of people. Despite the Scottish Government supporting Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment, we still do not have the reassurance that the delivery of services, jobs and sport on the ground is clear. I also believe that all Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment does is to support the SNP's position, which has still not been explained. I thank the member for taking an intervention, and I appreciate that this is politics, and you will seek to make that point as clearly as you just have. However, this is not a case of people winding up on a political basis. What I have done with my amendment is to set out that the Equality Act, which, if we are going to raise politics, was written and brought in by a Labour Government, is as relevant for the bill, and it is particularly relevant. I think that we need to say so in this discussion because of some of the concerns out there in the real world and in here, in fact. That is why we are doing that. Just because we happen to agree—there are a number of areas in which my colleague Rachel Hamilton and I will agree—we will vote in the same way. That does not mean that I am lining up to support the Tories on anything, least of all on women's rights, but I can absolutely be clear that this is not about a party political allegiance. I do not think that it is fair to suggest that. This is about trying to make sure that everyone in Scotland's rights are protected in the way that they were intended when the Labour Government brought in the Equality Act in 2010. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that amendment. With all due respect, my point is on the side of the public, and therefore I am not making this political. I think that it is important, Pam, that we do discuss things robustly. It is just a shame that other parties have not got to the position of having a free vote on this so that we could have been more open and transparent. However, using the example that the cabinet secretary used— Do you agree on that point? Yes. Thank you. That is a little bit of mischaracterisation. This is a small Parliament, and every political party will come to positions through discussion and agreement. In a group the size of ours, can I assure the member that that is how we arrived at that? It is slightly unhelpful and characterising the position of the Liberal Party is one being whipped. Thank you for Daniel Johnson for his intervention, and I did not use those words, but he is entitled to his own opinion. I am not going to interfere in how his own party decides on his own business management of the party. However, using the example that the cabinet secretary used of the HRC guidance when it suits, I believe, is shallow. The HRC supports Foisal Charteries amendment. I am supportive of Foisal Charteries amendment, so why not the Scottish Government? If the Scottish Government truly wants reform, if the cabinet secretary wants to see this passed as a piece of legislation that is groundbreaking reform for Scotland, I believe that all parties should be brought together. We have discussed it in good faith, and we want to make good law. I think that that is the point here. I think that a catch-all approach that the cabinet secretary has been supportive of in previous groupings would have been preferable. On that point, I will withdraw my amendment. The member has asked permission to withdraw amendment 23. Is that agreed? That is agreed. I therefore call amendment 24 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 23. I call amendment 25 in the name of Daniel Johnston, already debated with amendment 23. Daniel Johnston, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we therefore go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote, and all those against. That is three in favour and four against, so amendment 25 is not agreed. I call amendment 74 in the name of Pam Gossel, already debated with amendment 23. Pam Gossel, to move or not move. That is moved, so the question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so we go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote, and all those against. Again, that is three votes for and four votes against. The amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 75 in the name of Pam Gossel, already debated with amendment 23. Pam Gossel, to move or not move. That is moved, so the question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed, so therefore vote all those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is three votes for and four votes against. It is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 76 in the name of Pam Gossel, already debated with amendment 1. Pam Gossel, to move or not move. Can I say a few words? Yes, it is moved, but is it okay? No, it is moved or not moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so therefore go to the vote. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. Two votes for and five votes against. That is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 101 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 23. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. That is moved. Without going to the vote, is that agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we now go to the vote on amendment 101. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is three votes for and four votes against. That is not agreed. I call amendment 103 in the name of Brian Whittle. Brian Whittle, to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we go to a vote. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is three votes for and four votes against. The amendment is not agreed to. I move to amendment 104 in the name of Foysal Choudhury. Foysal Choudhury, to move or not move. Can I say a few words? No. Move or not move. I will draw at this stage. Okay, thank you. I call amendment 136 in the name of Jamie Greene. I am already debated with amendment 1. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Move the convener. So the question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed. All those in favour, please vote now, and all those against. That is six in favour, one against. amendment 137 In the name of Jeremy Balfour, I'll already debated with amendment 21. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. It is not moved. amendment 138 In the name It was moved to move or not move. The question is that amendment 139 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There is not agreed to vote, so I structured the vote as it could be. All those against, and all those three versus and four against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call the amendment 140 in the name of Reriall Hamilton who has motion. 1, Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move? Llywodraeth. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so we move to the vote. Always in favour, please vote now. Okay, and always against. Okay, that's three votes for, four votes against, that is not agreed. I call amendment 141 in the name of Maggie Chapman, already debated with amendment 87. Maggie Chapman, to move or not move? To move. So the question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed to. I call amendment 142 in the name of Tess White, already debated with amendment 21, Tess White, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 143 in the name of Tess White, already debated with amendment 1, Tess White, to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 144 in the name of Tess White, already debated with amendment 1, Tess White, to move or not move? Not moved. called Amendment 105, in the name of Ros emphas, is already debated with amendment 83, did Ros McAll to move or not move? Not moved. Call amendment 106, in the name of Ros McAll is already debated with amendment 83, does Ros McAll to move or not move? Not moved. Call that amendment 78, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already is debated with amendment 53, cabinet secretary needs to move formally? A question is, amendment 78 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That is agree. 4. Solicy of Scottish values 5. Rodyg flockwci 65. 64 suspected 75 suggestion ことをごと full 66 broadcast 66 Anything 68 For 68 0 Us Worlach ynghylch hyn arfor iniw'w c carteilai sy'n dod cy llehau cWAwr feeton wahanol byddochi'r bwynt g stall assign o gennyn, fyrdiwch o'n blaen fyddion ond grants cwyfo'r allu ddechrau, dym ni'n gobeithio'n ddim ni'n gobeithio'n ddechrau. Felly, 5 yn cydweithio. support Therefore, no ddim ni'n gobeithio, ddim ni'n gobeithio'n ddechrau. Cymru yn dweud oedd i'r llei? Cymru oedd i Domethau Cymru oedd i'r llei Cymru oedd, felly ar allwch not i ddim ni'n gafoddiad? The question is that amendment 1100 beig ymarfer, are we all agreed. That is not agreed, can I ask all those in favour to please vote now. It is 11 animals and all those against, and abstentions, okay? That's two for, four against, and one abstention the amendment is Therefore, I do not agree. Amendment 145, sorry, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 1, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move? It moved. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. Amendment 146, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move? It moved. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed, so all those in favour please vote now. Amendment 146, and all those against. Amendment 147, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, grouped with amendment 149, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move amendment 147 and speak to all amendments in the group. I thank the convener, and if the convener and the committee will give me two seconds to get my correct paper. Amendment 147 requires the Government to collect better data on gender recognition certificates and in relation to the bill. It takes the best practice that I have been able to find from the Irish Maltese Victorian legislation and from the Ministry of Justice in the UK models and ensures that future policy is served by better evidence than has been found in the drafting of this current bill. I encourage members to vote for it on the basis of that, and I move amendment 146. I call Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 149 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 149 would require the Scottish ministers to specify narrow and specific areas where data collection is able to or required to happen on an acquired gender and gender at birth basis. The specified areas would be in the face of the bill and would initially only include access to provision of healthcare and the commission of specific offences. Ministers would be able to modify the list through regulations. The committee heard a wealth of evidence on data collection, and it is clear that there is no example of best practice and that there are critiques of all countries that have moved to self-id laws. Senator Docherty gave evidence on Ireland's experience of self-id laws and said that they had a long way to go on data. The elements in Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment are crucial. I would like to highlight the issues in my amendment, and there are two areas. It would require the Scottish ministers to specify where data must be collected on both acquired gender, gender at birth and narrow and specific areas. At present, public bodies follow guidance, but gender and sex is frequently used interchangeably. The initial list of areas would be confined firstly to healthcare, where data plays a significant role in designing services and ensuring that everyone receives appropriate healthcare. The bill is likely to lead to an increase in the number of people applying and obtaining a GRC, which is likely to lead to a larger cohort of people who may need to access gender-based health services for their opposite sex. For instance, trans men may need to access a smear cervical cancer screening test, and it is essential to protect the health and outcomes of trans people that our NHS has robust data. Historically, we have rightly argued for an increasing focus on the importance of research in women's health, where there are differences with men's health, and one of the issues that came up in conversations that I had with trans constituents during discussions on the bill was the concern that there is no longitudinal research in Scotland, which specifically monitors the long-term health of trans men and women to ensure that they get the support that they need throughout their lives. I wanted to flag this issue at this stage, as I think that the Scottish Government needs to do the heavy lifting so that when we make it easier for people to transition as a result of this legislation, those people can also have the confidence that our health service will be there for them. The second issue around my amendment responds to concerns that have been raised with me on the small number of bad actors who may use this bill to exploit women and girls. I want to explore how we can send a clear message to bad actors during the discussion on this legislation in Parliament that this bill is not an opportunity for them. I know that the issue was discussed in response to Russell Finlay's amendment earlier in the committee stage. Two discussions, I think, also earlier today in terms of Jamie Greene's amendments. Just to be clear, my intendant is absolutely not to ban people who have committed specific effects from transitioning if they meet the criteria of the bill, but I think that there should be the capacity for organisations where vulnerable women need safe spaces, for example, so that those organisations would be aware of that. Today, we have seen several amendments that have highlighted the need for clear and effective guidance for a range of organisations. People who want to register as trans specifically to abuse women are absolutely clear that they are predators. I am sure that every MSP will want to ensure that we can do everything that we think is necessary to protect women and girls. A number of concerns have been raised with me using the example of Denmark, where instances of rape and sexual offences rose in the year after self-id legislation was introduced. A critical issue here is that there is no data in place that can prove or disprove whether self-id legislation or something else is behind the rise, but I strongly believe that we need to explore the issue. I heard the cabinet secretary say that there is no evidence that we should be worried about. I repeat that I am not suggesting that people should be stopped from transitioning if they have lived in their new gender as set out in this bill. I want to be clear that my concerns are not about trans women, but about bad actors and sending them a clear message and ensuring that those who have committed abuse against women and girls, who will take any opportunity to carry out their abuse, make sure that there is accountability here. That is partly a probing amendment, but it is also an amendment that is really important. I am keen to hear from the cabinet secretary what work she is committed to put in place to ensure that sex offender notification would be acted upon. We have heard from the cabinet secretary that police would carry out monitoring just to get on the record the extent to which that would also involve prisons, safe spaces for women who have experienced sexual abuse or any other area where she thinks that there is research that is needed. We know that there is new statutory action outlined by the cabinet secretary, but I would really like more details on that. I have Pam Gossel. We support amendments 147 and 149, as both amendments offer more data collection. From amendment 147, we especially welcome data collection on the number of gender recognition certificate applications received and on the number rejected. Should there be a large number of gender recognition certificates rejected, it would be important to know why. We also welcome provisions regarding the number of applications received from prisons as assaults on female inmates by males pretending to be transgender have occurred elsewhere in the UK. That amendment would also allow us to analyse how that law change has impacted on the number of overall gender recognition certificates that have been granted. The Scottish Government has made estimates about how many applications will result from the law change, and that amendment would allow for those estimates to be measured against reality. Therefore, I hope that the Scottish Government welcomes that amendment. Amendments 149 calls for more data collection regarding trans healthcare. Trans healthcare waiting times are long, and it would be important to measure what impact that legislation has had on such waiting times, especially since the bill opens a window to more people being eligible to obtain a gender recognition certificate. The impact of that legislation needs to be measured for every affected group, and that amendment would help to achieve that. As I said in group 17, I agree that we should review the bill. In addition, the bill, as introduced already, includes a provision at section 15 that requires annual reporting, including on the number of people who apply for and obtain a GRC. The national records of Scotland annually provides statistics and reports in other areas of civil registration, including marriage, civil partnership, births, deaths. The bill will require them to also report annually on the processes around gender recognition certificates. It is important that we carefully consider what is possible and appropriate to collect information about. The list contained in amendment 147 is overly prescriptive and also puts it duty on Scottish ministers rather than the Registrar General, who will be responsible for those processes. While I would not support amendment 147 ahead of stage 3, I would want to consider if there is anything within it that would be possible and appropriate to provide as part of the annual duty on the Registrar General to report on that. If Pam Duncan-Glancy was content not to move her amendment, I would be prepared to work with her around that to bring something back at stage 3, if we can. I agree with Sarah Boyack that it will be important to collect data and information about the impact of the act in order to ensure effective reporting. Again, we need to consider what is possible and appropriate. This amendment is very broad. For example, the bill, as I said before, is about reforming the process for obtaining a GRC. You do not need a GRC in order to access gender identity healthcare, so I am not sure how that would work in practice. Again, at this stage, I cannot support amendment 149, but I would be happy to work with Sarah Boyack on some of the issues that she raised. There were some wider issues raised within those amendments. First of all, I laid out in some detail, and I have written to Pam Duncan-Glancy on the MAPA protections, and those were laid out in some detail. Essentially, I would be able, if there is a concern from those managing sex offenders that there is a concern and that someone is trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate fraudulently, to prevent the GRC from being issued through the registrar general, or if it had already been issued, it would be able to be revoked. Essentially, the justice secretary will put in place a regulation that will require someone who is on the register and seeking to obtain a gender recognition certificate to, first of all, attend a police station and inform the police around their intention. I think that those are proportionate risk-based assessments. MAPA works very well at risk-assessing offenders, and that gives us the assurance that, if there were the bad actors that Sarah Boyack used, those protections will help to ensure that. Thank you very much for that. Two sections to your response on the two elements of my proposed amendment. I am pleased with your comments about MAPA. I want to look at that in detail thereafter, because I have not seen the letter that you referred to, but at least you are reaching out in this direction to address specifically the issue of bad actors. In relation to the first element of my proposed amendment, it is really there, because looking at other experiences in terms of legislatures, there is a key need for support being in place. I was disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not accept my previous amendment, which is actually designed to enable people to get the support that they need, which comes through the likelihood that more people are going to use the opportunity to transition. It goes back to making sure that you have the review so that you have those support services in place, which is a variety of support. I have not been specific on exactly how you do that with the intention of enabling Scottish ministers to use their judgment on it, but it comes back to the need that there will be changes made. Looking at other legislatures, you need to plan ahead and think about the potential impacts of legislation once it is passed and once people use it. On the point of healthcare, as I said previously, the cabinet secretary for health, Humza Yousaf, has written to the committee to lay out in some detail the actions that are being taken forward, and in detail has already said in terms of any changes that may be made to the delivery of healthcare services for the transgender community. We will take into account many of the reviews that have happened elsewhere, including CAS. However, the difficulty is not to conflate that someone going forward for gender identity healthcare for whatever purpose does not need to have a gender recognition certificate. We just need to be careful of not conflating the two issues. However, I am happy to work further with Sarah Boyack on some of the data collection and information issues that she has raised, if that would be helpful. The Scottish Prison Service was mentioned earlier on, and I want to put on the record the very robust risk assessments that the Scottish Prison Service carried out. They will place someone, whether it is a transgender woman or a transgender man, whether they have a gender recognition certificate based on that risk assessment in the estate that is risk assessed as being best for them and for the other prisoners in that estate. That is how they have operated and will continue to operate, whether or not someone has a gender recognition certificate. The sentiment behind Sarah Boyack's amendment I think that some number of issues are really important. However, I just wanted to further address the question of who is calling it bad actors. I have done a lot of legislation that other members have. It is quite normal in legislation to close down loopholes, and it is quite common in legislation to close down loopholes even if you do not think that there actually is a loophole that is perfectly normal. Although the Government has moved on this question in relation to sex offenders, I welcome that. I do not understand why the Government is so resistant to closing down a loophole where there does not seem to be anything preventing someone who would want to misuse it. You are not talking about a trans person here, but we are talking about a man, for example, who can easily acquire a GRC, let us face it, and it is a simple process. So far, the Government does not seem to think that that is a loophole or anything that needs further action in order to prevent that from happening. I just plead with the cabinet secretary to think about that for stage 3, because loopholes in legislation—that is why we are here as legislators—is to say that I am not sure whether it would be wrong, but it looks to me like there is a loophole here. I do not understand why the Government is so resistant, because I do not think that it undermines the principles of the bill or what the Government is trying to achieve. I point out the reality of life, which is that men have abused the positions in professions in the NHS in relation to women, so why would they not use this as an opportunity in another way? Why cannot we just think about how we could close that loophole down for the purposes of complete closure on it, thank you very much. Can I just say that it is in recognition and listening to what people have said and in trying to address some of the issues that we have brought forward, the MAPA regulation that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice says will be in place, as committed to putting it in place before this bill is enacted, for the very reason of recognising that. I explained when we discussed the reason why a blanket ban was not ECHR compliant, and I went into that in some detail for all the reasons that I am sure Pauline McNeill and others will understand. Therefore, taking a risk-based assessment is the best way, and that regulation being brought forward by the Justice Secretary is absolutely in recognition of some of those concerns. In terms of the false application and the aggravator that Jamie Greene brought forward that we have accepted again, it is about sending out a very strong message that if someone is falsely obtained, a GRC goes on to commit a crime, then that should be an aggravator, and again it is recognising all of those things. I do not think that it is fair to say that we do not recognise what we are trying to do is to address them in a way that is legal and competent with either within this bill or within other processes, like MAPA, that the Justice Secretary has agreed to address. On the basis that the Government will consider bringing forward an amendment and hopefully support that at stage 3, I will not press. However, I do expect the amendment that comes forward to address as much of the data collection as I have outlined. I do not think that there is data collection in 1.47 that cannot be gathered. I look forward to trying to find an amendment that could be acceptable across the chamber, and on that basis I will not press today. The member has asked to withdraw amendment 147. Is that agreed? That is agreed. I therefore call amendment 148 in the name of Tess White. Already debated with amendment 1, Tess White to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. All those in favour of amendment 148 please vote. All those against and abstentions. Case 2, 4 against and 1 abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Call amendment 149 in the name of Sarah Boyack. Already debated with amendment 147, Sarah Boyack to move or not move. I do not get you no research considered by the cabinet secretary to talk to you about it. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 16 in the name of Sue Webber. Already debated with amendment 2, Sue Webber to move or not move. I call amendment... The question therefore is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed and section 16 is agreed to. I call amendment 26 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 2, Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. That is moved. All those in favour of amendment 26 please vote now. And all those against please vote. Okay, that's 2, 4 and 5 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 111 in the name of Fulton MacGregor. Already debated with amendment 21, Fulton MacGregor to move or not move. Not moved, convener. Thank you. I therefore call amendment 151 in the name of Clare Baker. Already debated with amendment 23, Clare Baker to move or not move. That is moved. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. That is not agreed. So all those in favour of amendment 151 please vote now. And all those against. Okay, that's 3 in favour and 4 against. So the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 152 in the name of Carl Mawkin. Already debated with amendment 23, Carl Mawkin to move or not move. I call amendment 156 in the name of Clare Baker. Already debated with amendment 1, Clare Baker to move or not move. That is moved, convener. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 112 in the name of Ros McAul. Already debated with amendment 83. Ros McAul to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 79 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 80 in the name of Pam Goswll. Already debated. Pam Goswll to move or not move. That is moved. So the question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. So all those in favour, please vote now. And all those against. That's 3, 4 and 4 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 81 in the name of Pam Goswll. Already debated. Pam Goswll to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. So go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 81, please vote now. And all those against. That's 3, 4 and 4 votes against. So that is not agreed. I call amendment 27 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated with amendment 28. Graham Simpson to move or not move. I call amendment 153 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy in the group on its own. Pam Duncan Glancy to move and speak to amendment 153. Thank you, convener. This amendment ensures that all future changes to the legislation made by the Registrar General under regulations must be subject to an affirmative procedure in Parliament. And we believe that this gives the required scrutiny that is necessary for changes like that. And I move the amendment in my name. Okay. Thank you and Cabinet Secretary. The bill provides that the Registrar General with the consent of Scottish ministers can make regulations about the form and manner in which an application for a GRC is to be made, the form and manner in which a notice of confirmation is to be given, information or evidence to be included in an application for a GRC or a notice of confirmation and other matters in connection with the making of an application for a GRC. Regulations made under this section which contain a provision which adds to, replaces or omits any part of the text of an act are subject to the affirmative procedure. Otherwise, regulations made under this section are subject to the negative procedure. And I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee of this Parliament has approved the Delegated Powers in the bill at stage 1. The form and manner of making the application form and of giving the notice of confirmation will be relatively procedural matters as such. The negative procedure is considered an appropriate use of Parliament's time, making all regulations under this section subject to the affirmative procedure would, in my view, place a disproportionate burden on the committee with a potential impact on the other work that the committee has to take forward. And of course, even under the negative procedure, the Parliament still has to scrutinise, consider and vote. I heard the concerns that were raised with the committee at stage 1 about the regulations to make a provision for or about further information or evidence that may be included in an application for a GRC or a notice of confirmation. However, this will not allow a change to the criteria and grounds that are specified in the bill for a GRC to be granted. For example, this power would not allow regulations to be made to reintroduce a requirement for medical evidence. This provision is intended to ensure the smooth running of the process and that it will not be frustrated if it transpires in the light of experience in future that some additional information or evidence should be submitted with an application or a notice of confirmation. Also, of course, just because an instrument is negative does not mean that the committee would not still have an opportunity to scrutinise and consider it in the normal manner. And for those reasons, I cannot support amendment 153. Okay, thank you. Just to check, Pam Gossel, did you want to intervene? I'm fine now, thank you. Okay, if I move to Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 153. Sorry, convener. Did you say before you moved to or did you say I moved to? Sorry. Oh, thank you. Thank you, convener. I've listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said and I understand the number of various different bits of regulation that may indeed come to the committee. And I'm under no illusion about the level of work that that could include. But I actually think that on a bill such as this, something like that probably does need to have the level of scrutiny that the affirmative procedure affords, as opposed to the negative procedure, which, in my short time in this place, I can explain. I've learned doesn't give as much opportunity for scrutiny as others. And so I don't think that some of those aspects should be left to that. And so I do, I'm afraid, still move amendment 153. Okay, thank you. So the question is that amendment 153 be agreed to. I will agree. That is not agreed, so therefore move to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 153, please vote. Okay, and all those against. It's 3, 4, 4 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated. Graham Simpson to move or not move. I call amendment 35 in the name of Ross McCall. Already debated. Ross McCall to move or not move. I call amendment 36 in the name of Ross McCall. Already debated. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 154 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy. Already debated. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. Moved. So the question therefore is that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 82 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated. Cabinet secretary to formally move. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 17 in the name of Sue Weber. Already debated. With amendment 2, Sue Weber to move or not moved. Not moved. So the question is that schedule 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. That is agreed and schedule 7 is agreed. So I call amendment 29 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated with amendment 20. Graham Simpson to move or not move. Not moved. That's not moved. So therefore I call amendment 31 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Moved. So the question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is not agreed. We go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 31 please vote now. And all those against. That's too far. Five against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 30 in the name of Graham Simpson. Already debated. Graham Simpson to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 155 in the name of Tess White. Already debated. Tess White to move or not move. So the question therefore is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is not agreed. We go to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 155 please vote. And all those against. That's too far. And five against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. So the question now is that section 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question now is that section 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed and that end completes our stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance along with all members who have participated. That concludes our meeting for today.