The First Minister I would advise that one of our colleagues was unwell. I am assured by a business manager that that individual is feeling better and that on that basis we will now resume business. Point of order, Jeremy Balfour. Ieithaf, mae'm asking if you will take her or most of the witnesses will noted to adjourn the proceedings for this evening. I appreciate that members of the Parliament don't want to hear from disabled members, but we will not be silenced by your side. I mean which members, please, listen to the member who is on his feet. HAIL! Miss Crossing buenas! I have made this point now on two occasions, yesterday I am now rising to do it again. We have seen the business motion for tomorrow. We know that we are returning tomorrow afternoon. There will be an opportunity at that point to consider the rest of the amendments. In my view, we should now firstly adjourn so that we can have rest. Those who have caring responsibilities can go and do those responsibilities, and the whole chamber can return tomorrow to complete this process in an orderly way. I would ask you if this motion would be accepted. I would perhaps deal with Mr Balfreth's point of order, and I will take the minister. I would advise Mr Balfreth, I thank him for his point of order, that the welfare concerns raised today and yesterday have indeed been noted that we have a decision of the bureau to proceed with stage 3 amendments this evening, and therefore we will continue with the business as agreed by the bureau, and therefore I am not minded to accept the motion without notice. I call the minister for his point of order. Just for some clarity, the member, our colleague, wants everything to proceed and is pretty keen that she will remotely vote from a room where she is a lot cooler and a lot comforter. I now intend to take the point that has been made already, but would it be possible? I know that the chair, the Presiding Officer and your colleagues have been very generous with people's time, but would it be possible for you to encourage speakers to be shorter and therefore we would reach the end quicker? I thank Mr Mason for his point of order. I would point out, of course, that, in the course of the stage 3 amendment proceedings, no member has been subject to any time limit and it would perhaps be somewhat incongruous to proceed on that basis now, although, of course, all members will have heard the point that Mr Mason has raised. I would hope that I could return now to the stage 3 amendments and I think that Mr Whittle is finishing up. Mr Whittle? I won't start again. I just want to say that we wish our colleague well, and we are thinking hard. To continue, there are over one million women and girls participating in sport in Scotland and it's 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 the bill, it is imperative that the Government considers the impact of the bill across all of society. It does not pass the book and negates responsibilities for the changes that it proposes. We must protect women's rights as well as ensuring trans rights are protected the same as for every person. We all want equality in society, but, as I have said before, you do not create equality for one group by creating inequality for another. Much has been made of other countries adopting similar trans rights, so I took the opportunity yesterday to look at Denmark and its experience of developing trans rights. They recommended that sex should determine participation in elite sports events and that otherwise sensible measures be taken to ensure a balance between inclusion of trans-identified people and, for instance, women. Their recommendations were met with harsh criticism from the Danish LGBT organisations, much as some of us have as well. However, they made the recommendations due to an understanding of the growing need for protecting women's sport as well as including trans-identified people where it is reasonable to do so and not at the expense of girls and women's possibilities in sport. Yes, I will. Just for a point of fact and clarity, that would be for the UK Government to decide if it wanted to do that with sport, because, obviously, what it is referring to is a reserved matter, so just for clarity and he may wish to address that to the UK Government, it is not something that this Government could do. Brian Whittle? Sorry, I am sure that you are previously the Cabinet Secretary for Sport and Health. You would recognise that we have an organisation called Sport Scotland in this country. Members, we want to hear one voice at the moment and that is from the member who is on his feet. Mr Whittle, please resume. Perhaps we can learn from other experiences and not make the same mistakes that they made. I am asking for guidance for sports, for teachers and coaches that is given by the Scottish Government and that relevant data should be collected to establish the consequences of this bill. To the final amendment 68, it is essential. It speaks directly to the safety of the trans community who are seeking healthcare. Not only that, it protects our healthcare professionals in their ability to deliver the very best care to all. To demonstrate this, I want to quote from a letter that I received from an NHS consultant clinical scientist and medical physics expert in ionising radiation. He quoted from the statutory regulations in optimising radiation exposure, which states that, in complying with the obligations under this regulation, I R M E R 2017 regulation 12 paragraph 8, the practitioner and the operator must pay particular attention in relation to where appropriate individuals in whom pregnancy cannot be excluded and who are undergoing a medical exposure, in particular if abdominal and pelvic regions are involved, taking into account the exposure of both the individual and any unborn child of those individuals who are breastfeeding. Paragraph 9 states, and again I quote, the employer must take steps to ensure that clinical evaluation of each exposure is recorded in accordance with the employer's procedure, including where appropriate, factors relevant to patient dose. One of which is biological sex, and again I quote that the regulators of IRMER regulations in the four home nations are already seeing examples of gender recognition affecting the safety of patients. For example, a pregnant biological female patient identifying as male gender was inappropriately exposed to an abdominal CT scan, including their unborn child. In another example, a biological male patient identifying as a female gender inappropriately had a CT scan of their prostate, which had been mistaken as a growth on an ultrasound examination. At the moment our clinical information systems record sex, they do not record biological sex and gender. As such, there are implications for patient's safety through gender recognition, including the safety of unborn children and breastfeeding infants. It goes on to say that the importance of a patient's biological sex being known prior to the commencement of any medical or clinical treatment will clearly become increasingly important as more patients identify with a gender different to their biological sex. I therefore fully support Mr Whittle's proposed amendments to assess the impact of the act and hopefully inform how clinical risk can be mitigated. I also heard an instance where a female identifying as a male and not informing healthcare providers being treated for chest pains and eventually being diagnosed with the consequences of endometriosis. That is inherently dangerous position for a patient and not great for the healthcare professional either. With that in mind, it seems ridiculous that consideration is being given to remove the words woman and female from the vocabulary in a healthcare setting. Are we really going to start calling women people with a cervix? Why are we not calling males people with a prostate then? Why the discrepancy? Why is it taking a male to stand up in this chamber and highlight the erosion of women's identity? This is exactly what I am trying to do with these amendments—mitigate risk. I thank Brian Whittle for taking an intervention. It might just be because we are late in the day, but he is surely not suggesting that he is the first person to draw attention to those issues. What I am trying to do here with these amendments is to mitigate risk in sports participation, female male and trans athletes and in protecting the trans community in administering healthcare. The Government cannot create legislation and then abdicate responsibility for the consequences of the legislation to other parties. Surely that is not too much to ask. I ask those who have spoken to me across the chamber and who have intimated reservations on the bill to support my amendments. This is one piece of legislation that, if passed as currently drafted, will open up routes to harm, especially for women and for the trans community. This is exactly the reasons we wanted the time to discuss and examine the consequences of the bill—time that has been denied by those in Government who are forcing the bill through without proper parliamentary scrutiny. We cannot pass this and then think about amending it at a later date as data is collected. We cannot vote for this bill in a vacuum without any checks and balances. I urge the chamber to vote for those amendments. This is not party political, which is why I have a free vote, not anti any part of society. Rather, it is pro every part of society. It is about making the best law possible from the outset. I urge colleagues from across the chamber not to hide behind your party colours. If you have any doubt—and I know many of you do—please do the right thing. Members will note that we have passed the agreed time number for the debate on this group to finish. I have expressed my power under rule 9.8.4a small c to allow debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I call Jeremy Balford to speak to amendment 13 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I will try to keep my comments reasonably brief. In regard to amendment 122, I will be supporting Mr Mason. In regard to amendment 57, I think that my colleague Pangosial spoke very clearly in regard to some of the issues that could happen, which I am sure are unintended. I totally recognise that for the majority, for most of us in this chamber, we do not follow a belief or a religion that will be impacted by this. However, we are also here to protect minority religious groups as well, to allow individuals to be able to worship in freedom, to be able to worship as they believe is the right way forward. Pangosial pointed to examples from the Muslim faith. I think that it would also be true to say that those from the Jewish faith and some from the Christian faith will also be struggling to work out how they will be able to practice their religious freedom. I think that to be able to record and monitor that and to see the effect on that will be very helpful. I do hope that the chamber will support those. I think that my colleague Brian Whittle has spoken very clearly in regard to the issues around sport. If I can just very briefly come from this from a slightly different angle, I really enjoy watching my two daughters play sport.  We in Scotland want our children to be more healthy, but we all know that that age from when they become teenagers, particularly female teenagers, to keep them actively involved in sport is very hard and very difficult. I know, as a father, if my daughter is suddenly going to be never winning, never having an opportunity to win, perhaps putting her body in physical danger because someone is stronger and bigger and physically different from her, she will simply walk away. I think that this can have dangerous consequences going forward for future generations in regard to keeping our young folk fit and healthy. If I can turn to my own two amendments in regard to 13 and 14, those amendments are fairly straightforward. If I am honest, I think that the member Ash Wiggins amendment is better, so if we have to choose, I will choose her amendment before mine. However, they seek to do the similar thing. I am always to recognise that we have a diversity within society and that we have to protect all protected characteristics for religion, disability and other areas. All we are simply asking is that the bill has that at the heart of it so that people understand how it all fits in. I also support my colleague, Tess White's amendment as well. In Norway, a female artist is facing criminal charges for stating that men cannot be lesbians. I fully accept that some people hold beliefs that I do not agree with and I no doubt hold beliefs that others do not agree with, but I would not compel others to agree to my beliefs. I think that we should all be free to express ourselves and indeed even to cause offence, and that is important. I think that in terms of the wider debate on these issues, it has not benefited from that attempt to sort of shut down those questioning voices and voices that are suggesting things that other people may not believe in. To come on to the point that was raised by Mr Whittle, I think that it is very important that women feel that they have the right to the words that describe them, their lives and their experiences. Recently, I happened to listen to a recording of Mary Richardson. She was describing her time as a suffragette and once when she was on a train, she had left the scene of an act of civil disobedience and she sat in that train carriage and listened to man, after man, after man, describing all the violent ways that they would like to kill a suffragette if they ever saw one, obviously not realising that there was one sitting among them in the carriage. I must say that I was quite struck by the parallels that we are facing today, so threats to women who speak out, threatened with rape, with murder. Even 100 years later, men are still feeling entitled to threaten and to kill women simply for saying something that they do not agree with. I want to ensure that no one is compelled to speak up or about a holder of a GRC in any particular way simply because they hold a GRC. The judgment in For Starter made clear that the protection of a belief means nothing without the protection in order to express that belief. We need to be clear this afternoon that a process of state certification does not introduce new constraints on article 10 except that, as far as the bill explicitly introduces those constraints. I would also like to talk about the effect of section 22, which has been raised already by Ms Gozel on what people may lawfully say. I also attempted to bring amendments on this subject, which I know Ms Baker also tried to do at earlier stages. Those would have allowed us to discuss whether the provisions of that section remain appropriate for what is now a much larger and obviously more varied group of GRC holders than was envisaged by the legislation when it was drafted in 2004. The Employment Lawyers Association has previously queried whether section 22 remains the best approach to privacy protection due to its potential to have a chilling effect on lawful information sharing. The association asked why the protections properly afforded to everyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, whether or not they have a GRC under the Equality Act 2020 need to be enhanced in this way for GRC holders only. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my understanding that the offences in section 22 only apply to a person who has obtained information about a GRC holder in an official capacity and has no relevance outside that context, and they impose no other additional legal constraints relating to GRC holders or individuals who are going about their day-to-day lives. I would welcome and undertake from the minister that the Scottish Government will now look carefully at amendments that were rejected as inadmissible for today, where those suggested additions to the exceptions in section 22. It would be reassuring for the chamber to hear the minister confirm that the Government is open to using its powers to amend section 22 by order before the bill is brought fully into force, where that can be properly justified. I am aware that there was a commitment to look further at section 22 made in 2019, which remains to be fulfilled. Of course, now is the time to tie up that loose end. I now call Tess White to speak to amendment 131 and other amendments in the group. We have heard over the last few days how important reporting is from several of the members. Amendment 131 creates a statutory duty for ministers to consult on how and how often they should report on the legislation's impact on women and girls in consultation with this group. Ministers must then make regulations specifying the details for reporting on that impact. Amendment 136, which goes hand-in-hand with 131, delays commencement of section 2 under the regulations have been made. I brought these amendments back from stage 2 with modifications for two reasons. I was deeply, deeply concerned by the lack of debate surrounding these amendments during stage 2 proceedings. The Cabinet Secretary gave them cursory mention but nothing more considered than that in such a massive grouping. The discussion of these amendments at stage 2 felt like a microcosm of the wider GRR debate and the Bill's impact on women and girls, dodging the key issues and denying there's a problem to begin with. But events since stage 2 in just a few short weeks demonstrate precisely why these amendments are needed. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has raised concerns that the Bill's proposals present potential risks to the safety of women. Meanwhile, last week's court ruling underscores further why the legislation's impact on women and girls should be reviewed on a statutory basis as we move forward. It states that sex is not limited to biological or birth sex and that a person who obtains a GRC in their required gender legally changes their sex and, like Pauline McNeill, I too am confused by this. The Scottish Conservatives call for the Bill to be paused while the implications of the verdict are considered, but the Scottish Government has ignored those calls. However, it desperately needs to recognise that this legislation gives the key to the door to an undefined group of people by making it significantly easier for them to change their sex. I believe that the intent of this Bill is good, but the unintended consequences could be greater for the rights and safety of women and girls. Those acting in bad faith will exploit loopholes where there is access to women and children and there's a real risk that women will self-exclude from services. Last night, vital safeguards put forward by Russell Finlay and Michelle Thompson were rejected.  First of all, I'd like to say that I'm really glad that Tess White voted for my amendments, which I think have the same effect that Russell Finlay and Michelle Thompson's amendments had, but are actually competent and in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Tess White. Thank you, Gillian Martin, for that. I didn't feel that it was robust enough and Gillian Martin said yesterday, so we both come from the energy sector. The energy sector looks at risk and risk management. It also really focuses on data and data reporting, and that's the substance of my amendments. The cabinet secretary objected not to the substance of my amendments, but to their drafting. As such, I instructed the Bill's team to make the regulations clearer to address these concerns. There are some strong amendments in this group, and I'm supportive of them all. I would briefly like to highlight Brian Whittle's amendments 58, 59 and 67 on sport. Statutory changes through the GRR Bill will have a significant impact on sport. This is already happening, but this legislation will accelerate it. That has implications for the safety of competitors and for fairness. It is only right that this should be reviewed on a statutory basis. It is the responsible thing to do. My amendments are a bandage. They are a sticking cluster. I deeply regret the Scottish Government's disastrous handling of this aspect of the process, but this is an opportunity to change course. I therefore strongly urge colleagues to support amendments 131 and 136. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak in support of amendment 122 by my colleague John Mason. A particular area of concern in this Bill has been its potential impact on the female prison population. Whoever the reason for a woman being imprisoned, what matters is that they are in the Scottish Government's custody and care. It falls upon ministers to do their utmost to ensure that these often vulnerable women are safe while serving their time. A 2011 Swedish cohort study analysed crime rates after surgical sex reassignment of male to female. That was my hill arm, I am glad to say.  Trans women are therefore no more or less likely to commit crimes than any other biological males. Official UK Government data shows that, as of March this year, the total number of transgender prisoners in England Wales was 230, 97 of whom are sex offenders, around 42 per cent. Of the general male prison population in England Wales, 19 per cent are sex offenders. In the United States of the federal system's 1143 male to female transitioners, nearly half of a history of sexual offences.  The danger is that men who commit sexual offences may claim to be transgender in order to avoid imprisonment in the men's estate. The very presence of anatomical males in women's prisons can cause distress to vulnerable female prisoners, many of whom have been the victim of male violence. A key issue with this bill is that, by making it easier to acquire a GRC, more male sex offenders may pretend to be trans in order to be incarcerated in a female prison, whether to pray on women or do easier time. Unlike in England, Scotland's prison service already uses individualised risk assessments to determine how trans prisoners are managed, whether those prisoners have a gender recognition certificate or not. However, in November 2021, it was reported in the Times that 12 trans prisoners convicted of violence or sexual crimes had been accommodated in Scottish women's jails within the previous 18 months, according to figures that were released under freedom of information. The review of the cabinet secretary spoke of earlier his welcome, if related. Rona Hotschkis, former governor of Cormont and Vale prison, and a constituent of mine said that women were being exploited as, I quote, unwilling participants in a social experiment. By being housed alongside trans women, adding that women are being told, and I quote, their concerns, their fears, their despair must take second place to the feelings of men who identify as women. I therefore firmly believe that no one who is anatomically male should be incarcerated in a women's prison. The inconvenient truth is that trans women are physically male and, as a group, present the same hazard that other men present, those who pretend to be trans even more so. If a fox said that it was a chicken, would you put it in a henhouse? Of course not. Back in 2015, an American woman who identified as black and was a chapter president for the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People was outed as being entirely of European heritage. Denounced worldwide, she lost her university job teaching the black women's struggle and was accused of being a racefaker of wearing a costume and lying to claim ownership over a painful and complicated history she wasn't born into. Yet if she had declared herself to be a bloke rather than black, everyone would have been expected to agree with that self-identification. That is real emperor's new clothes stuff. Reality must intrude at some point, allowing anatomical males who self-identify as women into prisons is unacceptable and a safeguarding nightmare. Support amendment 122. It's a pleasure to be able to follow my colleague and I have to say that I agree with everything that he said. These are not easy things to talk about because we're into the realm of where people may wish to take offence, but it's important in this context that we can speak as freely as we are speaking to each other, and there's been an immense degree of respect.  Mercedys Bielbeth? Is the member's microphone on? Thank you. Yes. Would the member like to clarify in what way the previous contribution demonstrated respect? Because from where I was sitting it was extremely disrespectful and it was bordering on hate speech. I'm not sure that I am here to defend my colleague, but he's speaking as a parliamentarian in a Parliament of adults, and I think that we respectfully heard him deliver his speech. I think that if the member had wanted to make an intervention to say what she's just said, he would have been much fairer on the member because he's in a situation now where he can't readily respond to that, although he could intervene on me, if he wishes, and respond on his own behalf. I'm not sure if he wants to. Before I go any further, because I wish to speak fairly exclusively about the subject matter around freedom of religion or belief, I would refer members to my register of interests. This is a subject area that is very important to me personally. To that extent, I must say that I probably agree with what John Mason said earlier. I think that many of us would rather have been at the carol service tonight. Sadly, as just been illustrated, sometimes there's too little joy to the world and I think that sometimes we should afford each other the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the way that we choose to express ourselves, however clumsy that might be. I wish to support amendment 57 in the name of Pam Goswell in particular and amendments 13 and 14, in the name of Jeremy Balfour and amendment 71, in the name of Rash Reagan. That doesn't mean that I'm not supporting the amendment in the name of John Mason or, indeed, Brian Whittle's amendments or Tess White's. I think that they have also given excellent speeches, which have also respected the subject matter and I'm grateful for that. However, I would specifically like to refer to the freedom of religion or belief issues. On 20 October, I was invited by Foisal Choudhury to attend a meeting in this Parliament in one of our committee rooms where he and I were privileged to meet with a group of about 60 people from all kinds of backgrounds, all forms of religion and belief and none, and there were also representatives there from the trans community. I have to say that the whole evening was exceptional in this respect, that it showed that it was possible to discuss very sensitive issues in the same respect for a way that I think in the main we've been discussing them in this chamber for the last couple of days. That has instilled in me a belief that when it comes to human rights it is always possible when people are speaking to and listening to each other for there to be an accommodation. I think that that is what is required in respect to some of the clashes that occur in respect to human rights. At that meeting, those representatives of Scotland's major faiths—Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian—expressed their views very forthrightly. Foisal Choudhury and I gave them their commitment that we would allow their voices to be heard in the proceedings of the Parliament, and I do so now as a great honour—just raised the concerns that they had in relation to their faith. They felt that they had largely been left out of the process that has brought us to this point this evening. I don't think that that's changed since October, sadly. They had grave concerns about women's rights and the safety of women's spaces. That issue was raised repeatedly. Questions were asked, and I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will take the opportunity to be as clear as she possibly can be, because questions were asked about the continued ability of religious institutions to maintain sex-segregated spaces. To many people of faith, that is a very important issue. I recognise that, to some people, those who hold religious faith and it becomes a leading and perhaps even dominating influence in their lives and how they choose to spend their time, that may all be a bit of a mystery to some people as to how religion can be so important to people. However, I would ask colleagues across the chamber in consideration of those amendments to remember that, if you are less religious, let us try to put ourselves in the shoes of the other people that we are talking about. To them, their religion is the most important thing in their lives, and to some people, their religious beliefs are more important than their very lives. I will, of course. Ross Greer. I'm very grateful for the member giving me on that point. I would just ask if he would recognise that many trans and non-binary people are people of faith, and he's certainly not speaking on their behalf at the moment. I'm not quite sure why Ross Greer says that I'm trying to speak on behalf of anybody. I'm talking about a meeting that I attended where representatives of faith groups in Scotland expressed their views. Voice of the Childry was there, and so were representatives of the trans community in Scotland. It was a very good meeting, so I'm not quite sure that I understand where Ross Greer is coming from. I'm happy for him to come back in if he wishes to give further explanation. I was grateful to the member for that further opportunity. My discomfort with his speech as a person of faith, which he knows, is that the implication is that there's a tension between the beliefs of people of faith and the rights of the trans and non-binary community. I'm simply making the point that many trans and non-binary people are part of faith communities. Stephen Carr. No, I think that there's a misunderstanding here. What I'm trying to say very simply is that people of faith who were present in a meeting in this Parliament on 20 October expressed genuinely held concerns. I think that, as a master again of respect, it's important that we accept that people may feel differently and have a different view than us, even though we may have a view about the origins or the motives or whatever of those beliefs. That's what this group of people of faith felt. They felt concern, as I've said already, about the need for their faith groups to get a fair hearing in this process. They felt a concern about women's rights. They felt a concern about their ability to maintain sex segregated places. I'm sure that Ross Greer would recognise that that's a very important part of the worship of many faith groups. They also had a concern about the bill's attempt to move the age for self-id to 16. They felt unanimous later that that was too young. The reason I mention all this is because, as I say again, the whole idea of freedom of religion or belief is at the core, I believe, of our human rights, which includes freedom of conscience, as is highlighted in Ashwagans amendments, specifically referring to article 10 of the European invention of human rights. The reality is that this is all about an individual's right, which I think that we would all agree is sacrosanct, to determine their own path in life. For some, that means following the teachings of a faith, and for others it doesn't. However, that's all encompassed within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article that defines what freedom of religion or belief is. I believe that this freedom underpins so many of our other freedoms. Without freedom of conscience, we don't have freedom of speech, we don't have freedom of assembly. In the context of article 18, which I mentioned earlier, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 9, which is quoted in Jeremy Balfour's amendments, is the right to worship publicly in accordance with the teachings of your faith group. Faith groups require some assurance from the cabinet secretary in response to this grouping of amendments. I am thinking of the different variations of Islam, of Judaism, of Sikhism, of Buddhism, in which public worship is segregated as part of their belief system. I think that they need to hear, categorically stated, that that right will in no way be compromised through the passage of this bill. If this bill passes as currently worded, could faith groups feel confident that they can keep their form of public worship? Then there are other more basic questions that I feel that the cabinet secretary could approach in her summing up. That is in relation, for example, to Catholicism, where it is well known that only men can become priests and only women can become nuns. I think that it is important to clarify that the cabinet secretary confirms that if a biological male who has a gender recognition certificate stating that they are female, would they still be legally entitled to the priesthood or some other religious right or privileged position if this bill passed? I want to steer him back, if I can, to Pam Goswell's amendment. I listened very carefully to Pam Goswell. She would make a very passionate speech. I would ask Mr Kerr to agree with me that Pam Goswell, the amendment deals with not so much the things that Mr Kerr is talking about just now, but specifically medical examinations. Members may have got the impression that Pam Goswell was asking for special treatment for religious groups. I do not think that she was. Will she agree with me that what she was asking for was for us to respect the right of individuals, women mainly, to ask for somebody of a specific gender to examine them? That is all the amendment does. That is correct. Pam Goswell's amendment 57 is exactly what my friend has just outlined, but I am specifically focusing on amendments 13, 14 and 71, which underpin the freedom of religion or belief concepts that I am currently trying to speak about. It is not only me that is bringing those concerns to this debate, obviously. I have quoted faith groups from the meeting that Foisal Childry organised that I was privileged to attend, but the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls also wrote in the letter that has been much quoted over the last two days. That is what she wrote. If failure to provide single sex services to women born female alongside gender-specific services targeting women in all their diversity could amount to unlawful indirect discrimination because of religion under the Equality Act 2010. The international covenant on civil and political rights, the ICCPR, guarantees freedom of religion or belief under international law. Furthermore, article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Furthermore, the letter goes on, and 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. That is the crux of the matter. That is what they are trying to achieve, that, as we make law, we are indeed facilitating the enjoyment of basic human rights, and that that is all human rights. In conclusion, I believe that, for very obvious reasons, there has not been, and the obvious reason being, the way in which the Government is ramming this through this Parliament with inadequate time for reflection, inadequate time for amendments to be probably considered, inadequate time for evidence to be gathered from all kinds of witnesses that have been thus far denied a voice in the procedure of this bill. I will give way to Monica Lennon. Monica Lennon. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Perhaps Stephen Kerr could explain to the chamber in what circumstances he would support the bill, because he is asking people to treat this in good faith, but I am not convinced that Mr Kerr would ever support the bill, and I think that it would be better if he could just be clear on that. Stephen Kerr. I am a realist and I can count. I know what lies ahead of us through the process of the consideration of these amendments.  I know what I am trying to do is do the very best I can. I think that my colleagues here and in other places throughout this chamber are trying to introduce amendments that will make what we believe is bad law less bad. So am I going to vote for this bill? Absolutely not, but I know that there is a very high likelihood that at the end of this process it is going to become the law of my country. Therefore, that is why I and others are bringing forward these amendments, not because we are going to support the bill, but because we just want to save Scotland from more bad law rammed through this Parliament. That is why freedom of religion and belief is an important aspect to many lives, because that includes by the way the right to not have a religion, not to have belief, but I believe that I am happy to do so. Brian Whittle is very grateful for my colleague for taking the intervention. He is just following Monica Lennon's intervention. I wonder if he would agree with me. As I said at the start of my contribution, I think that every single member in this Parliament recognises the need to develop human rights across the board. What we are trying to do here is ensure that the law that is made does not impinge on other people's human rights. What we believe is that everybody should have the same right. I would vote for the bill if I believed that everybody had the same rights. Brian Whittle gives us a brilliant summation of the views of many of us in this chamber. I spoke earlier about the meeting that we had in Parliament. There was a very happy meeting of minds. People talked to each other and listened to each other. In all that, there was the basis for an accommodation that would give us exactly what Brian Whittle has just described as the desirable outcome that I hope we would all sign up to, which is that all of our human rights are being respected. We respect each other enough to understand where my human rights and your human rights need to be accommodated. I give way. Douglas Lumsden, I thank the member for giving way. The outcome of that meeting, did the people go away thinking that the Parliament would take note of their voices? Did they think that there would be changes or were they assuming the worst? No. In fact, as I said a few minutes ago, they left feeling that Foisal Choudhury, who is in the chamber and he can speak for himself and maybe he is going to give a speech in a minute, felt that we had listened and that we were going to reflect their views when we had opportunities to speak in this chamber and in other places in this Parliament. They left with that hope, but they did plead with us that faith groups in this country would be more considered. Now, I just draw attention to the chamber, to the fact that through the pandemic emergency that we had, only one Government in the United Kingdom was taken to court and found guilty of neglecting human rights. That was the Scottish Government. In the court of session, it was found to have been in denial of the basic human rights, defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and defined in the European Declaration of Human Rights, in respect to freedom of religion or belief. One of the aspects of that case was the degree to which there was a form of religious illiteracy among policy makers and advisers. That is why I think that it is important that we feel that we hear a fuller accounting from the Cabinet Secretary in response to this group of amendments on the whole subject area of freedom of religion or belief. Members of the Scottish Government may not be comfortable to be reminded that they were in violation of this fundamental human right through the pandemic, but it is a warning about the need for there to be care given in respect to any legislation that touches on this basic human right. At the end of the day, I hope that what would unite all of us is a desire to ensure that Scotland remains on the right side of these fundamental human rights, because I think that that would be a source of pride to all of us. That is why, in summation, I urge members, regardless of party, to vote for the amendments put forward, especially by Jeremy Balfour and Pam Gausal. I think that that is the conclusion of my remarks. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would, of course, just remind Stephen Kerr that it is his party Government that wants to repeal the human rights legislation that has protected people for many decades. Moving back to the amendments in this bill, I cannot support amendment 122 that provides that nothing in the bill affects the exercise of the Scottish Minister's functions in relation to prisons or prisoners. It is not clear what functions John Mason is referring to or how they could possibly be affected by the bill. Of course, the Scottish Prison Service has already a robust risk-based procedure for prisoners and, of course, the rest of their prison population, and they may or may not place a trans person in the estate of their acquired gender whether or not they have a GRC. If they did put someone within that estate, they may not put them mixing with other prisoners. I recall her saying earlier, and I am aware of it myself, that the Scottish Prison Service is currently looking at the provisioning. I suppose that my question is how does the cabinet secretary know that it has a robust process that considers all-key stakeholders, and particularly, as you know, my concern is women in prisons? SPS has given considerable evidence, and its procedures are robust. The review is to look at what more they can do. Without a doubt, there is a level of confidence in SPS because of the fact that they already place transgender prisoners out with their acquired gender in an estate that is not of their acquired gender if they think that that is a risk. In fact, it is about half and half at the moment. Whether or not someone has a GRC now, I would note that that is quite different from the position in England and Wales, where the position of a GRC is far more a material factor in where a prisoner is located. That is not the case in Scotland. It is based on the risk assessment, and that is the primary issue that is considered. As I was just saying before the intervention, even when someone is placed in the estate of their acquired gender, they may not be placed in a position of mixing with prisoners if it is believed that they are a risk to others. I cannot support amendment 57 in the name of Pam Gosol. As I believe was queried by Jamie Greene at stage 2, it is not clear to me whether Pam Gosol expects all healthcare professionals to have to declare whether they are trans to every patient. I am sure that, at the time when Jamie Greene asked the member about that, she said that no, that was not her intention. Let us look at what actually happens. The charter of patients' rights and responsibilities rightly sets out that NHS staff have a right to be treated with consideration, dignity and respect. As I set out to Pam Gosol when she brought this forward at stage 2, the Scottish Government expects everyone to be treated fairly and equally and with respect when seeking healthcare. NHS staff will make every effort to ensure that the privacy and dignity of all patients are maintained in Scottish hospitals. If a patient specifically requests a doctor or nurse of the same gender as them in any part of their care, then every effort would be made to accommodate that as far as possible. Of course, that would depend on the availability of staff with appropriate skills to manage the patient's condition. If someone, for example, ends up in emergency care and there are only male doctors available in the emergency room, I am sure that, in that situation, members would appreciate that life-saving care needs to be given, whatever the agenda of the health professionals attending. I am well aware of what you have just said in relation to whether there was an emergency. Our religions provide that the fact that we have to have that care first. If I go back to my practical example, it was not an emergency. It was due day to day care, whether it is cancer or inspection of the breasts. It was a smear test, so it is things like that that I am talking about. I am so sorry if you could let me finish, cabinet secretary, please. That is basically looking at this. Yes, we heard today that the 2004 act was the case, but what I am asking now is whether we are going to continue on putting sticky plaster on this, or are we going to address the problem, because the increase in GRCs is going to cause a problem. That is something that the cabinet secretary and her Government would be able to help us to see how we could solve this. Let me be absolutely clear again. If a patient specifically requests a doctor or nurse of the same gender as them in any part of their care, then every effort would be made to accommodate that as far as possible. I have given the examples of where that might not be possible. No thanks. Care homes and care services, which were also mentioned, will always try to provide the care as per the person's wishes. As a former home care organiser, I can tell the chamber that that has been the case for many years. The genuine occupation requirement exception under the Equality Act provides that a person must not be a trans person, where there is a requirement due to the nature and context of the work, if appropriate. The exception could be used in health services, for example, where there is intimate health and personal care to be provided. I previously pointed towards the guidance to employers from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, on the schedule 9 of the 2010 act, which is relevant here. When this debate is over, people may go back and read the official report of what was said. I have felt uncomfortable with some things that have been said over the course of the debate. Would the cabinet secretary agree with me—and I am sure of others—that trans men and women, and non-men and people who currently work in the NHS and social care, are valued colleagues? We do not want to leave this debate and anyone thinking that they are not valued and not welcome. Can we get that for the volumes of doubt? It is really important that their contribution is appreciated and that we want them to feel able to work in our public services. Absolutely, I can put on record an appreciation of every member of staff working in our NHS and indeed our care services, whatever their gender. I think that Monica Lennon makes a good point. I cannot support the amendments in the name of Brian Whittle, placing a duty on Scottish ministers to report on the impact of the bill on sport and to publish guidance. The bill makes no changes to the rules for trans participation in women's sport, whether professional, amateur or in schools. Sports governing bodies set their own policies on trans participation under the Equality Act 2010. That is reserved legislation. Section 195 of the Equality Act contains provision allowing restrictions on trans people participating in sport to be imposed if necessary to uphold fair competition or the safety of competitors. That is under the Equality Act, well, as long as it is brief. Brian Whittle. Oh, really? What I am trying to say to you is that the guidance is not working— Through the care, Mr Whittle, through the care, please. Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is not enough to have guidance. The guidance actually has to be applied and has to have worth unveiled. So many times through a lot of this debate, from many, many colleagues across here who have asked the Government to create guidance, the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary have turned around and ignored that guidance. It is not working. Obviously, because there will be more transgender athletes involved, it will get worse if you do not create the guidance and the framework for which sport can act. It is not a reserved matter. It is sport Scotland and you fund sport Scotland. You need to take responsibility for your actions. So let me repeat. Sports governing bodies set their own policies on trans participation under the Equality Act 2010, which is a reserved piece of legislation. Section 195 of the Equality Act, a reserved piece of legislation contains provision allowing restrictions on trans people participating in sport to be imposed, if necessary, to uphold fair competition or the safety of competitors. That is where the resolution and the guidance lies. The Equality Committee has heard clearly at stage 1 from sports bodies that whether a person has legally changed their gender forms no part of their decision making around participation in sport and the bill does not have an impact in this area. As I hope the member would already be aware, in 2020 the UK Sports Council commissioned independent consultants to conduct a review of its existing guidance for the inclusion of transgender people in sport. The review is a recognition that sport at every level required more practical advice and support in this area. The UK Sports Council published that guidance for transgender inclusion in domestic sport in September 2021, so just last year. Now, as the member himself acknowledged, sports are incredibly diverse and there may need to be different solutions for different sports, which is why the guidance encourages sports to consider options to balance fairness, safety and inclusion. Some British national governing bodies have now published updated policies. For example, British triathlon has published a new policy to come into effect on 1 January. I do not support amendments 13 and 14 in the name of Jeremy Balfour or amendment 71 in the name of Ash Regan. As both members will be aware, acts of this Parliament cannot alter the effect of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, those amendments are unnecessary and confusing, particularly in that they pick out specific parts of ECHR. On Stephen Kerr's point about religion, faith, I had a meeting with the Faith and Belief Forum, which has faith across all faiths, and of course there was a consultation responses from faith groups and also the committee evidence sessions with faith groups. I do not think that it is true to say that people of faith have not been listened to. Of course, it is up to churches how they organise themselves, and nothing in this bill changes that. The range of specific exceptions under the Equality Act that applies to faith groups, the general single-sex exception, could apply to religious services where it appropriates. That is already covered within the Equality Act and there is no change to that whatsoever. I also do not support amendments 131 and 136 in the name of Tess White. The Scottish Government has carried out two public consultation exercises, and the Equality Committee has likewise carried out a full public consultation. I have also supported members with areas that they want to see outlined in the review and report amendments. On the basis of all that, I would ask members to reject those amendments. I remind the chamber that there is a bit of background noise. It would be grateful if you had conversations to be had that you would take them outside the chamber. With that, I invite John Mason to wind up Presley Withdrawal amendment 122. First of all, I pay tribute to Sean Robinson for persisting through all those hours, and I have to say a certain amount of delays from the Conservative group. I admire her for that, even though I disagree with her on one or two points. If I start with Pam Gossel's speech, I thought that that was excellent. She gave us some practical examples of where her mother and her aunt really feel that there could be a practical problem. I think that sometimes with that debate we have to look at what is happening to people in practice and what people are feeling, and not just at a very high level Holyrood bubble type of thing. She herself mentioned the Muslim Council of Scotland, and we also know that Sikhs and a lot of Christians are also very unhappy about the bill. If we are truly inclusive, then we cannot expect everyone to take on the way in which we do things in western secular society, and we have to allow people a certain amount of freedom to exercise their way of doing things in their own beliefs. I think that that was highlighted between the intervention between Stephen Kerr and Ross Greer, because Stephen Kerr would represent, for most religions, a more traditional view. Ross Greer might represent a more liberal view, and that is probably where the divide is more than between Christians and Muslims and Sikhs. Sorry, Rachael Hamilton wants to talk about that. I thank John Mason for taking the intervention. Over the weekend, the Muslim Council of Scotland wrote to the Cabinet Secretary and said that they were concerned about the negative impact on single-sex spaces, but the Cabinet Secretary seems to be saying that she has engaged with faith organisations and that everything is fine. However, I do not understand how everything is fine if she has listened—the Cabinet Secretary has listened to the same arguments that were set in that letter to her on the weekend. Could you shed some light? Yes, I did see the letter from the Muslim Council and also there was a joint letter between the Muslim Council, the Sikhs in Scotland and the Evangelical Alliance, who represent quite a range of faith groups. The fact that Shaun Robinson talked about that there was no real change, that might be her view of things, but it is not the way people are feeling about it and people are not convinced about that. There is a real concern. Just to touch on something that my colleague Ash Regan said earlier about legislation sending out a message, I know that we can argue that it is a very technical piece of legislation, but I think that a lot of people, including the faith groups and including Pam Gosol's relatives and so on, see this as much more of a longer—let me just finish this point. They see this as a much more of a longer-term trend and they are fearful, maybe not about where we are today, but they are fearful about where we are going to be in a year's time. I thank Mr Mason for giving way. I respect faith groups of all kinds and I respect freedom of religion, but some of the arguments that are being made are exactly the same arguments that were made on the run-up to the equal marriage debate and the equal marriage vote, where religious groups felt that they would have to carry out equal marriage against their faith. That has not happened and my argument here would be that this is exactly the same kind of situation. Can Mr Mason see that? John Mason? I certainly understand Kevin Stewart's argument, but I would disagree with him. On same-sex marriage, there is a drift, there is a change, Church of Scotland would be one example where they were somewhat more firmly against it and they have gradually moved over time. I think that my argument that there is a drift— Sorry, Mr Mason. I have just reminded the chamber that there has been too much background noise. The background noise has now become full-ground noise and heckling. I think that I have conducted this proceeding so far respectfully and courteously and I would hope that we can continue in a similar vein. There has been a drift on that particular subject and I would say that some who believe in traditional values are feeling more under pressure than they were at that time. Daniel Johnson. I am very grateful to the member for giving me. Just because a particular faith group changes its thoughts and its practice does not make that a bad thing and describing that as a drift, I would just caution him. It is a change and they are perfectly entitled to make that change. John Mason? Yes, they are perfectly entitled to make that change, but my point is just that some individuals are more under pressure now than they were in the past and the fear with this legislation as well is that we are going in a certain direction, we are sending out a certain message and it is going to become increasingly difficult for Pam Goswell's mother and Pam Goswell's aunt. To move on to just briefly Brian Whittle's speech, which some of his points were good, they were a bit long-winded but still good. If that is true that the committee did not take evidence from sportswomen then I have a serious problem with that. I think that the key words there, fairness and safety, are absolutely key. I take the issue of Robinson's point that the equality act is where people should look, but a lot of Scottish, even national sports bodies in Scotland are relatively small and they can be easily scared by legislation if there is not a bit of guidance and reports. Really I think that in that section 58, 59, 6, 7, 68 is only asking for guidance and reports, it is not a very big ask. Finally, to come on to my own amendment, which was supported by Kenneth Gibson in slightly more perhaps a stronger language than I was using, but did very much paint some of the risks and some of the dangers and some of the fears that are out there amongst normal people in society. I would just say that language is very important and probably everybody here has been a bit uncomfortable at some of the language used by the other side, so I would certainly include myself in that. We should be sensitive and respectful, but we have to be honest with each other and use honest language. One of the fears, again, with this legislation, is that over time language is going to be censored and people are going to have to be increasingly careful about what they say. Overall, I would support in fact all the amendments in this group. All the amendments in this group and especially I would press amendment 122, thank you. Mr Mason, the question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is 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 122 in the name of John Mason is yes, 59, no 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 57 in the name of Pam Gosall. I have already debated with amendment 122. Pam Gosall to move or not to move. The question is therefore that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is 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 number 57 in the name of Pam Gosall is yes, 38, no 64. There were 23 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 58 in the name of Brian Whittle. I have already debated with amendment 122. Brian Whittle to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be another division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 58 in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 61, no 64. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 59 in the name of Brian Whittle. I have already debated with amendment 122. Brian Whittle to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is 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 number 59 in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 58, no, 67. There was one abstention. That amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 60 in the name of Jackie Baillie. I have already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. That vote is closed. The point of order, Sharon Dewey. Sorry, I couldn't connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Dewey. I'll make sure that it's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 60 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 122, no, zero. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of Pam Gosal. I have already debated with amendment 54. Pam Gosal to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is 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 61 in the name of Pam Gosal is yes, 14, no, 66. There were 20 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to group 17, gender identity healthcare. I call amendment 62 in the name of Pam Gosal, grouped with amendments 132 and 135. Pam Gosal to move amendment 62 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Ms Gosal. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 62 in my name. The bill decouples the legal and medical aspects of the GRC process, meaning that everyone who would have had to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and therefore meet with medical professionals now no longer have to do so. Amendment 62 calls on ministers to commission independent research on the effect of this bill on gender identity healthcare. In a submission to the committee, the Royal College of General Practitioners talked about the vulnerabilities of young people and the heightened risk of self-harm and suicide. When questioned on this by my colleague David Parker of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said, the proposal to reform services is not simply about providing more clinic appointments and enabling pathways forward for people on the waiting list. It is also for people who will never join the waiting list so that community support is available for those people, who might be looking for all kinds of intervention. If the numbers of people on the waiting list are increasing, that need is increasing too. Therefore, it appears that there are many people who may require this type of healthcare but do not seek it. This is likely to increase as the requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis is removed. We cannot risk individuals experiencing psychologically distress by falling through those gaps. The aim of this amendment, Presiding Officer, is to measure what effect the act has had on gender identity healthcare services, who is assessing them, who is not and where can we provide that much needed support for those who may be suffering from a great deal of distress. Furthermore, I believe that this must be commissioned by an independent professional or organisation, which is not currently in receipt of funding by the Scottish Government in order to avoid any instances of any bias. Given the nature of my own amendment, I therefore support amendments 132 and 135, put forward by Jamie Greene and Sarah Boyack, which aim to measure how the act impacts gender identity healthcare. Should the Scottish Government wish to address concerns that the reform will lead to many vulnerable individuals suffering from gender distress without adequate medical support, at the very least the Scottish Government should commit to reviewing the impact of the act on gender identity healthcare. I urge all members to back my amendment 62 in my name. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We persevere. There has been a lot of talk in the chamber today about the effect that the bill will have on a number of and a range of minority groups. With permission of the chamber, I would like to bring the discussion back to the minority group that the bill is all about, and that is trans people. My amendment 132 builds on an amendment that is brought to the chamber at stage 2 and committed by my colleague Rachel Hamilton. It is a very well-worded, thoughtful and well-intentioned amendment to raise the awareness of the state of gender identity healthcare in Scotland. I believe that it is in a sorry state, truth be told, and many trans people and organisations that speak to believe that also to be true, which is the underlying point of my amendment. My amendment asks the Government within a reasonable time period, after three years of section 2 coming in force. There is some precedent for that reporting period. The Government will outline the state of affairs with regard to access to mental health support and availability, transitioning healthcare waiting times and whether we spoke pathways needed for those applying for AGRC. The reason for that is quite obvious to those who have been through that system. The Sandiford Clinic in Glasgow currently states that for their adult gender identity service, they are currently offering appointments to people who registered in May 2018 only now getting appointments. It has taken four years for some people to get the required treatment that they require. Yes, I have to give way. Rachel Hamilton is absolutely right. I put forward this amendment at stage 2 and it was rejected by the cabinet secretary because she said that the health secretary was looking at a pathway to healthcare for trans people. Obviously, the bill is about improving the experience of trans people, particularly to make the whole process for them less stigmatised and the rest of it, just to improve everything. However, I think that this should be on the face of the bill. I do not think that we should leave it to the health secretary, who has got enough pressures on his plate, to sort this out. I think that this should be on the face of the bill because it is really important. Ms Hamilton, if you could address the microphone just so that the comments have picked up. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I agree. I thank the member for her intervention. I do believe that, actually, and with good reason. The recent report from Stonewall, which I think are briefings that we have all received, demonstrates that 72 per cent of transgender people have experienced depression. Over half—listen to the statistic carefully—over half of people that they surveyed have thought about taking their own life. That is a huge volume percentage of people. I think that those are quite harrowing figures that show the desperate state of the availability of mental health services and support for transgender people in Scotland. Stonewall also found that 37 per cent—over a third—of trans people actively avoid accessing healthcare treatment when needed for fear of discrimination. Again, that should worry us. What that means is that many people are actually hiding illnesses of their own while struggling to deal with their gender identity. A great piece of work was done by SHAP, the Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems. In its recent report, which came out very recently, it was in the garden lobby talking to members, who spoke to a number of trans people who were struggling with alcoholism. I want to quote from that report, because it really underpins the reason why I think that this is an important issue. The person who spoke to said on the record, for me, alcoholism means that I am not at ease with myself. That might be a lot to do with being transgender and not being comfortable within my own skin. Growing up, having to hide things away like that, it was a lot of pressure. I've always been ashamed of who I am. We've held debates in this Parliament before that people are often self-medicating to deal with many of those issues. Of course, whilst I support the removal—I do support the removal of the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria—I do not think that that should be used as an excuse not to provide adequate services and support to transgender people in Scotland. I appreciate that, in the feedback on all the amendments that were given to us in some of the briefs, some of the organisations, particularly those in support of the legislation, whilst, in principle, they were happy for me to raise this issue, they asked members to oppose the amendment, and I inquired why, because I was intrigued by that. Their fear is that the amendment might have the reverse effect of improving healthcare, but it is doing the opposite. The reason for that is quite understandably worrying. That is because they feel that, if the amendment passes and there is a duty on the Government and ministers to report on the state of healthcare, it would divert much-needed attention, resource and money from reporting and talking rather than doing. That is a testament to the problem that we face and the problem that I am trying to identify through this amendment. I understand where they come from, but they should not need to be afraid that we cannot put this on the face of the bill because those services should already be there and they should be getting better, and they should not be afraid for this Parliament to tell the Government that you must do better. Whilst I appreciate their feedback, it is a shame that their concerns are based around the lack of resource and money in those services. I also hope that they appreciate the sentiment behind why I have brought them back to the chamber at stage 3. I hope that by doing so that I say to them that I will work hard, as other members will, to improve outcomes for them. That is a duty on all of us. I would like to think that whatever your views on the bill—there have been a number of comments expressed this evening, which I think should make many of us feel uncomfortable. However, whatever your views on that particular legislation, we can all agree that there is a collective duty on this Parliament to make healthcare provision for transgender people in Scotland much, much better than it is now. We can commit to that, whether you pass this amendment or not. That is something that the Government could commit to tonight. Thank you, Mr Greene. Under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the next time limit be extended by one hour and 30 minutes. I am happy to do so, Presiding Officer. The question is that the time limit by which the debate on group 17 to 19 must be extended by one hour and 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I now call Sarah Boyack to speak to amendment 135 and other amendments in the group. Ms Boyack. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will try not to fill up an hour and a half with the speech. The amendment that I am moving 135 would require the Scottish ministers to carry out a review into the impact of the bill into gender identity healthcare in the form of a longitudinal study. Scottish ministers would be required to consult the remit of the review, but any review would have a focus on improving access to and provision of gender identity healthcare. The review would be repeated each successive five-year period to deliver a longitudinal study. The committee at stage 1 heard a range of evidence on the provision of trans healthcare, including on the cast review, which is currently taking place in England. A number of constituents I have engaged with over the Parliament's consideration of the bill would support work to improve gender identity healthcare in Scotland, because there are significant delays for trans people trying to receive treatment from clinics. The bill could increase the number of people trying to access those services, which would exacerbate the demand on services that are currently provided. The review that I propose in the amendment would provide reassurances to Parliament that we do not forget individuals applying for a GRC who then go on to experience lengthy waiting periods for treatment that they may wish to receive. When we pass legislation in this Parliament, we need a joined-up approach to ensure that it is successful. At stage 2, I moved amendments that would require ministers to publish data on trans healthcare waiting times. I welcome the reassurance that I had from the Scottish Government and the Minister in the letter that she sent me on 9 December, which outlined the fact that the Scottish Government is currently looking at work being done by Public Health Scotland to improve the quality of data on healthcare waiting times, as was committed to in the NHS gender identity services strategic action framework 2022-24. I honestly believe that we need more than that, because the bill will simplify the process to obtain a GRC, and there is consideration on why the simplification is required. It is possible that the number of people applying for and obtaining a GRC increases, and we will see an increase in the number of people who need to and wish to access gender identity healthcare and potentially more complex needs. That could be a direct impact of the bill, so I hope that Parliament will agree to my amendment so that we can ensure that health services deliver for the needs and demands of trans people both now and in the future. Finally, I have referenced the need for longitudinal health to be assessed. It is important that trans people get the support that they need, not just in the earlier years of their transition, on a short-term basis, but throughout their lives, so that this is not a one-off piece of work but something that will need to be continued going forward, so that the health services that we have in Scotland understand people's needs going forward. I move amendment 135 in my name. If I can briefly comment on the other two amendments. Amendment 62, in the name of Pam Gosal, I understand would require the Scottish Government to start a review similar to the cast review in Scotland. I think that that is something that we should support. I would support this amendment if Pam Gosal moves it. Amendment 132, in the name of Jamie Greene, would require a review on the availability of trans healthcare three years after commencement. Given that that is aimed to ensure that trans healthcare is available and meets the needs of trans people, I would support amendment 132. The point that was made by Jamie Greene moving his amendment, I think that we are very well made because the delays and pressures people are experiencing are going to really impact on the experiences of people going forward. I think that we need to reflect on the statistics that he talked about in his speech. Those amendments, I think, collectively would strengthen the impact of this bill, would make it more successful and, for those reasons, I hope that colleagues will support them all. As I would hope that the members who have amendments in this group are already aware, the Scottish Government published a strategic action framework for gender identity service improvement in December 2021, which set out a series of commitments that we are working to progress with NHS Scotland and other stakeholders with some investment to make that happen. That included a commitment to commission Public Health Scotland to provide regular publication of robust, validated data on waiting times to access specialist clinical services, and that commission has been made and work is on going to deliver this by Public Health Scotland. We also made a commitment, as Sarah Boyat referred to, to make available funding for research into the long-term health outcomes of people accessing gender identity healthcare in Scotland. That process is on-going, led by the chief scientist's office within the Scottish Government's health and social care directorates, with a funding call issued to Scottish academic institutions in August. Therefore, much of what is sought by the amendments in this group have already begun and are on-going outside of the bill, which, of course, I would remind members, is about the process and requirements for applying for legal gender recognition and not about access to and the delivery of gender identity healthcare. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's invention. The cabinet secretary knows that I am not trying to muddy the water with regard to the remit at the bill. That has been clear throughout my speaking over the last few days, but there is a valid point here. The point is now under the existing volume of people going through the system and applying for GRC. There are years and years and years' worth of waiting lists to get specialist help. If we pass the bill and that volume increases and there is an expectation that it will increase, then those waiting times are simply going to get longer and longer, unless the Government puts more resource and cash into it. That is why it is so important that the bill reflects that, because that will be an effect of the direct effect of the legislation that passes. Let me first recognise the point that Jamie Greene is making about the waiting times and the need to make improvements. Of course, that is why the strategic action framework for gender identity service improvement was published and the investment that is required to make those improvements. As Jamie Greene knows, a GRC is not required in order to access gender identity health. I think that the data and the monitoring of the data will show whether or not there is an increase from this legislation. I think that my feeling is that there is not, because it is about people who are seeking gender identity health care, whether or not they would be pursuing a gender recognition certificate. Not everybody would want to do so, and not everybody who is wanting a gender recognition certificate would want to access healthcare, but I will come on to the data collection in a second. On the basis of all that, I do not support amendments 62, 132 and 135. I recognise that those amendments may be motivated by a desire, as Jamie Greene has just said, to improve the provision of gender identity health care services. Following discussions with members, we have, however, supported the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie to review the impact of the act on gender identity healthcare already discussed in an earlier group, and I am hoping that that will reassure members. I think that that gets the balance right. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and I call on Pam Goswell to wind up presser withdrawal amendment 62. Ms Goswell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have heard throughout this debate about the need for the collection of data in other aspects that will undoubtedly be affected by this bill. Such as criminal justice, single sex services and a review on its impact on the gender identity healthcare is no less important. I am disappointed, however, not surprised that the SNP Government is reluctant to review the gender identity healthcare. As I imagine, much like the CAS review, it would provide a case for further pausing any reforms to the gender recognition process, and it would shed light on what appears to be a healthcare pathway that does not follow the routine medical process. I believe that a review into the effect of this act on gender identity healthcare will provide some reassurances for those who are concerned about the decoupling of the legal medical process. The very last sentence that I just said in my remarks was that following discussions with Jackie Baillie, the amendment that we passed or agreed to will review the impact of the act on gender identity healthcare is exactly what the member is asking for. Does she not recognise that? Pam Goswell. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response, but what I am asking for is why she does not pass the group that we have asked for. The SNP Government's removal of all safeguards increases the likelihood that children, young people and vulnerable individuals may go without much needed support. Therefore, I urge all members to back the amendments in this group. Thank you. Ms Goswell, you are pressing the amendment. Thank you. The question is amendment 62. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parmments not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes. There is a vote on Mr Lumsden. 62. And the vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 62 in the name of Pam Goswell is yes. 54. No. 68. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Call of amendment 123 in the name of Pam Goswell. Already debated with amendment 54. Pam Goswell to move or not move. The question is the amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parlament is not agreed. There will be a division and members who cast their votes now. And the vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 123 in the name of Pam Goswell is yes. 36. No. 67. There were 22 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. With that, we move to group 18 reporting. I call amendment 124 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Group with amendments 63, 64, 65, 125 and 66. Rachel Hamilton to move amendment 124 and speak to all other amendments in the group. Ms Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. My first amendment in this group was short on the time period in which the register general would be required to report on the information mentioned in subsection 5. Given the evidence that this Bill will open up the possibility of attaining a GRC to a much large and wider and diverse group of people, I believe it is important that the impact of this is assessed more regularly than one year. Moreover, as set out in amendment 125, the scope of the register general's duty to report should be expanded to include the number of applications for gender recognition certificates and confirmatory gender recognition certificates that are rejected. The number of applicants under the age of 18, the number of gender recognition certificates granted to applicants under the age of 18 and the number of applications for gender recognition certificates and confirmatory gender recognition certificates where they acquire gender is male or female. Gaining clarity around the effect of this legislation would be aided by ensuring that the register general collects this data. Painting a clear picture of the number of applicants and the number of applications granted on a six monthly basis would allow us to apply a greater level of post legislative scrutiny to this Bill. The importance of doing so relates to evidence heard by the committee that this Bill would lead to an uptake in the number of individuals applying for and obtaining a GRC. We must also ensure the impact of opening this process to 16 and 17 year olds is properly assessed. That is why I have included provisions for the register general to report on the number of people who apply for and obtain a GRC under the age of 18. I would find it difficult to believe that choosing not to require the register general to report on these matters would be in any way beneficial. For these reasons I also believe Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendments in this group 63 to 66 are necessary to further our understanding of the effects of this Bill. She will do a far better job, I am sure, of explaining the purpose and effect of her amendments than I will. My understanding is that they will require the register general to collect data on several important factors, including the number of GRC applications rejected by the register general. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendments 63 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Members will know that I brought a similar amendment at stage 2 between then and now. I have worked with the Government because I believe that it is essential that we gather data on relation to this Bill. On that basis, I hope to have their support for my amendments tonight and I welcome support offered from Rachel Hamilton a moment ago. Amendment 63 to 66 in my name strengthens data collection requirements in the Bill. In addition to the data outlined in the amendments, I have also sought assurances that other data, originally included in my amendment at stage 2, would be collected as well. I have had assurances from the Government that this will indeed be the case and would appreciate further reassurance again tonight on the record. That includes data on the number of appeals to the sheriff and the grounds under which applications to the sheriff were received are granted. The Government has confirmed that data of this sort is held by the Scottish Courts, rather than the NRS, and that the Scottish Government already publishes statistics on civil law cases in the courts. I also ask that applications be received from people in prison to be monitored. Because of the low numbers, I accept that that could identify an individual, and I am satisfied that that will be monitored and reported on in terms of their view and impact already—amendments already debated. Between those assurances, which I seek again, as I say, I am satisfied that the relevant data needed to inform reviews that are required in other amendments will be available. The remaining information and data that is needed is set out in the amendments before us tonight. Those introduce additional reporting requirements for the Registrar General, including the number of applications of each type of GRC granted, rejected or withdrawn in the year, and breakdowns of applications by type and application and gender of applicants. The collection of better data on GRCs will be of a paramount importance to any future reviews of this act and for monitoring purposes. Supporting those amendments in my name will ensure that Scotland will start with a strong evidence base from which to carry out any future scrutiny, monitoring, reporting and reviewing of the bill. Therefore, I move the amendments in my name and encourage members to support them. Thank you, Ms Duncan Clancy. I call Jamie Greene. It is just briefly to say that I think that these are a good set of amendments, particularly that around amendments 64 and 65. One of the things that we really struggle with throughout this process is gleaning data on statistical numbers of the amount of people that are currently applying or have been rejected or certificate. Historic data, I have tried to put in a number of parliamentary questions around that. I was told that, because of the volume of the law, it is difficult to get that data because it would potentially breach the confidentiality of those that are involved. That is not something that I particularly buy. I think that data is important. It does not need to have names, addresses and faces attached to it, but that data will help to inform public policy. We also have enhanced data that may arise from census data, although that was not the most preferred exercise in the world, as we saw, but it is nonetheless helpful to inform public policies. I would ask members that, even if they are generally not supportive of the legislation, at least allow the collection of valuable data to help to inform future public policy to be collected. Thank you, Mr Greene. I call the cabinet secretary. I said to Pam Duncan Glancy at stage 2 that I would be happy to consider what could be incorporated from her amendment 147 that was not agreed to at stage 2. I am pleased, therefore, that we have been able to work together to bring forward the amendments in her name. I am happy to give her the assurances that she was looking for. The point being that some of the information that is collected is from sources out with the registrar general, but we have given a commitment to collect that and I can put that on the record again. We agree that there is benefit in including more detail in the duty to report to provide assurance to members of the information that will likely be available. That information will contribute to our understanding of the operation of the process and ability to monitor and review the impact of this bill, as with any other. Amendment 124, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, provides that the registrar general must report every six months instead of annually on everything for which reporting is presently done under the registration of births, deaths and marriages Scotland Act 1965, not just information related to gender recognition. We believe that that is disproportionate. Amendment 125, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, requires the registrar general to report on the number of applications rejected on the acquired gender and the age of applicants. As we expect, the registrar general to receive between 250 and 300 applications per year, requiring the registrar general to report every six months, reduces the likelihood that the information will be able to be published, given the small numbers and the risk of identifying an individual. Further, the amendments in the name of Pan-Duck and Glancy already include a requirement to report on the number of applications rejected and on the acquired gender. Therefore, I do not support amendments 124 and 125. Thank you, cabinet secretary.  Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the concerns that have been raised by members of this Parliament, by organisations and individuals who gave evidence in our committee sessions and by a swath of Scottish public about the legislation, I believe that it is right that we can do what we can here to monitor robustly the impact of it. Ensuring that the register general regularly reports on the information outlined is an important step in allowing us, as elected representatives and anyone else, to see and understand the outcomes related to the bill's implementation. As I said before, it is difficult to consider how choosing not to collect this data would be beneficial. Understanding the consequences of new legislation is a vital part of applying adequate post-legislative scrutiny. Although this SNP and Green Party has throughout this process sought to avoid scrutiny in any form, those amendments represent an opportunity for them to put this right and commit to that very action. The cabinet secretary did not explicitly say that she was not going to support—I did not hear her say that she was not going to support 124, but I know that she is not going to support 125, so I am presuming that she is not supporting either. I would just like to ask the cabinet secretary before I close how she knows how many applications of gender recognition certificates there are going to be, how does she know how many GLCs there will be, and indeed how the impact will be on this Parliament? Rachel Hamilton is giving way to the cabinet secretary. We have based the numbers of 250 to 300 applications per year on the Irish system, which we consider to be very similar to our own. I thank the cabinet secretary for clarifying that, but every jurisdiction has a different system, and it is not exactly the same as the system that we are going to be voting on today. That is slightly unfair to pick that as one example. I will move the amendments. I will move my name in my name, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. Stopped working after I voted and I want to check if I voted. Your vote had not been recorded, but it will now be recorded. Could I vote no, please? The result of the vote is an amendment 124. In the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 30, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 63 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 124. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. I was unable to get on to the app. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Gibson. That will be recorded. I call amendment 64. In the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy is yes, 123. There were no votes against. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 64 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 124. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 64 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy is yes, 121. There were no votes against. There were four abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 65 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 124. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 65 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy is yes, 122. There were no votes against. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 125 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 124. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 125 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 36. No, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 66 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 124. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 66 in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy is yes, 122. There were no votes against. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 67 in the name of Brian Whittle, already debated with amendment 122. Brian Whittle, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. My app froze. I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms McAllen. That will be recorded. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 67 in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 155. No, 69. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment number 68 in the name of Brian Whittle, already debated with amendment 122. Brian Whittle, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you. My app froze. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Beattie. That will be recorded. I just wanted to check whether my vote was counted or not. The result of the vote on amendment 68 in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 58. No, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We will now move to group 19 on data collection. I call amendment 69 in the name of Pam Gozel, grouped with amendments 70 and 126. Pam Gozel, to move amendment 69 and speak to all amendments in the group. Ms Gozel. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As this is the final grouping, I will try to deliver to the best of my ability, bearing in mind that it is nearly midnight and I am slightly just feeling tired now. I move amendments 69 and 70 in my name. Data collection is key to understanding and analysing the impact of this act. As was made clear by the United Nations special rapporteur, Rheem Asalim, in evidence given to the committee, data collection on the impact of the self-identification model does not go far enough. Amendment 69 calls on ministers to collect data on detransitioners. Detransitioners are people who have gone through the process of changing their gender and then returning to the gender observed at birth. Spifically, my amendment calls on ministers to collect data on the number of people that detransition. How many of these detransitioners are male to female? How many are female to male? The average time elapsing from being granted a GRC to beginning to detransition. Last month, many of us in this room attended a meeting arranged by Ruth Maguire, with two detransitioners, Sinead and Richie, who bravely shared their experience of detransitioning and then detransitioning, which was extremely powerful and heartbreaking. Sinead's transition from a female to a male left her with permanent changes such as a deep voice, while Richie, who had transitioned from a male to a female, underwent gender reassignment surgery, which he later ended up regretting. Both individuals also expressed concern over the lack of data on detransitioners. The pair went into great detail about the lack of support available for detransitioners, speaking of how different the support was when seeking to transition versus detransition. They also spoke about how gaining legal recognition of your gender identity is likely to lead you to feel that pressure to align your physical gender identity leading to irreversible changes. Richie even spoke of the health complications that he has suffered from since undergoing medical transition. Since this bill removes important safeguards such as lowering the age, one can apply for a GRC from 18 to 16 years old, and shortens the two-year waiting period to three months for adults and six months for those under the age of 18. Many young people and vulnerable individuals risk making rushed decisions. They might later end up regretting and without adequate support. That amendment seeks to ensure that data is collected on individuals who detransition. Only with that data can we expect to understand the extent to which individuals detransition. Such information would be crucial to informing any review of the gender recognition process and informing any review on gender identity healthcare. Amendment 70 also calls for some more data collection this time regarding acquired gender and sex at birth in certain settings such as healthcare and criminal justice. For example, it will be important to know how many GRC holders work in healthcare settings and in prisons as women in those settings can be a vulnerable population. However, without collecting specific data on acquired gender and biological sex, it is nearly impossible to know that. Professor Alice Sullivan told the committee that we need consistent and accurate data on sex to make comparisons over time and between countries and to evaluate the effect of policy interventions. She then said that, when the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was introduced, it was designed to cater to a tiny number of transsexual people who suffered from severe psychological distress. The act was not intended to raise barriers to the collection of data on sex, yet that has been one of the unintended consequences of the legislation. Therefore, I believe that it would be in the interests of trans people with a GRC and the wider public for the Scottish Government to collect data on both sex, gender identity and gender recognition certificates if we are to understand the impact of the legislation and accurately track the outcomes of people in society. My amendments refer specifically to healthcare settings and criminal justice because both include large numbers of vulnerable individuals under the state's care and they thought that it is important that data is collected in those settings. Speaking to the committee on Monday, the United Nations independent expert on sexual oriental and gender identity, Victor Madrigal-Burlaws, mentioned that previously no one knew about violence against transgender people because they were being recorded as men. However, I believe that given the conflation of data collection on both sex and gender identity and a substantial increase expected in the number of people holding GRCs, it is important that we do not conflate those terms for the purpose of data collection. Otherwise, instead of trans women being recorded as men, they will be recorded as women and we will still lack data on violence against trans people. Data collection is the least that can be done to monitor the impact of this bill. I hope that members will support my amendments in this group. I will support Stephanie Callaghan's amendment 126, which also calls for more data collection in public sector settings and on biological sex and gender regarding the number of those holding a GRC. I now call on Stephanie Callaghan to speak to amendment 126 and other amendments in the group. I move amendment 126. My amendment is a very simple one that places a duty in the Scottish Government to ensure all public sector bodies collect data on biological sex alongside data on gender identity. This amendment is not designed to frustrate, challenge or place onerous demands in the Scottish Government on public bodies. It is purely about ensuring access to clear, accurate baseline data on both biological sex and gender identity now and in the future. Throughout this amendment stage and during committee evidence sessions, we have heard opposing views on pretty much every issue, but it is fair to say that the value of good data is something that we can all agree on. Therefore, I am proposing that Scotland's public bodies routinely and as a duty collect, retain and report quantitative data on biological sex, including all administrative and in-service processed data, in addition to legal sex gender identity. Data is an essential tool for health and wellbeing. We already know that many medicines that we use today affect male and female bodies differently. However, we also need good data for diseases and medicines that we do not yet know about. Researchers have found that missing data and patients on sex and gender has meant that there is no accurate data on whether trans and non-binary people were, for example, more or less affected by Covid-19. Does the member think that a public board that is 50 per cent men and 50 per cent transgender women is gender-balanced? I do not really see where that is particularly relevant to this one, but I was actually agree. Some may argue that that is just a matter of personal choice. If a transgender person wants to change their sex on their medical records, even with those associated risks, then that is their choice. Are people receiving the best advice for their health? There are countless reports of people missing cancer screenings and experiencing delays in receiving care. The important longitudinal data is a fundamental principle for researchers and healthcare professionals that allow them to understand people's lives over time and improve services for all people. While some will say that there is no reason for the legislation that we are considering to affect data collection, Professor Sullivan told the committee that that would be an understandable assumption, but it would be a mistake. The professor went on to say that when the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was introduced, it was designed to cater to a tiny number of transsexual people who suffered from severe psychological distress. The act was not intended to raise barriers to the collection of data on sex, yet that has been one of the unintended consequences of the legislation. On that point, would you give way? Yes, I will. Michelle Thomson. Thank you for giving way. I also draw our attention to, in February 2021, 991 quantitive social scientists wrote to Scotland's chief statistician to express concern about the proposed loss of data on sex. They said, "...we find a conclusion that sex-based data should rarely be collected astonishing. Sex is a fundamental demographic variable essential for projections regarding fertility and life expectancy." They went on to finish part of their paragraph by quoting Caroline Criado-Peris, "...a lack of sex-disaggregated data often leads to the needs of women and girls being ignored." I thank the member for that intervention and certainly I welcome the sharing of that information. I believe that there is also a letter to the health committee as well. In closing, I remind the Scottish Government of its public sector equality duty to monitor and publish data on the protected characteristics of sex and point out that mandating the collection of data across public bodies now is likely to save future Governments and Parliaments a lot of time and trouble. I urge members to support amendment 216. amendment 69, in the name of Pam Glossol, would place a duty on Scottish ministers to collect and publish information about people who detransition. We have supported an amendment in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy that includes more detail within the Registrar General's reporting duties of the information that will likely be available, and that includes the number of applications withdrawn. Given that we expect the Registrar General to receive between 250 and 300 applications per year, there are data protection considerations involving in amending provision to be more prescriptive, because information will only be available where it does not risk disclosing the identity of an individual where there are very small numbers. Amendment 70, in the name of Pam Glossol and 126, from Stephanie Callaghan, placed a duty on Scottish ministers to set out in regulations the data that is required to be collected in order to monitor the operation impact of the bill. Amendment 78 already debated regarding the post-legislative review ensures that Scottish ministers must have regard to any data provided to them about the effect of a person obtaining a gender recognition certificate under the 2004 act as amended. The amendments agreed in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy also set out more detail about the data that will likely be available from the national records of Scotland. That information will contribute to our understanding of the operation of the process and the ability to monitor and review the impact of the bill. As that has already been agreed and provided for in the bill, I see no added value in amendments 78 and 126 and therefore I cannot support them. I call Pam Glossol to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 69. I am disappointed once again that the cabinet secretary is not accepting the amendments in this grouping. I think that what I have asked for goes further and that I would basically like that the cabinet secretary would have supported my amendments on de-transitioning and collecting the data. I urge that members here today support and back my amendments in this group and the other amendment, so I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 69 in the name of Pam Glossol is yes, 55, no, 70. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 70 in the name of Pam Glossol. Already debated with amendment 69. Pam Glossol to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 70 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 number 70 in the name of Pam Glossol is yes, 53, no, 71. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 126 in the name of Stephanie Callaghan. Already debated with amendment 69. Stephanie Callaghan to move or not move. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 126 in the name of Stephanie Callaghan is yes, 58, no, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 72 in the name of Sue Webber. Already debated with amendment 54. Sue Webber to move or not move. The question is that amendment 72 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 number 72 in the name of Sue Webber is yes, 32, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 73 in the name of Sue Webber. Already debated with amendment 54. Sue Webber to move or not move. The question is that amendment 73 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 number 73 in the name of Sue Webber is yes, 54, no, 72. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 74 in the name of Sue Webber. Already debated with amendment 54. Sue Webber to move or not move. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 74 in the name of Sue Webber is yes, 54, no, 72. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 127 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 54. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 127 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 54, no, 68. There were five abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 128 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Already debated with amendment 54. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. The question is that amendment 128 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 number 128 in the name of Pauline McNeill is yes, 58, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 129 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Already debated with amendment 54. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 129 in the name of Pauline McNeill is yes, 59, no, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 130 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 54. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Colin Beattie for a point of order. My app didn't connect. I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 130 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 60, no, 66. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of Jeremy Balfour. Already debated with amendment 122. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Move please, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 13 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 62, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 14 in the name of Jeremy Balfour. Already debated with amendment 122. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Move please, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 14 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 59, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 71 in the name of Ash Regan. Already debated with amendment 122. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 71 in the name of Ash Regan is yes, 64, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 131 in the name of Tess White. Already debated with amendment 122. Tess White to move or not move. Move to, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 131 in the name of Tess White is yes, 53, no, 73. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 132 in the name of Jamie Greene. Already debated with amendment 62. Jamie Greene to move or not move. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The system wouldn't load. I would have voted yes to the amendment. The result of the vote on amendment number 132 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 54, no, 73. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 133 in the name of Jamie Greene. Already debated with amendment 154. Jamie Greene to move or not move. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 133 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 53, no, 73. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 75 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 75 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 120, no, 5. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 76 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. I call amendment 76a in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy. Already debated with amendment 56. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 76a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 76a in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 54, no, 69. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Jackie Baillie to press or withdraw amendment 76. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 76 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 123, no, 2. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 77 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 77 in the name of Jackie Baillie is 124. There was no one, two abstentions, and the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 78 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Thank you. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The result of the vote on amendment number 78 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 124, no, 0. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 79 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I would have voted yes. The result of the vote on amendment number 79 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 125, no, 0. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 80 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 80 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 125, no, 0. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 81 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 81 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 125, no, 0. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 82 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 83 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 55. Okay. I believe that there was a no to 82, but I will require members to make sure that I can hear them and I would ask anyone who is wishing to vote to make that quite loud. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 82 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 124, no, 1. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 83 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. I call amendment 83a in the name of Russell Finlay. Already debated with amendment 56. Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 83a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 83a in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 53, no, 73. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Jackie Baillie to press or withdraw amendment 83. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 83 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 125, no, 0. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 84 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. I call amendment 84a in the name of Pauline McNeill. Already debated with amendment 56. It's not moved. Jackie Baillie to press or withdraw amendment 84. The question is that amendment 84 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 number 84 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 125. There were no votes against and there were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The point of order, Jamie Greene. We're voted yes. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 85 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 120. There were no votes against. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 86 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 86 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 number 86 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 124. There were no votes against. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 87 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 87 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 124. There were no votes against. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 88 in the name of Ruth Maguire. Already debated with amendment 56. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. I call amendment 89 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 90 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. Moved. I call amendment 90a in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy. Already debated with amendment 56. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 90a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Christine Grahame for a point of order. By collection, I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. I call Colin Beattie for a point of order. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 98 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 52, no 71. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Jackie Baillie to press or withdraw amendment 90. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. A point of order, Sharon Dowey. Connect our difficulty, Jess. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 98 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 124. There were no votes against. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 134 in the name of Russell Finlay. Already debated with amendment 156, Russell Finlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 134 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 54, no, 70. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 135 in the name of Sarah Boyack. Already debated with amendment 62. Sarah Boyack, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 135 in the name of Sarah Boyack is yes, 54, no, 73. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 91 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 56. Jackie Baillie, to move or not move. For the last time, Presiding Officer, moved. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Kenneth Gibson. I couldn't connect to the digital platform. I would have voted yes. Thank you. We'll ensure that you're recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 91 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 123. There were no votes against. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 92 in the name of Sue Weber. Already debated with amendment 54. Sue Weber, to move or not move. Move, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 92 in the name of Sue Weber is yes, 37, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 136 in the name of Tess White. Already debated with amendment 122. Tess White, to move or not move. Move, thank you. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 136 in the name of Tess White is yes, 32, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 141 in the name of Michael Marra. Already debated with amendment 100. Michael Marra, to move or not move. Presiding Officer, this was a technical amendment tied to a previous amendment that's already fallen. I won't be moving and anyone who does move it will be spuriously wasting parliamentary time and, frankly, ruining Christmas. I call amendment 137 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 95. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 137 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 34, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 138 in the name of Jamie Greene. Already debated with amendment 108. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 139 in the name of Jamie Greene. Already debated with amendment 108. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. I have the great privilege of moving the last amendment of the evening. Hopefully it will provide some much-needed consensus on the debate. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Consideration of amendments. At this point in the proceedings I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not in my view any provision of the bill relates to protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view no provision of the gender recognition reform Scotland Bill relates to protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. The next item of business is the point to forge a Douglas roll. I am grateful, Presiding Officer. When this meeting started yesterday lunchtime, I raised the issue about comments made in this chamber by myself on Tuesday, which were not recorded in the official record. In the intervening 12 hours, if you have had the opportunity to look at that and if you are able to update Parliament on the reason why, w