Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 20, 2022

Official Report 1978KB pdf

---

Business Motion

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-07321, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. I call George Adam to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 45 minutes

Groups 4 to 6: 2 hours 30 minutes

Groups 7 to 9: 3 hours 50 minutes

Groups 10 to 12: 5 hours 30 minutes

Groups 13 and 14: 6 hours 30 minutes

Groups 15 and 16: 8 hours

Groups 17 to 19: 9 hours 15 minutes.—[George Adam]

15:26  

I rise to speak against motion S6M-07321, on stage 3 timetabling. In doing so, I appreciate that that is quite an unusual position to take. I clarify that, in general, I support the existence of guideline times for stage 3 consideration of amendments but, today, we are presented with a timetable that does not do justice to the complexity of the issue that is before us. At every turn, the Scottish National Party has used all its power to ensure that this business is rammed through Parliament before Christmas. Frankly, it has done so to protect its own political capital. That has come at the expense of scrutiny and reflective consideration of the detail of the bill that is before us this week. It has also meant the exclusion of stakeholder voices at key junctures, which we should all be ashamed of.

I believe that those moves by the SNP high command and, sadly, all too often—[Interruption.] I do not think that this is a very humorous point.

Please continue, Mr Kerr.

I think that the people of Scotland who are watching this will make up their own minds about some of the catcalling that is going on.

I ask members to conduct themselves in a respectful manner at all times. Mr Kerr, please continue.

As I was saying, I believe that these moves, which are, sadly, too often condoned by other parties in Parliament, are, in the eyes of the people of Scotland, to the detriment of the reputation of our Parliament and of Scottish democracy. That is why I fully supported Alexander Burnett’s comments on the motion on the programme of business.

I do not support this motion. Instead, I suggest removing the timetable from today’s proceedings, because all members have a right to speak in the Parliament. All members should be afforded the right and the opportunity to speak to each grouping for as long as it takes. We have to get the legislation right.

I call the minister to respond.

15:29  

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I stand by the timetable as seen in front of you and agreed at the Parliamentary Bureau today.

The question is, that motion S6M-07321, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that my app failed; I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Mr Dey. We will ensure that that is recorded.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division on motion S6M-07321, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, is: For 95, Against 31, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 45 minutes

Groups 4 to 6: 2 hours 30 minutes

Groups 7 to 9: 3 hours 50 minutes

Groups 10 to 12: 5 hours 30 minutes

Groups 13 and 14: 6 hours 30 minutes

Groups 15 and 16: 8 hours

Groups 17 to 19: 9 hours 15 minutes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My amendment 128 is on data and is in group 13, which is a very large group that will be debated for a long time. I feel that the amendment is wrongly placed in that group. I accept that amendment 128 overlaps with other amendments in that group, but I believe that it should be placed in group 19, which also deals with data.

I am concerned that there is a lot to address under group 13. I have lodged three other amendments and I feel that my contribution on data might be compromised.

The legislation team, who I thank for all that they have done this week, have advised me that there is no time limit on speeches. I know that that is technically correct, but it is important to clarify the point. I certainly do not want to take up unnecessary time in making my points under group 13. There was scope for the legislation team to place amendment 128 in another group, where there would be more space for it, if I can put it that way.

Presiding Officer, if it is your ruling that amendment 128 should remain in group 13, will you confirm that you can indulge me with the time that is needed to speak to my substantive amendments in that group and to address the question of data? Alternatively, will you consider my representation that the amendment would be better placed in group 19?

I do not raise the point to waste the Parliament’s time. It is important for members to feel that they have some ownership of groupings, which can be a bit of a mystery in the legislative process. The placement of amendment 128 stands out to me as being clearly arguable.

I thank Ms McNeill for her point of order. As members are aware, the Presiding Officer decides the groupings at stage 3. A number of factors are considered in determining how amendments are grouped, but the principal purpose of grouping amendments is to minimise repetition by debating together amendments that are on a similar topic.

When an amendment is relevant to more than one group, consideration of where to place it will be based on factors such as avoiding repetition, ensuring that alternative ways of addressing the same issue are considered together and avoiding procedural issues, such as amendments being pre-empted before they have been debated.

The grouping of an amendment does not curtail the scope of what a member can say in their contribution. I advise Ms McNeill that amendment 128 will remain in group 13 but, as I have said previously, it is certainly my intention and that of the Deputy Presiding Officers to allow members to contribute as fully as we can.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Rather reluctantly, given what has happened over the past hour, I seek your guidance on scope. Colleagues from across the chamber have had amendments ruled out of scope for the reason that the bill relates to the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate, not to the effect of having a gender recognition certificate. That has left some of us unable to address concerns that constituents have raised, in particular in relation to the fact that the bill, if passed, will allow a much larger cohort of citizens to change their legal sex.

In raising this point of order, I wish to make it clear that I am not challenging your rulings on any individual rejected amendments. Rather, I am asking you to provide clarity, on the record, as to scope, so that members and our constituents who are watching can be very clear about the parameters for our consideration of the bill at this time.

I thank Ms Maguire for her point of order. As members will be aware, there are four criteria for the admissibility of amendments, one of which is relevance. Relevance is determined by the provisions of a bill at introduction, rather than by the broader policy to which the bill relates. More guidance on admissibility can be found in the guidance on public bills that the Parliament publishes.