Members will be relieved to hear that I will be brief. As the name of the group suggests, the amendments are minor and technical: they move the word “and” to the correct position in section 4 in order to tidy the text of the bill following an amendment at stage 2.

I move amendment 27.

If Graham Simpson were to give a fulsome account of what I said, he would also note that I went on to say that the guidance for applications made under the 2004 act, which has now been in place for nearly 20 years, includes examples of having updated the gender on official documents such as a passport or driving licence. That guidance is not changed by the bill and remains in place. It has stood the test of time for nearly 20 years. I am sure that the member was about to go on to say that I said that.

I will start with Russell Findlay’s amendments, which would introduce a requirement for all applicants for a gender recognition certificate to first undergo checks through Disclosure Scotland. The purpose of Disclosure Scotland, as Mr Findlay knows, is to help employers to make safer recruitment decisions, informed by criminal records as appropriate and to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, including children.

Disclosure Scotland certificates are required for many job roles and the type of check that an employee needs depends specifically on the role for which they are applying. Applying to legally change one’s gender and obtain an updated birth certificate is not the same as applying for a job where someone would be working with vulnerable groups. Obtaining a GRC would not be a means of hiding information from a future Disclosure Scotland check. It is a legal requirement to give one’s name, and full details of all previous names, to allow Disclosure Scotland to verify a person’s identity. The process protects an individual’s right to privacy but does not afford the opportunity for any party to conceal past criminal behaviour. Any criminal history information that the law says must be disclosed will be disclosed, even if that information predates the current name or gender of the applicant.

Like others, I begin by thanking everyone who has helped us to get to this stage of the bill, and for the constructive tone that has been set so far. Two months ago at stage 1, the principles of the bill were agreed by a strong majority in Parliament, with support from members of all parties. Following that and ahead of stage 2, I undertook meetings with many MSPs from across the chamber. Wherever possible, we worked constructively to agree amendments to strengthen the bill at stage 2, and as a result, more amendments were agreed at stage 2 than were voted down: 47 were agreed, 43 were not agreed and 60 were not moved.

I again met with all members who requested a meeting ahead of stage 3 and, again, I have been able to agree to some positive amendments that are consistent with the principles that were agreed at stage 1. I am grateful to members of all parties for working with me on improvements to the bill.

Yes.

No—I want to move on to Michael Marra’s points.

I cannot support the amendments in the name of Michael Marra because I consider that, as others have said, they could create a barrier to a person’s accessing their rights. The aim of the bill is to establish an administrative process that is based on self-declaration, and Michael Marra’s amendments would require someone else to make a declaration about a person’s gender identity. The point that Monica Lennon made in that regard is important, because that could involve making the declaration to a person who has no awareness of the person’s previous gender identity. That is not in the spirit of the bill.

I understand that applying for a passport involves a countersignatory process, but applying for a passport does not involve making a statutory declaration and all that that entails, whereas applying for a GRC does.

I urge members not to support those amendments but to support the amendments in my name.

I am not sure what the relationship is to short-term lets.

I have listened to concerns that have been raised and to what has been said about the need for young people aged 16 and 17 to have additional support. That is why we agreed to the amendments at stage 2 and why we support amendments at stage 3 that are about ensuring that the young person understands the process and that they seek and undertake appropriate support. I think that that strikes the right balance to ensure that young people are afforded the same rights but are given additional support, in recognition of their age.

I say to Fergus Ewing that I could point to many consultations and polls. I could point to the two large public consultations at the start of the bill process that showed support. I could point to the BBC poll that was conducted earlier this year that showed support for the bill, particularly among women, and support for reducing the age to 16.

However, I acknowledge to Fergus Ewing and others that there has been a difference of opinion on the bill from the start, and that there has been a difference of opinion on age from the start. I think that I said when I opened the stage 1 debate that the issue of age has been among the most difficult to address, for all the reasons that members have raised. I took a lot of time to consider the issues, and listening to the views of young people themselves was an important part of that. Young people have said very clearly that they believe that they should be able to make such decisions. I will go on to say a bit more about the age of legal capacity.

The amendments that I have worked with members on include amendments that were lodged by Christine Grahame at stage 2, which I supported, and, of course, her amendment 99. The extension of legal gender recognition to people aged 16 and 17, with appropriate safeguards, is, of course, one of the principles that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee showed clear support for in its stage 1 report, and that area of the bill was strengthened at stage 2.

However, there are amendments in the group that we cannot support. Amendments 6 to 9 and 12, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seek to revert the minimum age of application to 18. Therefore, I cannot support them.

I start by saying, as I have said many times before, and as members across the chamber have also said, that the threat to women and girls is of course from predatory and abusive men. Of course, there is no evidence that such predatory and abusive men have ever needed to apply for legal gender recognition to carry out their behaviour. That has not happened in the other countries that have introduced similar reforms.

Russell Findlay referred to the evidence from the UN independent expert, Victor Madrigal-Borloz, who made the point that there are now more than 300 million people living in countries that have adopted a statutory declaration type of approach, and there is no evidence of those issues and concerns coming to fruition.