I thank the cabinet secretary for the information that she has shared so far. Tentatively, I want to support her amendment 55, as I note that the provision is in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I presume that it is not necessary to replicate the provision in the bill. However, I would like clarity on whether that is the reason for removal of the provision. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could confirm whether that is the reason, or whether there is another one. For example, is the provision to send copies of gender recognition certificates deemed to be no longer necessary as a result of technology? If that is the case, could the cabinet secretary confirm that she has spoken to all registrars general in the United Kingdom to confirm that? I hope that the cabinet secretary can provide clarity to the public and me in her answer, before we vote on the amendment.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for not knowing the standing orders backwards. Could you tell us what we are voting for or against?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was logged.

I, too, thank all the groups that have been in touch with me. I also thank all the constituents from across Lothian who have emailed me over the past weeks and months. I am sure that all members have received lots of emails putting very strong arguments on both sides. Overall, we have to come to a view on those arguments, and I appreciate the time that we are taking to do that.

I stand briefly to speak in favour of amendment 6. The reason is that I want to follow up on what the First Minister said yesterday. In a television interview, she said:

“This is a bill that doesn’t give any new rights to trans people.”

She went on to claim that the bill affects only the process of obtaining a GRC. That would be true if Rachael Hamilton’s amendments were agreed to this afternoon. If they are not, the bill will give new rights to trans people, because, as it stands, it will reduce the minimum age from 18 to 16.

When the cabinet secretary speaks to this group of amendments, it would be helpful if she would clarify whether the First Minister is right in saying that the bill gives no new rights. If the First Minister is wrong, can the cabinet secretary tell us why those new rights are important and why the First Minister made that statement on TV yesterday?

Will the member give way?

As the cabinet secretary has said, during stage 2, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee supported an amendment that added asylum seekers to the term “ordinarily resident” in the bill. As I understand it, asylum seekers can be ordinarily resident in Scotland, and that remains the case. However, the cabinet secretary wrote to say to the committee in advance of the stage 3 debate, and has said in the debate this afternoon, that she will seek to remove from the bill the provision that sets out that the term “ordinarily resident”

“includes a person who is seeking asylum in Scotland”

because she claims that immigration is a reserved matter. I do not dispute that. The cabinet secretary went on to argue that a failed asylum seeker would not meet the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Scotland, so the bill would legislate on reserved matters. Amendment 19 therefore seeks to remove the provision that had been added at stage 2.

I am willing to accept the cabinet secretary’s arguments, but before I decide how to vote, I will ask her to help me by sharing the legal advice she has received on whether the provision, as set out in the bill, can be interpreted only to include all asylum seekers, even if they have failed in their applications. If a failed asylum seeker has not been classified as an asylum seeker under the terms that are set out in the bill, then it would not be necessary to remove those provisions, as only lawfully resident asylum seekers would be included.

Of course, we do not want to enact legislation in an area that is reserved to the UK Government; however, I am very keen that when the cabinet secretary sums up, she answers my question adequately so that we can all be sure that we are passing competent legislation. I hope that her answer will provide the clarity that I, the public and others, I am sure, are seeking before members vote on amendment 19.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to go back to the point of order that I made at the start of the debate about members with disabilities and caring responsibilities. It is now coming up to 12 o’clock. For those of us who have carers, they will now have to stay up well beyond 12 o’clock so that they can help us when we get home. Did the bureau consider that at its most recent meeting? Can you also tell us what time you expect this to end so that those—[Interruption.]

Presiding Officer, I appreciate that other members might not have these concerns, but those of us who do should be heard. Can you say when you think business will finish so that members who have to provide care will have some idea?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. As we have just heard, today’s business promises to go on late into the evening and, for some colleagues, especially those who have disabilities or caring duties, that is a long time to be required to be in one place. Some people require to take medication at certain times, some require extra time for comfort breaks and some have care responsibilities that we will be unable to attend to.

As a Parliament, we have committed ourselves to be more inclusive and to encourage more people to stand for election. Can you advise me whether a disability impact assessment been carried out on today’s timings? What advice do you have for those members who will struggle due to the extended sitting time? If no assessment has been carried out, could you please tell me why?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I seek some clarification about a question that my colleague, Douglas Ross, asked just before the suspension, in connection with who can use the gallery, both tonight and tomorrow. I have a number of constituents who already have tickets and who hope to come here. They do not intend to make any noise; they simply want to watch. Will they be allowed in? More to the point, if someone else makes a noise, will my constituents be allowed to stay if they remain silent?

I rise to speak to my amendment 16. My colleague explained that amendment very well in her final remarks, so I will keep my speech short due to time.

As has been outlined, the amendment requires applicants to include a report from a medical professional to confirm that the applicant has discussed the application with a medical professional. The reason for lodging the amendment was that I have heard concern from different groups that sometimes the medical profession can block someone going forward or can put up barriers in that regard. That is not what the amendment is meant to do. It would simply mean that it would be confirmed that a report had come from a medical professional and that an applicant had discussed it with a medical professional. That seems to me to be a logical place for us to go to.

The approach would give help to those who wanted to go through the process and would give them reassurance that they are seeking proper advice. As Rachael Hamilton pointed out, it would also allow individuals to discuss other things that are happening at the same time, which they might find difficult to discuss with family members, friends or other people whom they know. It would not block people going through the process; it would simply give them the appropriate support from a medical professional, and they would be able to confirm that by having a report.

I shall move my amendment.