Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill

Intervened to question SNP MPs about their stance on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. Criticised the Labour party for not supporting devolution as initially promised.

Accused the Conservative government of desperation. Highlighted the SNP's support for devolution in voting on the Scotland Act 1998.

Argued that the SNP's actions were undemocratic, referencing the Scottish referendum on independence. Questioned the legitimacy of devolved decisions impacting reserved matters.

Challenged the logic behind the UK Government's intervention, pointing out that gender recognition is already devolved in Scotland.

Expressed disappointment over Labour's stance on the intervention, noting that it has caused dissatisfaction among SNP MSPs.

Said he wanted a proper gender recognition plan across the UK to avoid setting women's rights against trans people’s rights. Criticised the SNP for goading Labour.

Summarised the Secretary of State's statement on exercising a power under section 35 of the Scotland Act to prevent the Bill from proceeding. Stressed that the decision is based on the consequences for reserved matters.

Challenged the Minister's approach, questioning why he was reading out a statement that had already been made and altering its order.

Stated it is up to the Minister what they wish to say.

Pressed the Minister on whether the statement of reasons sufficiently met the tests set out in section 35, questioning its adequacy.

Critiqued the Minister's statement as insufficient and undemocratic. Highlighted that the UK Government could use their parliamentary majority to strike down an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Chris Bryant questions the UK Government's statement of reasons, suggesting that they would require a Bill with no content to be accepted under paragraph 3.

Ms Philippa Whitford expresses concern over the UK Government’s claim that the Scottish Bill conflicts with the Gender Recognition Act, arguing for the autonomy of devolved powers and criticising the weak nature of the UK Government's arguments.

Mr. Alan Brown agrees with Mr. Murray’s points on devolution, stating that the UK Government's reasons are weak and urging them to drop their action against the Scottish Bill.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael questions whether IT infrastructure should dictate legal changes, suggesting that laws should be designed to fit the needs of society rather than vice versa.

Mr. Dave Doogan challenges Mr. Murray’s framing of the conflict as one between two Governments, arguing that it is actually a dispute between two Parliaments due to cross-party support in Scotland for the Bill.

Ms Kirsten Oswald confronts Mr. Doogan about the Labour party's position on supporting devolution, highlighting their role in voting for the provisions of the Bill.

Ms Angela Crawley intervenes to support her colleague's stance on the Labour party's commitment to devolution and defending Scotland’s right to legislate.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin criticises Mr. Murray for not clearly supporting either the Scottish Parliament or the UK Government, suggesting that the Labour party lacks a clear position in this debate.

Critiques the Scottish Government for not sharing legal advice, questions why the Bill had to be rushed through before Christmas, mentions significant opposition within the SNP and resignations of SNP Ministers. Points out that while there is support across parties for some aspects of the bill, there were also numerous amendments tabled by all sides indicating a lack of consensus.

Defends the process, arguing that the Bill was not rushed but rather was in development for six years with extensive consultation.

Claims the debate went on until late hours due to stalling by opposition MPs.

Emphasises that thorough scrutiny of 150 amendments took place, indicating effective democratic process in Scottish Parliament.

Acknowledges internal SNP opposition but asserts that the will of the Scottish Parliament as a whole was to pass the bill, despite some MSPs voting against it.

Briefly interjects that the pandemic over the last two and a half years may have impacted legislative processes.

He argues that the UK Government is using its powers to strike down a bill passed by the Scottish Parliament, which he sees as an attack on Scotland's sovereignty. He also mentions the Sewel convention being disregarded multiple times and emphasises the support of the Bill from Members across all parties in the Scottish Parliament.

The Member believes that the UK Government should take action under section 35 of the Scotland Act to address any issues arising from the Bill. He also suggests that a better approach would be for both Governments to collaborate on drafting legislation that is compatible with the Equality Act.

She describes the UK Parliament's actions as a politically motivated assault on Scottish democracy. She argues that the Bill simply aims to simplify the process for transgender people to apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender and emphasises its importance in creating a fairer society.

Expresses concern about any legislation undermining the Union and emphasises that section 35 is not about gender recognition but good lawmaking. Criticises SNP for synthetic anger towards the use of section 35, urging respect for devolved settlement and encouraging dialogue between legislatures.

Critiques the timing and appropriateness of using section 35, emphasising that Scottish Parliament has carefully considered the Bill with significant amendments. Argues it guarantees primacy of Equality Act and respects vulnerable sections of society.

Highlights concerns about child safeguarding risks posed by changes in gender recognition, particularly reduction of age limit to 16. Emphasises potential for predators to exploit loopholes, threats to single-sex spaces, and importance of factual basis in law.

Critiques previous speech as transphobic dog-whistle rhetoric. Urges to focus on substance of debate without such allegations.

Makes a point of order questioning whether the previous speech was transphobic.

Mackinlay expresses concern about the age of 16 being set as a threshold for legal recognition, questioning whether it is appropriate given that at this age individuals cannot perform certain adult activities such as driving or purchasing alcohol. He also raises concerns regarding potential exploitation by sex offenders and questions the adequacy of safeguards against such abuse.

Jardine intervenes to correct Mackinlay's understanding of Scottish law, stating that 16-year-olds in Scotland can vote and marry without parental consent.

Kearns questions the exclusion of those charged or on trial for sexual offences from eligibility to change gender under the Bill, finding it 'madness'. She also challenges one part of Mackinlay's argument regarding the privilege gained by men transitioning to women.

Thewliss supports the Scottish Parliament’s right to legislate on gender recognition, highlighting that Scotland aligns with numerous other countries in this reform. She criticises the UK Government's reasons for opposing the Bill as lacking substance and dismisses their concerns regarding administrative capabilities and private schools' objections.

Fletcher argues against the reduction of age requirements from 18 to 16, questioning the wisdom behind lowering the threshold and removing evidence requirements for gender recognition. He emphasises that this legislation glamourizes a potentially harmful path for children involving puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery.

Hanvey argues that balancing rights is complex and requires careful consideration. He expresses concerns about the Bill's format and consequences, particularly its potential to alienate women's rights defenders. Hanvey raises questions about legal advice and alternative routes for overriding the Scottish Parliament’s legislation under the Scotland Act 1998.

Supports the Government's use of section 35 power, arguing that the Scottish National Party's amendments to the Gender Recognition Act bring it within UK legislation. Criticises opposition for using divisive language and suggests that the age limit of 16 is too low for gender recognition decisions.

Critiques the Government's policy statement as overly thin and transparent, questioning its legitimacy. Disapproves of the tone of the debate and accuses Conservative MPs of hypocrisy in defending equality.

Intervenes to correct an alleged misrepresentation of his previous statements by a Labour MP. Defends the integrity of parliamentary debate and accuracy.

Intervenes in discussions regarding the interpretation and correction of statements made by Conservative MPs, emphasising the importance of factual accuracy.

Critiques the Government's intervention as an attack on devolution and Scottish Parliament. Emphasises that gender recognition reform is supported by a majority of MSPs, accusing Conservatives of manufacturing grievance politics.

Argues that Government's intervention undermines devolution and criticises Conservative arguments as manufactured grievances. Calls out specific claims made in the statement of reasons, such as potential impacts on equal pay, as baseless.