THE final debate on changes to gender recognition legislation has been severely disrupted after members of the public protested in the public gallery.
MSPs gathered to debate a whopping 153 amendments to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill before the final vote is held on Wednesday.
Proceedings were almost immediately suspended after a motion submitted by the Scottish Conservatives, which sought to delay the vote under grounds that it had not been sufficiently consulted on, was not circulated to all MSPs.
Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone briefly suspended the Chamber while the oversight was rectified. The motion was then defeated in a vote.
However, after MSPs voted down an amendment put forward by Conservative MSP Russell Findlay, which sought to pause applications for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) made by those charged with domestic abuse and fraud, an argument broke out in the public gallery.
READ MORE: Scottish Tories under fire for attempt to 'disrupt' gender bill debate
A member of the public could be heard to say "shame on all of you" as the amendment was defeated while another responded by telling them to "shut up". The proceedings were once again suspended.
The entire public gallery was then cleared, with some MSPs stating that those who refused to leave were threatened with arrest by police officers.
The debate continued after a suspension of around 30 minutes. Yet Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy was critical of the decision to entirely clear the public gallery.
She said it was “disproportionate response” and noted her approval that members of the public were being allowed back into the chamber.
Elsewhere in the debate amendments which sought to maintain the age that a person can apply for a GRC to 18 were voted down, though not before a fractious disagreement between Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton and Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman.
After SNP MSP Ash Regan – who rebelled against her party whip during the Stage 2 vote on the legislation – expressed concerns that reducing the age that people can apply for a GRC would negatively impact neurodivergent children, Maggie Chapman raised a point of order during an amendment being put forward by Rachael Hamilton.
READ MORE: Royal Mail confirms strikes to take place days before Christmas
Chapman asked whether Hamilton thought that it was wrong to “weaponise neurodiversity and neurodivergent young people” and say that they were “incapable of making decisions for themselves”.
Hamilton said Chapman’s intervention was “disgraceful” and that it lowered the tone of the debate. She added that one of her own family members was neurodivergent and told Chapman to “never intervene in that manner again because it is very upsetting from a personal point of view.”
But when Green MSP Lorna Slater – who is herself neurodivergent – requested her own point of order during Hamilton’s speech she was denied by the Tory MSP.
However, Labour’s Daniel Johnson, who is also neurodivergent, was permitted a point of order and said that while he understood Chapman’s concerns “it was incredibly important we think through this carefully.”
Earlier in the debate Tory MSPs were criticised for delaying the proceedings by raising a series of points of order and amendments to the week’s business agenda before amendments on the bill could be heard.
The debate will continue into tomorrow.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel