Thank you for allowing me to come back in. I just want to address a couple of issues that have been raised about my amendment 37. I do not share my colleague Jamie Greene’s view that the amendment is narrow; it is deliberately broad so that it takes into consideration all aspects of the Equality Act 2010. Every one of us around the table, regardless of the argument that we are pushing forward—such as Brian Whittle’s argument around women and trans people in sport—is keen to say that we support all the protected characteristics, including trans people. It is really important for us all to remember that because it sometimes gets a bit lost.

One of the reasons why my amendment is so broad is that I want the whole act to be read in and relevant. I do not think that we can pick it apart, in bits and pieces. It was written to allow groups of people to live in a society where we all have to live with one another. Sometimes, there are situations where we have to ask what one protected characteristic’s rights mean for another protected characteristic’s rights. We have discussed that a lot today, and I fear that pulling bits out of the act does not allow us to consider it in its entirety. My colleague Daniel Johnson talked earlier about the act’s ability to be context specific. That is really important, and it is why amendment 37 is so broad.

On the points about the phrase “for the avoidance of doubt”, members will be aware of the Pepper v Hart approach, which means that when a member lodges an amendment, they have the opportunity to provide clarity about why they are doing so. I hope that that is helpful.

The phrase “for the avoidance of doubt” is not without precedent, but it is rare; it was used previously in the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014. I thought that it would be an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the bill is read with the whole Equality Act 2010, representing, understanding and protecting the rights of all people covered by that act, in all the protected characteristics.

I appreciate having been given the opportunity to come back in to give an explanation of that. I hope that members find it helpful.

Amendment 147 would require the Government to collect better data on gender recognition certificates and in relation to the legislation. It takes the best practice that I have been able to find from the Irish, Maltese and Victorian legislation and from the Ministry of Justice in relation to UK models, and it will ensure that future policy will be served by better evidence than will be found through the current drafting of the bill. On that basis, I encourage members to vote for amendment 147.

I move amendment 147.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for taking an intervention. I appreciate that this is politics, which is why she sought to make that point as clearly as she just did. However, this is not a case of people lining up on a political basis. With amendment 37, I have set out that the Equality Act 2010—which, if we are going to raise politics, was written and brought in by a Labour Government—is relevant for this bill. It is particularly relevant, and we need to say so in this discussion because of the concerns out there in the real world and in the Parliament. That is why we are doing so.

There are a number of areas on which my colleague Rachael Hamilton and I will agree and vote in the same way, but that does not mean that I am lining up to support the Tories on anything—least of all on women’s rights. However, I can be absolutely clear that this is not about party-political allegiance, and it is not fair to suggest that. It is about trying to ensure that the rights of everyone in Scotland are protected in the way that was intended when the Labour Government brought in the act in 2010.

Forgive me for intervening, cabinet secretary—and convener; I do understand the time constraints—but, on that point, I do not understand why it is not possible to gather certain information. Do you mean that you do not gather it yet? In that case, can you confirm that you would be open to gathering additional or new information?

I will support many amendments in this group because review on impact is key. Like my colleague Jamie Greene, I may not always share some of the concerns, but it is incredibly important that we properly scrutinise the impact of the legislation.

I will support the amendment to section 2 in Claire Baker’s name because it is rightly more comprehensive than amendment 76. I will abstain on amendments 148 and 143, because I had asked the member to consider that the timescales are quite short after royal assent, and I will vote against amendment 155, because it would delay the act, and trans people have waited a long time for this. Otherwise, I support the amendments in the group.

Amendment 145 aims to ensure that Parliament considers how the process outlined in the bill is working, including in terms of the role of the registrar general and section 22. It also requires ministers to consider whether there should be provisions for non-binary people, as we know that not including them has been a concern for many.

Amendment 146 in my name ensures that we consider properly the impact—unintended or otherwise—of the act. Scottish Labour knows that people have concerns, including on how the act interacts with protections in the Equality Act 2010, the disclosure of protection information and other areas. Some have also raised concerns about the impact on gender identity healthcare, as we have heard, so the amendment requires the Government to look at all of that.

Lastly and importantly, some people are concerned that legal challenges will be brought in relation to the bill and the Equality Act 2010. The amendment seeks to monitor that as well. In short, the amendment is designed to scrutinise many areas of concern in the bill so that, should they come to pass, Parliament can address them.

You missed the bit about including the right to independent living in the bill. As I am sure you are aware, Dr Jim Elder-Woodward has prepared a paper and is a good promoter of that work. In that paper, he sets out various ways that the bill could make clearer what the human rights of the people who will use the service will be. Would the minister be prepared to look at embedding the structure that Dr Elder-Woodward has outlined into the framework of the bill and including independent living in that?

Good morning, panel. Thank you for the submissions that you gave us in advance and for answering our questions so far.

We have already touched on this, but I am keen to hear a bit more about the experience of your members just now. What things do they feel need to be addressed today, and what could be looked at for the future in a bill such as this one? Rachel, can you say something about the experience of your coalition’s members and what they would want to be done today as opposed to over the longer term?

My questions have been answered, convener.

Forgive me, but the Scottish ministers are accountable for what they direct local government to do, the money that they put into local government and the work that they do in social care, so I do not think that it is fair to characterise the situation as one in which the minister has no responsibility.

Thank you for that, Sheena. It echoes some of what Rachel Cackett said and paints a pretty grim picture of what is going on.

I want to ask Frank McKillop and Andrew Ewen about the experience of their members from a service user point of view as opposed to a provider point of view. Can you both say something about that and about what we need to do now rather than in the longer term?