Cue applause.

I think that the member will note that our amendment retains the first half of the motion because we agree with the proposals. We acknowledge that there was a decision by the Lord Advocate and we want to reaffirm our belief that people in Scotland have the sovereign right to determine the form of government that is best suited to their needs. We took a decision on that in 2014. That is uncomfortable. Since then, as I said in my opening comments, we have seen a change in the devolution settlement.

My disappointment with Donald Cameron today is his not acknowledging that the status quo is not perfect. We need to change the status quo. We need change in Scotland. The best way to do that is not to have an independence referendum—[Interruption.]

SNP members are making comments about what the voters think. Opinion poll after opinion poll show that even SNP voters do not want an independence referendum this autumn. That is a critical point. There are interpretations of exactly what the voters think. We are here to represent our constituents, and I am determined to do that.

Scottish Labour is working to look at how we change the UK to make it a more radical, redistributive UK. We want to build on devolution—[Interruption.] With respect, Presiding Officer, I did not heckle other people when they were speaking although I disagreed with them.

I will, briefly.

We want change now. That is the choice that we would offer at the next election.

I move amendment S6M-07429.3, to leave out from “United Kingdom” to end and insert:

“people of Scotland are frustrated with two governments that are more focused on division and their own priorities, rather than the people’s priorities; considers that they should be focusing their time, energy and resources on addressing the cost of living crisis, and the NHS crisis, which is costing lives, and calls on the Scottish Government to focus on delivering the recovery that the NHS urgently needs, as committed to in the Scottish National Party’s 2021 manifesto.”

Will the member give way?

Gordon Brown’s constitutional commission, which Keir Starmer established, formed the basis of the choice that voters will have at the next election. It is not a choice between the status quo or the SNP-Green independence offer. At the next general election, we will have a choice in Scotland: to boot out the Tories, to get rid of the undemocratic House of Lords, to have a directly elected second chamber and to put in place the co-operation that the cabinet secretary who gave the previous statement said was needed in relation to energy and to tackle the cost of living crisis. We would reform inter-governmental working with joint governance councils, secretariats that are not appointed by both Governments—

They do not sound exciting to the SNP, but they are crucial.

I will finish on this point. The SNP Government has been a centralising Government, taking power away from our local authorities and communities. We are now seeing services being cut in our local communities. It is time to reverse that trend. It is not just about giving more powers to the Scottish Parliament; it is about stopping the hoarding of power by the Scottish Parliament and devolving powers to our councils, whether those powers relate to education or how they invest in critical services such as healthcare, support for our health system—

I will try not to fill up an hour and a half with my speech.

Amendment 135 would require Scottish ministers to carry out a review into the impact of the bill on gender identity healthcare in the form of a longitudinal study. Scottish ministers would be required to consult on the remit of the review, but any review would have a focus on improving access to and the provision of gender identity healthcare. The review would be repeated each successive five-year period to deliver a longitudinal study.

At stage 1, the committee heard a range of evidence on the provision of trans healthcare, including on the Cass review that is currently taking place in England. A number of constituents I have engaged with during the Parliament’s consideration of the bill would support work to improve gender identity healthcare in Scotland. There are significant delays for trans people who are trying to receive treatment from clinics. The bill could increase the number of people who are trying to access those services, which would exacerbate the demand on the services that are currently provided.

The review that I propose in my amendment would provide reassurances to Parliament that we do not forget individuals applying for a GRC who then go on to experience lengthy waiting periods for treatment that they may wish to receive. When we pass legislation in this Parliament, we need a joined-up approach to ensure that it is successful.

At stage 2, I moved amendments that would require ministers to publish data on trans healthcare waiting times. I welcome the reassurance that I had from the Scottish Government through the letter that the minister sent to me on 9 December, which outlined that the Scottish Government is currently looking at work being done by Public Health Scotland to improve the quality of data on healthcare waiting times, as was committed to in the “NHS gender identity services: strategic action framework 2022-2024”.

However, I honestly believe that we need more than that. The bill will simplify the process for obtaining a GRC, and there has been consideration as to why that simplification is required. As the number of people applying for and obtaining a GRC increases, it is possible that we will see an increase in the number of people who need and wish to access gender identity healthcare, and who will potentially have more complex needs. That could be a direct impact of the bill. I therefore hope that Parliament will agree to my amendment so that we can ensure that health services deliver for the needs and demands of trans people, both now and in the future.

I referenced the need for a longitudinal assessment of health. It is important that trans people get the support that they need not only during the early years of their transition on a short-term basis, but throughout their lives. It is about not a one-off piece of work but something that will need to be continued going forward so that the health services that we have in Scotland understand people’s needs.

I will briefly comment on other amendments. I understand that amendment 62, in the name of Pam Gosal, would require the Scottish Government to start a review similar to the Cass review in England, which I think we should support. I will support the amendment if Pam Gosal moves it.

Amendment 132, in the name of Jamie Greene, would require a review of the availability of trans healthcare three years after commencement. Given that it is aimed at making sure that trans healthcare is available and meets the needs of trans people, I would support it.

The points that Jamie Greene made when he was moving his amendment were very well made, because the delays and pressures that people are experiencing will really impact on their experiences going forward. We need to reflect on the statistics that he talked about in his speech.

Collectively, these amendments would strengthen the impact of the bill and make it more successful, so I hope that colleagues will support them all.

It is important that we put this element in the text of the bill. I totally get the fact that the cabinet secretary wants to keep her legislation as light as possible, but we are making it easier for people to access gender transitioning and decide how they want to describe themselves, which is really significant for them. They need support and guidance, and it needs to be readily available.

The reason that I am pushing this proposal tonight is that we are making a statement that it is important for our constituents to get access to advice and guidance. I am absolutely not telling the cabinet secretary what that needs to look like; it is very much for the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Government to make that judgment. My proposed measure is proportionate. The cabinet secretary said that only a small number of people will apply, but we do not know what the numbers will be. The whole point of the legislation is that it is opening up new opportunities for people, and we have to give them the support that they need to make the most of the legislation and to make it successful for everybody.

I believe that the measure is proportionate. I hope that we will see that in years to come—we have a lot of other amendments on reviews to consider. We would expect the Scottish Government to have such provision in place from day 1 of the legislation if it is passed and gets assent, as that is important.

This is a small set of amendments, but it is potentially one of the most important things that we could do tonight to support our constituents across the whole of Scotland.

Not moved.

Amendment 20 moved—[Sue Webber].

That is why I have lodged amendment 23, which is now before us. In its stage 1 report, the committee made the point that the Scottish Government should commit to putting support and signposting in place. During the committee’s discussions at stage 2, I said that I felt that the committee’s findings reflected concerns that were raised with me by constituents from across the Lothians who have gone through the process of obtaining a GRC. That is why I have worked on amendment 23. I encourage colleagues across the chamber to support it.

During our discussions at stage 2, the cabinet secretary was concerned about my use of the word “appropriate” in my amendment. To give members a sense of the discussion, I quote the cabinet secretary’s remarks:

“For the avoidance of doubt, we want to avoid listing organisations that we deem to be appropriate to provide support. I do not think that that would be a wise thing for the Scottish ministers to do.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee,15 November 2022; c 66.]

Although I do not share the cabinet secretary’s concerns, it is clear that many more people will need such advice and support. As of today, if someone were to have a quick google through the Scottish Government website on applying for a GRC, they would see that it directs potential applicants to the relevant UK Government website, which then signposts potential applicants to Citizens Advice. If the bill is to go through, it is important that support and guidance are in place. That is very much why I believe that my amendment 23 is important, although it represents a compromise. I thank the cabinet secretary for agreeing to meet me after the stage 2 discussions. It was helpful to have that opportunity to discuss my amendment and what I was trying to do.

Amendment 23 is a compromise but, on the face of it, it would deliver a requirement for the Scottish ministers to ensure that support and information were in place. It would also take into account the concern, which the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government expressed, that they should not be expected to devise a list of organisations for signposting purposes. It would be very much up to them to take that approach forward, but in my view it is very much needed.

Amendments 20 and 21, which are also in my name, are consequential and technical amendments related to amendment 23.

I move amendment 23, and I hope that members will support it.