Not moved.

Amendment 21 moved—[Sue Webber].

Amendment 23 is very similar to amendment 128 that I lodged at stage 2. It requires the Scottish ministers to ensure that any individual who is considering applying for a gender recognition certificate is able to access information and obtain support, where required, to make that decision.

I want to be clear about what access to support and information means. Not everyone who goes through the process of obtaining a GRC will require support, but some will. Although we are making the process more straightforward, it is vital that guidance and support are available to them. A range of mechanisms for obtaining support is already in place, some of which are designed specifically for the trans community, and those are often funded directly by the Scottish Government. Other sources, such as CAHMS and youth work services, are aimed at the whole population.

It is critical that people have access to both support and information. The Scottish Government has already made provision in the financial memorandum to the bill for the registrar general to produce guidance for applicants. Amendment 23 would require the Scottish Government to take such a step to ensure, both at the commencement of the bill and in the future, that anyone who is considering making an application for a GRC has access to support and information.

I press amendment 23.

We would need a weekly update, but what I was thinking—

It is very rare that I agree with the cabinet secretary on a huge number of issues. The bill is unprecedented; it feels dangerous as well as ill thought out. The evidence that we have heard, which Jenni Minto has already mentioned, was on public health, food safety, animal safety, business, the environment and workers’ rights. Another issue that was striking is the legal impact, which will lead to massive uncertainty. It cuts right across everything. You have made points about devolution and the Sewel convention that I very much agree with. I was struck by the evidence that we had from the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, who said that there was potential for an untenable legislative burden as well as a diversion of resources to ensure a functioning statute book. This Tory Government is acting without any thought as to the range of dangerous impacts of the bill.

My question follows up on questions that my colleagues have asked. Have you or other Scottish Government ministers had parallel discussions with UK Government ministers? You have already mentioned DEFRA, which is clearly a massive issue for us. There is also the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which will be important in terms of regulations and businesses in the future.

One of the things that I found disturbing in what we have heard is that there is evidence that the impact is already happening. It is not a theoretical issue about what happens next December. Part of the evidence that we heard was about how local government regulates safety and the sense that some businesses are already shifting because of the uncertainty.

There is the issue of what will happen in the future. How do you build that piece of work in the Scottish Government, which will be a huge legislative and civil service burden, and manage the risk assessment to continue to highlight the dangers of the bill and get in place measures for the dangerous worst-case scenario that you have talked about? It could happen this time next year. Can I take you to the January issue? Do you think that the UK civil service will identify all these areas of legislation by January?

Seriously, what I was thinking is that it goes to the issue of stakeholders. We need to have transparency and to be able to highlight things on the web in the same way as you do, so that we are up to date. It is partly about scrutiny by us, but it is as much about other parliamentary committees and stakeholders.

What is your expectation of our capacity to scrutinise that as a Parliament—not just this committee, obviously, because most of the other Scottish Parliament committees should scrutinise it—if the process goes through as you currently expect it to?

I welcome that. In our first evidence session on the issue, the people round the table were all of the view that it would be far better to retain EU law and then decide what we do not want rather than, as you say, upend the entire process. I cannot remember, as a committee member, an evidence session where we have not heard evidence that disputes the approach. That is really unusual, given the range of organisations that we have had.

On how the Government responds, there is parliamentary accountability to us. I presume that, at UK level, there has to be a parallel to the work that we are doing and the work that is being done in Wales. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not in place at the moment, so there will be no scrutiny by elected representatives there, which must be an issue.

In your work and in the support from the civil service, do you have a ranking in deciding where to start? You mentioned biosecurity. We are not out of the pandemic yet, and there is an issue about transparency and safety, because this approach is potentially, without thought, putting people’s safety at risk.

That would be helpful.

I have one final minor question, which is on work across the UK. Is the work on the common frameworks still going on and does it have any relation to the bill? I am thinking about how the current Tory Government is operating, because it is a whole set of different ministers.

I have a quick supplementary question as a result of the convener’s question. Is it possible to get an update on the work that the Scottish Government has done? You last gave us evidence a few weeks ago. It would be quite helpful to get a sense of the progress that you are making or the issues that you are identifying.