Will the member take an intervention?

That is absolutely right. It is incumbent on the Conservative Government to acknowledge and accept that.

That is why we need change. It is a matter of ensuring parliamentary accountability and transparency. I would say to my colleague Martin Whitfield that it is not just people in this Parliament who are concerned. We might consider the work being done by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords—its secondary legislation scrutiny committee. One of its reports was called “Government by Diktat” and another was called “Democracy Denied?”. There is concern across the UK. Stella Creasy’s powerful speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in the House of Commons brought the issue to life; the concern is not just among us in this chamber.

Securing unanimity on our committee report tells us something about the cross-party work that we are doing in this Parliament. It is not just about the cross-party work, however; we also need work to be done by the Scottish Government. Willie Rennie’s point was a really important one. At our committee meeting this very morning, we were discussing the need for open and transparent reporting by the Scottish Government on the use of the keeping pace powers—and, critically, on where the keeping pace powers are not being used. That requires work.

I wish to follow up on the comments that colleagues have made about the Sewel convention. Its origins were in the passage of the Labour Government’s Scotland Bill in 1998, when Lord Sewel said that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It is interesting how successful that has been since 1999—or, actually, since 2018, as the number of occasions on which the Parliament has refused its consent is on the increase.

Previous to that, we had a mechanism for dialogue between the UK and Scottish Governments, at both ministerial and official levels, which enabled shared policy objectives to be achieved as quickly as possible. The work that was done to put the convention into the Parliament’s standing orders in 2005, following the report on the convention by the Procedures Committee, was constructive.

However, as others have said, the evidence is clear. Professor Aileen McHarg pointed out that the Sewel convention

“has been severely tested by the Brexit process and its ongoing legislative aftermath.”

We have had the experience of people working together across parties—the Calman and the Smith commissions changed the powers of the Parliament—but there has been a constitutional failure to respect the devolution settlement after Brexit. Things cannot be allowed to go on as they are. We need action. I was not surprised when the minister said that independence is the only solution, but we all know that independence would be Brexit times 10.

Let us focus on change that we can deliver now that would make a difference. We need to increase transparency and accountability, and not just between the Governments. We need greater transparency to enable our Parliaments in Scotland, Wales, the UK and Northern Ireland to hold our Governments to account. Over the summer, Scottish Labour published a paper that proposed a duty to co-operate, because, increasingly, there are policy areas where we need to work together. For example, we suggested a governance council on energy to enable a joint approach to be taken, encompassing the powers that we have on planning and the reserved powers that relate to the grid, to make sure that we can deliver the low-carbon affordable renewables that we all aspire to have. We should replace the House of Lords with a directly elected senate of the nations and regions.

We need to send a clear message to the Tory Government. The committee’s report was unanimous. The UK Government’s lack of respect is unacceptable and we need urgent action to deliver transparency, accountability and scrutiny. I would like the Scottish Government to do the heavy lifting at the ministerial and Government level. We need to work hard across our committees to hold our Scottish Government and the UK Government to account, to reflect on where we want to align with the EU and to debate those areas in which we do not want to do so.

Our constituents, our businesses and our environmental campaigners need such transparency. Members across the chamber must work to that end and must send a clear message that change is needed—and is needed urgently.

I add my thanks to all those who gave evidence to our committee, and I acknowledge the vital work of the committee clerks.

Many of us did not want to be here, in this place, dealing with the consequences of the UK’s departure from the EU. The current workload of the CEEAC Committee demonstrates the on-going fallout, which is the result of actions by the UK Conservative Government. Whether this was done intentionally or by accident, the impact of Brexit on the UK’s constitutional settlement was not taken into account. It was not considered by the UK Government during the Brexit process, nor has it been since. I hope that Maurice Golden’s optimism is informed. It is not what you say; it is what you do.

There were two broad areas in the committee’s inquiry: regulatory divergence and the Sewel convention. There has been some good debate about the Sewel convention this afternoon, which I want to follow up. We also voted unanimously to condemn the measures on the Northern Ireland protocol proposed by the UK Government. That was in June this year, and it was due to our collective concerns about trade, international law and the integrity of the Good Friday agreement. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is just one of the pieces of legislation that has been introduced by the Tories at Westminster that challenges not only trade and cohesion but—as Clare Adamson said—our constitutional settlement.

I thank the member for taking an intervention now—I realise that he is getting near the end of his time.

Does Donald Cameron, as deputy convener of the committee, accept that it might have been helpful if a UK minister had been prepared to come and visit our committee? It is constructive and it is cross-party and, although we ask difficult questions, we ask them in order to make devolution work and to make it successful.

Amendment 128 builds on the recommendation in point 278 of the committee’s stage 1 report. The aim of the amendment is to require the Scottish ministers to

“take steps to ensure that ... appropriate support and information”

is put in place to support any

“individuals who are considering”

and/or who make

“an application for a gender recognition certificate”.

In my opinion, the wording of the amendment gives the flexibility that we need. It would be for Scottish ministers to determine what the appropriate support and information is, but the flexibility will ensure that the information and support that is provided can be tailored to the needs of an individual and can change over time, as required, as a result of experience with the legislation.

The committee recommended in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government should commit to putting in place “appropriate support and signposting”, and I strongly welcome that recommendation. It followed evidence that the committee heard, particularly that from the children’s commissioner, who said in oral evidence:

“Protection and participation rights are not mutually exclusive, and we are looking for a process that recognises not only the growing autonomy of young people but the need to support and protect them.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 24 May 2022; c 13.]

That evidence reflects the concerns that have been raised with me by constituents across the Lothians who have already gone through the process of obtaining a GRC. They definitely welcome the simplification of the process for the future. However, they have highlighted to me that it would have been much more helpful for them to have signposting, advice and support. They would have welcomed that before they transitioned, so they think that, for the future, particularly given that more people are likely to take the opportunity of applying for a GRC, support must be provided for them.

In some cases, it could be health support and intervention. However, the latest Public Health Scotland data for June 2022 shows that only 70 per cent of children and young people who were referred to child and adolescent mental health services were seen within the 18-week target waiting time. Similarly, the waiting times for gender identity clinics currently range anywhere from one-and-a-half to three years, so there is an issue about ensuring that a range of advice is available for people. I reiterate that it should not be focused solely on medical support and/or intervention, although that is important, but a range of non-medical advice and support, including from the public and voluntary sectors, could be provided to people who are considering going through the GRC process.

We are looking for signposting and a commitment in principle, but I have been careful not to be specific because I am conscious that if the amendment is too specific the cabinet secretary will no doubt immediately rule me out of order. I am trying to frame my amendment in a way that I hope will be helpful and reflect what the committee concluded from the evidence that it heard.

I move amendment 128.

Absolutely. Those organisations will change over the years. There is no set or perfect list of organisations. I think that the bill will lead to more organisations providing support. The issue is how people know that they exist. That is the issue that I sought to address by lodging amendment 128.

On that basis, I seek to withdraw amendment 128, but I intend to come back to the issue at stage 3, after having had conversations with the cabinet secretary.

Amendment 128, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 5—Statutory declarations and other evidence in relation to marriage or civil partnership

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Certificate to be issued

Amendment 6 not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

After section 6

Amendment 49 moved—Shona Robison—and agreed to.

Section 7—Issue of full gender recognition certificate to person with interim certificate

Amendments 50 to 52 moved—Shona Robison—and agreed to.

If the cabinet secretary is prepared to discuss the term “appropriate”, I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 128. Cabinet secretary, are you objecting totally to amendment 128, or are you prepared to discuss the term that you identified in your comments?

It is good to hear people’s views on the matter. I have no objection to Christine Grahame’s amendment. It is good, because it would provide a formal process for applying for a gender recognition certificate, but there are wider issues to address before someone gets to that stage, when they need information and support.

Having a wider range of support is critical, which is why I was keen for Scottish ministers to be able to decide what the steps are. For example, there is interdepartmental work across different Government departments such as education and health where wider support is needed. We must also think about the range of available support, because the Scottish Government will no doubt fund the provision of support, not only within Government but with third sector organisations and charities, which the Government does already. I was trying to be helpful in saying that that does not happen at the moment.

I heard that debate.

I was listening to it in my office. I totally welcome that provision, but the people who came to me were not young. It is particularly an issue for young people—16, 17 and 18-year-olds—but there are older people who need such advice. I think that the advice that you have recommended in relation to the registrar general is good, but there is other advice that is needed. In particular, a range of mental health support and counselling is needed, as well as wider advice. That advice would be provided by a range of organisations, voluntary and statutory.

Amendment 128 is meant to be a constructive amendment. If the cabinet secretary is saying that the use of the term “appropriate” is what is wrong with my amendment and that she is prepared to discuss that, I would be prepared to seek to withdraw it today and to come back to the issue at stage 3.

I simply wanted to clarify that I do not see amendment 128 as replicating amendment 71 or amendment 39, both of which are good amendments. Amendment 128 takes those provisions further and opens out support to the wider community of people who need it.