Chamber and committees

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.

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Amendment 128, by agreement, withdrawn.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?

Dr Hood, do you want to respond on that issue? We are now six years on from the vote, and suddenly all this legislation has to be wrapped up in a year. It will be incredibly hard for us to scrutinise it. What would your advice to the Scottish Parliament be on ensuring that we do not miss out on any vital legislation that might change people’s lives here?

Perhaps I can follow up on those comments with Mr Livingstone, given his remarks about risk and uncertainty. What risk assessments should we, as parliamentarians, be carrying out to identify elements of the legislation that might be most vulnerable in the process?

Dr Hancox, you gave us an interesting set of thoughts about what we should be thinking about. Do you have any comments about what we should be doing? Should the legislation go through as is?

Professor Young, do you have any comments about what we should be doing to attempt to mitigate the potentially damaging impact of the bill?

I appreciate the written evidence that the witnesses submitted in advance. It feels unprecedented, because they are all measured witnesses and the background that they all have gives weight to their worrying comments about legal certainty, risks, unintended consequences, lack of scrutiny and lack of Government capacity.

Michael Clancy, in the general comments at the start of your submission, you say:

“there is no reason why retained EU law … cannot be considered a sustainable concept. On the other hand, it would be equally possible following a thorough review and relevant amendments that incorporation into domestic law in the four UK jurisdictions could be completed.”

Will you say a bit more on that? Thus far, the tone has been, “This will be a disaster.” What would be a more positive approach that would enable a degree of scrutiny and accountability for not only parliamentarians but the people whom we represent? Will you kick off, Mr Clancy?

I will be brief, because I know that we have to wind up at some point.

To follow on from the Eurovision comment, there is the whole issue of film and broadcast media. Broadcast media are fantastic at telling us what is happening now. However, we had a humanitarian emergency fund meeting last week, and I am wondering whether there is a space for more stories of the people who are helped by the fund or of what is happening next. That is partly about communicating culture. People are still creating drama and documentaries. Is there scope for our broadcast media in Scotland, such as the BBC, Channel 4 and STV, to do more work in that regard to communicate those stories, both in Scotland and more broadly?

I would add, as a postscript, that thousands of Ukrainians already live in Scotland, so could we create opportunities for people who are skilled in that sector and have those language skills? Could we make those connections?