I will come on to Michelle Thomson’s amendment 39 in a second, but I absolutely take the point. Whether it is in our court processes or any other processes, we have come on in leaps and bounds in how victims are treated. Obviously, the courts are independent of politicians, but victims should be treated with respect and should not be further traumatised.

I want to make a little bit of progress.

Although I believe, based on all the evidence from other countries, that the likelihood of so-called bad actors seeking to abuse the process is very low, I have listened to members seeking reassurance and therefore propose a proportionate approach to provide useful safeguards based on assessment and management of risk in individual cases. I do not think that it is a bad thing that we have listened.

I can only say that it was a risk because it would then depend on the action that was taken in a court process, but we have been here before with legislation when ministers have been very clear to Parliament that an amendment is either outwith competence or is in danger of breaching ECHR, and we have ended up in court because of those issues.

All that I can say to members is that I am trying to be as honest as I can about the potential implications of some of those amendments. I set those out in the letter for the avoidance of any doubt.

I want to be clear that this is an issue that Parliament needs to look at at some point, because there is no requirement for amendments to be within legislative competence. There is a requirement for bills to be within legislative competence, but the Parliament does not look at the legislative competence of amendments; it leaves that to the Government. As the minister in the Government who is responsible for this bill, I am telling members that there are issues and risks associated with the amendments.

I was going to come on to the detail of that in group 13, because there we get more directly into some of the issues that have been raised around these amendments. The letter—which I understand was given to members of the press, as some of it was reported—essentially looks at a number of areas of competence under ECHR: article 8, on the right to private life; article 14, on protection from discrimination; and so on. I intended to go into more detail on that under group 13.

I should also say, of course, that it is not my opinion. I am not a lawyer. I have to go by what the law officers tell me in terms of the legal advice that I am given. I am not at liberty to share the detail of that advice and can only share the generality.

I presume that Brian Whittle is referring to someone who poses a risk. If someone is on the sex offenders register and the police believe that there is a risk that that person may misuse a GRC for nefarious purposes or that they are applying fraudulently because they have no intention of living in the acquired gender, then, as I have set out, the amendments will prevent that person from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Under the current system, which has been in place for 20 years, there is no such impediment to someone on the sex offenders register obtaining a gender recognition certificate. The amendments will put into the process additional safeguards that are not currently in place.

I say to the member that that is of some interest to the UK Government, which may also be considering that.

I cannot support amendment 22. As we have said, we have made a clear commitment to introducing regulations before the bill comes into force.

No thanks.

Those regulations will expand the existing sex offender notification requirements to include notification of having made an application for gender recognition, which is what amendment 22 seeks to do. It is more appropriate to make that change through the regulation-making powers that are already available. As I have said before, that will provide the outcome that people want of a risk-based approach that is proportionate, legal and compatible with ECHR. I urge members to support the amendments in my name and that of Gillian Martin.

The member says that the issue of ECHR compatibility has been pulled out of the hat late in the day. Will he acknowledge that, at every stage of the process, including in all the meetings and at stage 2, I made it very clear that there were issues with his amendments around ECHR compatibility?

As I have said, I cannot disclose legal advice, and members of Parliament understand why that is the case. However, I can reiterate that the provision opens the bill to challenge on the basis that it relates to matters that are reserved by the immigration and nationality reservation in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which is why the provision could be found to be outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I am sorry, but I do not believe that a bill’s being challenged would be a good outcome, because it would delay the passing of legislation. Bills in the Scottish Parliament have ended up in that position, and I do not think that delaying legislation being passed is a good outcome. At this stage, if we know that that is a risk, then it is incumbent upon us, as legislators, not to take that risk.

I will make another point to Paul Sweeney. I am sure that he will fully understand the politics of the situation. The UK Government has been making it very clear, to anyone who will listen, that because it does not agree with the bill, its intention is to go through it line by line to look for opportunities to challenge it—as others will. The question for members in the Scottish Parliament who support the bill is whether they want to risk that. I support the bill and I do not want to risk it not succeeding.

There will be members who do not support the bill who would be quite happy to risk it. I appeal to members who support the bill not to put it at risk. I cannot be clearer.