 The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on Scottish Government response to the section 35 order judicial review. Members will be aware that some of the content of the statement is in the public domain following media coverage. I have received a letter of apology from the Deputy First Minister and it is appropriate that an apology is made to the chamber. Members, I would be grateful if I could make my remarks. I have received a letter of apology from the Deputy First Minister and it is appropriate that an apology is made to the chamber. Ministers are answerable and accountable to the Parliament for their actions in their ministerial capacities and it is essential that members, as elected representatives of the people of Scotland, have the first opportunity to hold ministers to account and for that reason announcements must be made here first. Having considered the content of the statement, I consider it important that I allow it to go ahead in part and I would invite the Cabinet Secretary to focus on those matters that are not already in the public domain. The Cabinet Secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary. Before I begin my statement, let me respond to your comments. Media speculation on the decision in relation to section 35 is deeply disappointing and regretful. I am aware that the Deputy First Minister responded to direct questions put to her and, while she did not confirm or deny of the Scottish Government intended to appeal the decision, she recognised that the Government's position was inferred by the comments made. She and Noey meant to pre-empt the statement today and I know that she has written to you to apologise for comments she made in response to the direct questions put to her in interviews on the budget. I would also like to apologise to you and the chamber for the discussions between myself and your office, Presiding Officer. It did lead to the late arrival to Opposition spokespeople for which I genuinely apologise for that. Let me now return to my reduced statement. One year ago, the Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill after much discussion and careful consideration. Not everyone agreed with the bill, some strongly opposed it, but the will of the Parliament was clear. Two thirds of the chamber voted to pass the bill with all members of all parties voting in favour. Within four weeks, the Secretary of State for Scotland blocked its submission for royal assent with the first-ever use of a section 35 order. The Scottish ministers petitioned for a judicial review as it was clear to us that allowing this unprecedented veto and a decision of this Parliament to go unchallenged would undermine the Holyrood's democratic will and, by extension, the will of the people that we are sent here to represent. First, let me be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government remains committed to supporting and empowering the LGBTQI plus community, including trans people. We will continue to build on our work across government to strengthen this. We work closely with the LGBTQI plus stakeholder group and third sector organisations to ensure that the voices of those with lived experience help to improve outcomes for those communities. We are also delivering the non-binary equality action plan to improve conditions for non-binary community in Scotland, and the plan includes actions already under way such as meaningfully including non-binary people in decision making. We remain committed to consulting on an ending conversion practices in Scotland for both sexual orientation and gender identity, and detailed proposals for legislative change will be published early in the new year. Conversion practices that aim to change or suppress a person's sexual orientation or gender identity are damaging and destructive acts that violate the human rights of those who undergo them. We remain committed to our work with NHS Scotland to improve access to and delivery of gender identity healthcare. We are working closely with people with lived experience, organisations representing trans people and NHS Scotland to implement the actions in the 2021 NHS Gender Identity Services strategic action framework. We have established a national gender identity healthcare reference group and commissioned a range of work, including robust collation and reporting of waiting times, a transgender healthcare knowledge and skills framework with training opportunities for NHS Scotland staff, a programme of research on long-term health outcomes for people who access gender identity healthcare and the development of national standards for accessing and delivery of gender identity healthcare. This work is well under way. We are also delivering the recommendations of the LGBTI inclusive education working group. The implementation group has, in partnership with COSLA, promoted effective delivery of LGBTI inclusive education in all Scottish schools, engaging with young people to seek their views and experience and are delivering improved learning environments for all children and young people. Before the end of the parliamentary year, we will bring forward a new human rights bill for Scotland. Let me now turn to the gender recognition reform bill specifically. The bill's reforms remain the Government's policy and, as we can see from the cross-party support for the bill, they remain what this Parliament would like to see enacted. However, the UK Government's intervention means that the bill cannot proceed to royal assent. It remains a bill passed by the majority of this Parliament and we will not be withdrawing it. There is a strong indication that any diversion of approach would be unacceptable to the UK Government, as Alistair Jack stated in the Westminster Parliament. In short, two different regimes create adverse effects. It is therefore impossible to see how progress can be made, particularly when the rules of this Parliament require that amendments at reconsideration stage are consistent with the bill's general principles, as agreed at stage 1. Nonetheless, our offer is still there. If the current UK Government is willing to work together on this, we will happily sit down with it. If a future UK Government is willing, we will do so with it, so that section 35 could be lifted and the bill progresses. It seems clear that the current Government will not do this and it remains to be seen what a future Government will do. Parliamentary discussion of the Scotland Act shows that section 35 power was always intended as a long stop or last resort and one that would never be needed. It was envisaged that the UK Government should raise issues at an early stage and that the two Governments should seek to resolve them. That is in black and white both in those devolution debates in the Westminster Parliament in 1998 and in the memorandum of understanding between Governments, but that is not how the Secretary of State for Scotland used the power. It is the Scottish Government's view that this UK Government and the Secretary of State see section 35 as a veto that it can apply to any legislation passed by this chamber that it disagrees with. To ignore the memorandum of understanding sets a very worrying precedent for the democratic powers of this Parliament. Regardless of people's views and opinions on gender recognition, that is a very worrying place for our Parliament to be. Due to the enchansagence of current UK Government, I am confident that any repetition of our offer to seek compromise would again be rebuffed. We will therefore focus on working with an incoming UK Government, which we hope will have more respect for devolution and is willing to work together, even when at some times we disagree. I recognise that many trans people will be disappointed by this decision. To them, I say this. The Scottish Government will never waver in our commitment to your rights. You deserve to be respected, included and supported. You are not a threat and you will always be able to live your lives free from prejudice and abuse and the type of Scotland that we all want to see. We will continue to work towards a society that is equal and fair and where people can live as they are, just as we will continue to protect the democratic powers of this Scotland's Parliament. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I will be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request to speak buttons. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments in relation to the late arrival of the statement. When Nicola Sturgeon said last year that this debate would be over by Christmas, I do not think that she meant this Christmas. The Scottish Conservatives repeatedly told the SNP Government that the gender recognition reform bill was fundamentally flawed. We warned all along that this would happen, but the SNP Government did not listen. Instead, they have spent time and taxpayers' money on a doomed legal battle to revive laws that the majority of the Scottish public do not want. Laws that undermine the rights and safety of women, girls and vulnerable young people. Women's groups were ignored throughout this whole debate, and I am delighted that their hard-fought campaign has been won. However, this whole debacle leaves the SNP's relationship with the Greens and Tatters. I am wondering whether the Greens will follow through on their threats and quit the Government after the announcement today. It might be a lot better for Scotland if they did. Cabinet secretary, we know that self-id has been a failed experiment that the Scottish public oppose. Can she outline whether lessons have been learned and if so, can she reassure women's groups that their concerns will be listened to in the future to prevent this sorry saga from ever happening again? I thank Meghan Gallacher for her question and the way for which she took my apology. I know that she and I have many crossed words, including yesterday, but I appreciate the way that she has responded to my remarks today. However, there were not amendments at stage 3 that would have prevented, I do not think, the secretary of state from taking a section 35 order. The reason I say that is because, as I mentioned in my original statement, he has been clear that he is concerned about a divergence and two systems being within the United Kingdom. On that basis, it is genuinely difficult to see how we could have a bill that could be approved by the secretary of state and in this UK Government. When it comes to listening to diverging opinions on this, I know that I appreciate in this Parliament and in wider society that there are a range of opinions on this issue. I fully appreciate that, but those were listened to. We may not clearly have agreed with those, but many ministers met groups that both agreed and disagreed with where the bill got to, and there were, of course, two public consultations. I would say, as well, on this issue, that this legal judgment is about, is about the use of section 35. The judgment does not take any position on the gender recognition bill itself and the merits thereof. That is why the Government will not be withdrawing the bill. I call Paul O'Kane. I add my disappointment to the late sight of the statement, but I also accept what the cabinet secretary has said in mitigation. From the beginning of the process of gender recognition reform in Scotland until now, six years down the line, Scottish Labour has striven to ensure that the gender recognition reform legislation is progressive and updates the system whilst upholding rights and protections for everyone. We sought to engage all parties, including the Government, from the beginning, raising potential issues, offering amendments and seeking repeated assurances that the legislation was secure in law. Indeed, the cabinet secretary will recall my own amendments this time last year and previous questions that I have raised on issues such as section 104 meetings between both Governments and calls to see the Government's legal advice. Ultimately, I recognise that this will be a difficult day for many people, simplifying the process for gender recognition has not moved forward, and I welcome the cabinet secretary outlining what further action the Government will take to support trans people in Scotland—something that I have been keen to raise each time we have had the opportunity to discuss the issue. I would appreciate in her answer if she would further outline how activity across Government will be co-ordinated so as to measure improvements particularly in healthcare. I recognise too that many women feel that the debate has dismissed their concerns and indeed a common view that the debate has become too polarised. The cabinet secretary has essentially said that the bill will remain in limbo after the smoke from the court wrangling between the two Governments clears. I also heard what the cabinet secretary said about willingness to try and work together. Does she recognise that the court has judged that the bill modifies the law as it applies to reserve matters? What analysis has the Government carried out in light of those parts of the judgment that could form the basis for any future dialogue with the UK Government on moving the process forward? I thank Paul O'Kane for his questions. With relation to the aspects on health, that is a very important issue that I recognise for the trans community and something that the Government has been working on already for some time. I think that it is important that I recommit the Government to that today. I have spoken about the gender identity services and the strategic action framework. That describes how we are working to improve access to and delivery of NHS gender identity services. Importantly, I think that we will continue, I know, to work with those, with lived experience to ensure that matters are improved for them, not just in the healthcare sector but in other aspects as well. He mentioned section 104. That is clearly a very different process and a technical process to ensure that bills can work correctly. Unfortunately, that would not have got a doubt of the situation again that we are in at the moment, because, as I said, already the Secretary of State has made his position clear on having two different systems, but we will continue to work with any Government on that issue. I think that it is very important that, right across Government, we work together to ensure that we are supporting the trans community in everything that we do, as well as continuing the work in delivering equally safe to protect women's rights and to protect them from violence, intimidation and discrimination. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This time last year, the majority of MSPs in this chamber voted to respect the right of trans women and men to self-identify in accordance with their human rights. The intervention of the UK Government to block this has defied the democracy of this Parliament and shattered the trans community. Can the Cabinet Secretary expand on the decision taken by the Government following the legal advice? It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the legal advice that the Government receives, but the judgment not to appeal or the decision not to appeal has not been an easy one. We have of course reflected on that legal advice and the policy advice covering a wide range of factors. I know that the legal process, the ongoing scrutiny that it brings, has taken its toll on the trans community. It is the Government's opinion that the worst possible outcome would be to draw this out still further and still not to be able to have a bill to enact. We want to avoid that outcome, and that is the reason why the Government has come to the decision that it has. When announcing the intention to take the UK Government to court eight months ago, the cabinet secretary told Parliament that they were very keen to be transparent as possible on the matter. Although the Scottish Government has abandoned this legal battle against the UK Government, can the cabinet secretary now say whether or not the Government will publish legal advice? Given that the Scottish Government has spent over £230,000 of taxpayers' money on the failed court action so far, will the Government also publish what estimated costs would have occurred by the Government if it had challenged its rolling? As I have already said, the Government does not publish its legal advice. Will the UK Government publish its legal advice about the court decision? It is a bit hypocritical for the member to suggest that the Scottish Government publishes advice, but I do not think that he would make the same call on the UK Government. Gently, when it comes to wasting public money on court cases, the UK Government has spent more than £2 million on a case to ensure that it can take some of the most vulnerable people—you might find this funny, Scottish Conservatives, but I certainly do not—to take some of the most vulnerable in our society, those who are persecuted right across the world and send them to Rwanda. It was worth £2 million, and you have the hypocrisy to come to this chamber and criticise the Scottish Government for standing up to the powers of this Parliament. It is a shame that Scottish Conservatives have once again shown that they have no interest in defending this Parliament or democracy, but are quite happy to defend the Rwandan policy on immigration. I want to acknowledge the harm that this arduous process, particularly the UK Government veto and court ruling, has had on trans people, their families and their friends. Can the cabinet secretary update the chamber on the significant impact that the section 35 order has had on devolution after being used in this way? Well, I think that Karen Adam is quite right to point out one day impact on the trans community in Scotland, but also, importantly, to talk about the impact on devolution. That is exactly why the Scottish Government took this case in the first place, because we recognised that the UK Government has, unfortunately, now a record of attempting to undermine devolution. This judgment absolutely is about how the section 35 was used with respect to the gender recognition, but it is important that we continue in the future also to challenge on section 35 orders. I accept the judgment. I accept that section 35 is part of the devolution process, but to have that being used in the way that it has is a worrying precedent for anyone that is genuinely interested in Scottish democracy. There is an emerging pattern of interference. There were no deliberate breaches, for example, of the Seoul Convention for the first 20 years of devolution. Since 2018, we have now seen it breached 11 times. That is what happens when power goes unfettered, and that is why we will continue the challenge of the UK Government if we choose to do so in the future on any section 35 that comes ahead. Clare Baker, to be followed by John Mason. A year on from the passing of this legislation, which is a sorry and salutary tale for the Scottish Government, it needs to accept and reflect on its level of responsibility, not just for this failed piece of legislation, but how its actions influence wider discussion on this complex and sensitive issue. In her discussion of upcoming work, the cabinet secretary did not refer to the upcoming cast review final report. Can I ask what plans the Scottish Government is making to respond to the cast review final report, which was due in the new year? Can I also ask if the national gender identity healthcare reference group is considering the delivery of gender identity healthcare for children and young people? I thank Clare Baker for her questions. I think that there is something that we all need to reflect on with the section 35 and the judgment on how this Parliament is treated. Regardless of how people's views were on gender recognition, there is an on-going issue that we now have over how section 35 has been ordered. Yes, clearly the Government will reflect. I would suggest that there is a time for reflection for all of us on this. On the cast review, the member will be aware that the on-going findings of the cast review and the implementation by NHS England are being closely considered by the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland. I would be happy to write to the member or, indeed, to get the minister more deeply involved in that, to write to the member on the specifics of that issue. The cabinet secretary knows that I was and am opposed to the bill, but Westminster should not be interfering in what is rightly Scotland's business. Is the cabinet secretary concerned that future UK Governments may just use a veto just because they do not like our legislation? I think that this is one of the examples where the member on a high refers to having completely opposing views on the gender recognition bill, but he is quite right to point to the significance for this on devolution itself. That was rightly also focused on by Mark Drakeford when he said that the UK Government's decision to use the powers that have never been used in the history of devolution is a very dangerous moment. The point that I was trying to make to Claire Baker earlier on is that this is a turning point in devolution and it is up to all of us to reflect on what we do about that. The Government has taken this matter to court. We absolutely, as I said, accept the judgment of the court on this and will not appeal, but I do think that there is a worrying habit, can I put it, that the UK Government has about interfering in devolution, and I do fear that that habit may increase in the future. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to be followed by Evelyn Tweed. This bill commanded support from members of all five parties across this chamber, because it sought to allow trans people to be recognised for who they are without trauma in the legal architecture that underpins their lives. Many trans people suffer discrimination in Sigma every day. This process will have harmed them further and left them feeling let down and exposed. That is a great shame, and a humane approach to gender recognition is a problem that remains unresolved. They are now looking to us for meaningful progress against the other barriers that stand between them and equality, such as a ban on conversion therapy and ready access to trans inclusive healthcare. The cabinet secretary touched on some of those in her remarks, but to reassure those watching us today who are hurting, will she commit to a meaningful timeline of action and regular reporting to Parliament on each of those areas? Absolutely. Alex Cole-Hamilton is quite right to begin his remarks by saying that trans people simply want to be accepted for who they are. We should all be able to say that about all of our members of society. I appreciate that they feel let down, they feel exposed and they will feel vulnerable. There is a responsibility. I feel very heavily on me and my Government to ensure that we move forward with whatever we can do right across Government on this issue. I give one example of that. We have already discussed healthcare, but I give one example again on conversion therapy. We had fully intended to have that consultation out on the end in conversion practices bill by the end of the year, but we listened to stakeholders' concerns, both from faith groups and from LGBT groups, about the fact that they wished that to be in the new year, particularly because there is a time over Christmas and the new year that people may be feeling particularly vulnerable and may not have support services available. That consultation is ready. It is absolutely ready to be launched right at the beginning of the new year when Parliament returns. He has my absolute assurance on that that the minister will be taking that forward in due course. Either she or I would be happy to meet the member to discuss that in further detail. We have much interest. I would be grateful if we could have short and concise questions and responses to get as many members in as possible. I call Evelyn Tweet to be followed by Russell Finlay. Following the court's decision on the use of section 35 to block the GRR bill, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that devolution is fundamentally flawed and that only full independence can ensure that Scotland's democratic decisions are implemented? I hear groans from that, and they affirm that once again. Let me be very clear, Presiding Officer. If the Scottish Conservatives do not want the conclusion to be that we need independence to ensure that the will of the Scottish Parliament is recognised, they also have to reflect on the fact that section 35 is a part of the devolutionary set-up. However, how it is used is very important to how this Parliament feels it is being treated and the respect that this Parliament is given. Anyone who is interested in getting devolution to work, which allegedly the Scottish Conservatives do, would also want to reflect on the use of section 35 as it goes forward and prove us wrong. Prove that there is a way to get devolution to work, because until then, the member is quite correct that only with independence will we have Scotland's democratic decisions implemented. Women across Scotland were told that their views were not valid. I applaud their hard-won victory with the SNP's dangerous GRR bill in the bin where it belongs. However, I would like the cabinet secretary to explain why female prisoners are still being used as guinea pigs in the SNP's gender self-id experiment. Why should the most vulnerable women in society be told to accept that a rapist like Isla Bryson or any other male-bodied sex criminal is a woman? Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, this bill is not in the bin and it awaits an incoming UK Government that has more respect for devolution. I also point out to Russell Findlay that the examples that he gives are under a gender recognition certificate process that is there throughout the UK and that is also there for many, many years. What has happened within the Scottish Prison Service has nothing to do with gender recognition certificates and he should not conflate the issues. He will also be well aware of the recent Scottish Prison Service policy on this and I would refer him if he is genuinely interested in the safety of women and transgender prisoners to look at that in detail. Maggie Chapman, to be followed by Ash Regan. The court ruling 12 days ago came as a bitter blow to trans people across Scotland. I know many of them are feeling very hurt and vulnerable right now and they now have to wait indefinitely for the reforms that the legislation we passed here overwhelmingly 12 months ago would have delivered. Trans people are targets just because of who they are. Given that their lives have been and continue to be weaponised as part of a toxic culture war, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give to trans people who need some hope, some clear demonstration that they matter and that we value them? I thank Maggie Chapman for her question and put on record my thanks to her for all the work that she has done on this issue over the years and I look forward to continuing to work with her as we move forward to protect and enhance the trans rights. It is very important that we provide the reassurances that she asks for. I hope that my words today in some way go to reflect my concern over the trans community's vulnerability at this difficult time and the Government's commitment on this issue. I call Ash Regan to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Last year, the Scottish Government told us that it is just a small admin change. It grants no new rights. It does not interfere with the operation of the Equality Act. Safeguards are not required. No evidence of harm to women, all of which were wrong. This sorry and sad episode has created a culture where women were dismissed as transphobes and bigots. The Scottish Government failed in its duty to analyse the potential impact on women and they misled this Parliament. They must provide clarity on next steps, as this bill must never be implemented. I renew my calls for the Government to apologise, as their conduct has fatally undermined public trust in Government and they have no one to blame for that but themselves. I would say to the member that although the Scottish Government introduced this bill, it was passed by Parliament. This is now Parliament's bill and this Government will protect the will of Parliament in any way that we can. As I have said before, this judgment was about how the section 35 was used with respect to GRR. It did not discuss the merits of the bill itself and it is very important that those two items are not conflated. I fully welcome the Scottish Government's on-going commitment to LGBTQ people and hope that the trans community will be offered their relevant support in the days and weeks following those events. Can the cabinet secretary share further information on the reason behind the Government's decision not to appeal? As I have laid out already in some of my answers, the decision for that was one for the Government taking a view of not just the legal advice but the policy advice that we had. Reflecting on that and reflecting on our views that to carry that process on would impact again negatively on the trans community. We feared that the bill, because of the Secretary of State for Scotland's transagence on the issue, would still not be able to pass. It is for those reasons that we chose not to appeal. The Scottish Conservatives warned time and time again that the SNP green gender self-id bill threatened women's single sex spaces. That was proven by the case of Isla Bryson and would have impacted on equality laws right across the United Kingdom. If the SNP was so caring of the impact of its GRR bill on vulnerable women, why did it vote against those key amendments? I fully respect that the member and I have very different opinions on this bill. I appreciate that there are different views on this bill. However, I am very firm once again on my opinion that we can improve the rights of trans people in our society—one of the most vulnerable and marginalised groups in our society—while ensuring that we protect women's rights as well. I would make the point that there are no amendments that came forward at stage 3, even if the Government had accepted all of them, that would have prevented at stage 35, based on the Secretary of State firmly believing, as he has said in the House of Commons, that he does not believe in having two systems within the United Kingdom. On that basis, that is where we run into an intractable problem, but that is why we will continue, yes, to support trans rights, but also always to support women's rights and protect women from discrimination. I call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Douglas Ross. Regardless of the various views of the General Recreation Reform Bill, I think that we can all agree that it did not quite work out as intended. Indeed, it has left sour relationships across multiple groups in our society. Our job is simple to scrutinise and pass good, competent law at best value to the public purse. With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary outline what specific review processes the Scottish Government plans to undertake on its role and the outcome that we have here today? I would say to the member that we are in danger of conflating a judgment that was based on the use of the section 35 order on gender recognition bill, on the merits of the gender recognition bill itself. The bill, as it was passed by the vast majority of this Parliament, remains a bill that the Government would like to see implemented. Of course we will reflect on that judgment, of course we will, but we will also very important reflect on the use of the section 35 order and how that impacts on the devolutionary process, because that is what the judgment was all about. Douglas Ross. The cabinet secretary has spoken a lot today about diverging views and having respect. Many women and girls oppose the SNP green legislation to protect their rights and safety. Therefore, on behalf of the Scottish Government, will she thank them for everything she did during the course of the passage of this bill for standing up for those freedoms? There were obviously diverging views within the Scottish Conservatives on this bill, as well as members of Douglas Ross's group voted for it, and the majority I accept voted against. What I would say is that every single member of this Parliament—I have no doubt, Presiding Officer—respects the rights of women and respects their needs for protection against discrimination and violence. That is something that this Government and this Parliament have already demonstrated on many occasions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. That concludes the ministerial statement. Throughout the previous statement, the cabinet secretary made reference to the fact that there were no amendments presented at stage 3 that would have not resulted in diversions from UK legislation. There were, but they were presented in my name. I thank Ms Webber for her contribution. I do not believe that it is a point of order, but it is on the record. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the Trusts and Successions Scotland Bill. I will allow a couple of minutes for front benches to organise themselves.