 The next item of business is topical questions, and if a member wishes to request a supplementary, they should press the request-to-speak button during the relevant question or enter the letter's RTS in the chat function if online, and at question number one I call Megan Gallagher. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to appeal the decision of the Court of Session that UK Government acted lawfully when enacting a section 35 order in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform, Scotland Bill. We note the judgment and will consider its terms. Devolution is fundamentally flawed if the UK Government is able to override the democratic wishes of the Scottish Parliament and veto our laws at the stroke of a pen. The Scottish Parliament passed this bill with a large majority, including members of all parties. It's not really an answer on the timeframe, though, is it, Cabinet Secretary? SNP ministers were warned on multiple occasions that their gender self-id bill threatens the protection for women and girls in Scotland. However, the SNP ignored our warnings. The scandal of the double-rapist Islay Bryson proved that predatory men will try to exploit self-identification to gain access to vulnerable women's spaces, but the SNP plowed on regardless and took the UK Government to court to get this bill enacted. Does the cabinet secretary think that the £230,000 wasted on this court challenge was money well spent? Until ministers make a decision on the appeal, those are still live legal proceedings, and it does restrict what I can say on the matter. With reference to some of the examples that the member gives, I point out that that is under the current gender recognition act, as passed by Westminster, and appropriate right the way through the United Kingdom. On the matter of the issues that were debated at Parliament, I point out that at no point did the UK Government suggest, threaten or even approach the subject of a section 35 being ordered as the bill went through Parliament. It was subject to two consultations in public and a very large amount of parliamentary scrutiny. While the Government is disappointed with the judgment, we will take time to reflect on that, and we will come back with our decision on the appeal in due course. On the timeframe, there is no answer on the amount of money that the bill has already cost the taxpayer. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that the SNP's gender bill remains unpopular, with each of its provisions, such as letting 16-year-olds change their legal gender, being opposed by a large majority of the public. When it comes to wasting further taxpayers' money with a potential court appeal, will the cabinet secretary be listening to the public and ditch this bill for good, or will she be in favour of her green coalition partners, who want to spend endless amounts of public money getting this flawed bill enacted instead? I am sure that Meghan Gallagher must be aware that the costs are already in the public domain because I answered a parliamentary question on it, so we are certainly not hiding anything on the costs to date. The reason why this was an important legal challenge and it was not a decision that we took lightly, we considered it very carefully, but there is an emerging pattern of interference in devolved matters by the UK Government. The routinely now ignore constitutional convention that the UK Parliament will not legislate for devolved issues without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In 2021, the UK Government of course referred the UNCRC incorporation bill to the Supreme Court. It has now ignored legislative consent decisions of this Parliament on several occasions such as the European Union Withdrawal Act, the UK Internal Market Act, the Professional Qualifications Act and the Subsidy Control Act. There are also several instances in which the UK Government has refused to acknowledge the Scottish Parliament's view that legislative consent is required, such as the Nationality and Borders Act. As we have seen with the breaches of the sole convention, once this sort of intervention has happened, the UK Government will find it easier to justify using this power again and further erode devolution. The Government makes no apologies for standing up to the power of the Scottish Parliament. The next supplementary question will be from Karen Adam. I agree with the cabinet secretary that the court of session ruling was a demonstration of the fundamental flaws of devolution. A equal note last Friday will have been disappointing and traumatic for many. Will the Scottish Government give an unequivocal commitment to continue to do all that it can to support the community? What assurances can the cabinet secretary give today that any decision in relation to the ruling will be treated with the utmost sensitivity? The section 35 order raises very serious questions about devolution, as I have said in my previous answers, but we acknowledge the specific impact on the chance community has had. Yesterday, I had a series of calls with LGBTQI and women's organisations and I heard about the disappointment and dismay in the trans community. I want to be very clear that, no matter what happens with this legal challenge, the Scottish Government remains committed to the LGBQTI equality. That is why we are taking forward legislation on ending conversion practices in Scotland, why we have published our non-binary action plan and why we are taking forward steps to improve access to NHS gender identity services. I am very grateful. When the cabinet secretary made a statement to Parliament in April outlining the intent to take the suggestion, I asked her about the wider supports for trans people in the intervening period because a vacuum is created in any legal process. She said at that time that although the Government viewed the bill as important, it was not the only area that they are working on to support the trans community in Scotland. Can she update the chamber further in terms of what is being done to support trans people right now and in any further intervening period before the Government takes the decision? I thank Paul O'Kane for that question and he did quite rightly raise the wider and varied concerns of the trans community when we discussed this item in the chamber previously. I mentioned some of those aspects in my answer to Karen Adam around the non-binary action plan, which was a very important piece of work that has been undertaken by my colleague Emma Roddick. We are absolutely committed to taking forward that end-of-conversion practices bill before the end of the year. We are very keen to make sure that we are moving forward on this and particularly around aspects around health services, where I know that there are a number of concerns in the trans community. We have started to see improvements there, but there is still much more work to do. The Court judgment has vindicated the concerns of women's rights campaigners that the gender reform bill would negatively impact on the operation of the Equality Act and therefore on the protections for women and girls. Now that the Government has been forced to face the folly of their position, will they take this timely opportunity to apologise to women's rights campaigners for dismissing their concerns as not valid? Clearly, all the way through the passage of the two consultations and of the bill, there were meetings with a varied number of groups who supported the bill, those who supported the bill's but suggested changes and those who were vehemently opposed to it. I would point out to the member that the judgment, although it was based on the gender recognition, is around the aspects around the section 35 order, which quite frankly draws a corch in horses through the devolutionary process. That is something that I am disappointed that the member is not more concerned about. 86 MSPs from across the political spectrum supported the underlying aims and principles of the bill. Just as equally there are many who undoubtedly would not support any form of change to gender reform in legislation, but given that many of us who did support those principles did so under firm reassurances from ministers that the legal advice they had sought was sound, can I ask if it would now seem prudent for the Government to make some of that legal advice public if nothing else to demonstrate that it acted in good faith with Parliament? Clearly neither the Scottish Government or UK Government routinely published their legal advice, so this is not something that is a special significance to the Scottish Government, but also exactly the same process that the UK Government would hold to as we have discussed the section 35 order. What I would say to Jamie Greene is that he is quite right to point out that there were differing views as that passed through, but it did pass through Parliament. This is a bill that passed through with the consent of the large majority of MSPs, including people from all parties, and it is disappointing that the voice of the Scottish Parliament has been vetoed at this nature. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the letter from the UK foreign secretary to Scotland's constitution secretary, what its response is to reports that the UK Government may withdraw foreign commonwealth and development office support for Scottish Government overseas meetings? I will be helpful to the member and to the chamber to provide some background and context. In April, the former foreign secretary James cleverly wrote to me and issued inaccurate and misleading guidance to UK overseas missions regarding the Scottish Government's international engagements. I wrote him as to cleverly seeking agreement and consultation on how the guidance could be amended or withdrawn. I did not receive or reply. I then received another letter from Mr cleverly in October raising the matter of meeting between the First Minister and the Prime Minister of Iceland. This letter also contained inaccuracies and I wrote back to Mr cleverly, but again I did not receive or reply. This week I received yet another letter, this time from the new foreign secretary, Lord David Cameron, including the threat referenced by Dr Alasdair Allan. This is all the most surprising, as Lord Cameron had a few days earlier cancelled a meeting that we were due to have this week to discuss these issues. Scottish Government's only interest in pursuing our international work is promoting Scotland's interests. Yesterday we published detailed evidence setting out the way that the Scottish Government international offices support trade, jobs and vital business connections. The report also refers in positive terms to the working relationship with the FCDO in overseas posts and I look forward both to continuing to promote Scotland's interests and to working with the UK Government counterparts. I thank the cabinet secretary. The Framers of the Scotland Act were clear that the reservation of international relations does not have the effect of precluding the Scottish ministers and officials from communicating with other countries, regions or international or European institutions, so long as the representatives of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish ministers do not purport to speak for the United Kingdom or to reach agreements that commit the UK. Can the Scottish Government confirm that it would seem that the Government here is being accused of not respecting the devolved settlement for clarity? Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the First Minister or indeed any other minister has purported to commit the UK to any international agreement? First, Dr Allan was quoting from the explanatory notes around the Scotland Act, so it is a statement of fact in his question. In answer to the question specifically, no Scottish Government minister has or would purport to speak for the United Kingdom or to reach agreements that commit the UK. In fact, I asked James Cleverley for any examples of such a thing. He said that he had none. We invite FCDO officials to attend our formal meetings. It is impossible to predict where and when informal meetings will happen during large-scale events such as COP28. To threaten Scotland's interests on the basis of these discussions, arranged at pace, is ridiculous. The engagement that Scotland undertakes with our international partners plays a key role in helping to attract inward investment and to promote brand Scotland. That is now being threatened by an unelected Lord for the sake of the UK's politics of insecurity and petulance. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, regardless of one's view on the constitution, anyone who cares about the standing of this Parliament should recognise and call out this attempt at muscling Scotland's elected institutions? Anyone in doubt of the benefits of our work overseas should take a look at the report on the work of Scotland's international network, which highlights the real benefits being delivered to Scotland now. Trying to limit that work will only reduce the opportunities for Scottish businesses, cultural organisations and individuals and, in so doing, impact negatively on the lives of us all. While the Scottish ministers clearly have a role to play in promoting Scotland abroad, that should never infringe on the devolution settlement, which of course reserves foreign affairs to the UK Government and by meeting with President Erdogan of all people to discuss foreign policy, namely the situation in the Middle East, the First Minister acted against both the spirit and letter of an established protocol that requires FCDO official attendance and is crucially a requirement that applies equally to UK ministers as it does to Scottish ministers. Given that his Government's own annual report highlighted a number of good examples of joint international working by officials from Scotland's two Governments, where FCDO support has been critical, will he now give a firm commitment that all future Scottish Government meetings with overseas officials will have a representative from the Foreign Office present? Donald Cameron has brought up the letter of the law. The Scotland Act states very clearly. Let me quote again to the chamber what it says. The reservation of international relations does not have the effect of precluding the Scottish ministers and officials from communicating with other countries, regions or international or European institutions so long as the representatives of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish ministers do not purport to speak for the United Kingdom or to reach agreements which commit the UK. I have always been happy to be accompanied by representatives of the UK embassies or high commissions whenever I undertake international meetings. That is the position of the Scottish Government. Unfortunately, the FCDO officials sometimes do not make themselves available. Thank you. That concludes the Topical Questions.