 That concludes the debate on petition 1865, suspend all surgical mesh and fixation devices, it's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is an urgent question, and I call Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Secretary of State for Scotland making an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament's gender recognition reform Scotland bill from proceeding to royal assent. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. The decision by the UK Government to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the gender recognition reform bill, which was passed with an overwhelming majority from proceeding to royal assent, is a dark day for trans rights and a dark day for democracy. I question why the UK Government has chosen for the very first time a section 35 order against the clear will of this Parliament on an issue within this Parliament's competence, rather than, for example, a section 33 if there were issues with reference to reserve matters, and I question what the implications are for future legislation of this Parliament. The Secretary of State says that he wants to find a constructive way forward, but the UK Government had multiple opportunities to provide constructive comments during the extensive consultation on the bill and during its passage, and it did not do so. It does not agree with the bill, so it has blocked it. The decision that it has taken is political and it is a sad day for democracy and for devolution. However, I want to be very clear to all trans people that I know will be incredibly upset by that decision. This Government will seek to uphold the democratic will of this Parliament. As the statement of reasons was only made available just over an hour ago, we will now take time to consider it fully and I will return to Parliament to update on the next steps. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. She is correct, the Scottish Parliament passed the GRR bill by a significant majority, and we did so because we believe that trans people should be able to live, work and die with dignity. That is what this bill is about—it is about dignity, fairness and equality for a marginalised group of trans citizens. The Secretary of State may hide behind legal advice, but the truth is that the Tories at Westminster have proven that they are no friends to trans people. As the architects of the rape clause, we know that they are no friends to women and girls. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that this is a cynical and dangerous power move by an out-of-control UK Government that is determined to wreck the bill at any cost? I agree with that. The strength of the legislation was the fact that it had support from members of all parties. Members from all parties came together to provide and support and improve the bill through the amendments that were made at both stages 2 and 3 of the bill. The truth is that, whether or not the Parliament had passed the legislation in December, this month or February, I fear that we would have always ended up here with a section 35 order. The UK Tory Government does not like this bill, does not want this bill and will do everything to block this bill, but I want to be clear that we will do what we can to uphold the democratic will of this Parliament. I hope that those who supported this bill will work with us and work together in order to achieve that. Monica Lennon Thank you. I was pleased in her original response, the cabinet secretary said out that trans people are at the centre of this and need our support and our friendship at this time. We are seeing political reaction across the UK. Our Labour colleague, the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, rightly today said that this is dangerous, and he has said that this could be a slippery slope in terms of devolution. Many of us are concerned that the UK Government, who are a bad actor in this process, could strike again in terms of other legislation that we seek to pass. It is a direct attack on self-id for trans people, but also on Scottish devolution. What discussions can the Scottish Government have with the UK Government and with other Governments to make sure that we defend our democracy and we defend devolution in Scotland and also defend people's human rights? Monica Lennon Monica Lennon is right to point out that at the centre of this is one of the most marginalised groups in society and this bill was designed in order to make their lives that bit better. That was all. I think that it is quite telling that Mark Drakeford has made the comments that he has about the dangers of this step and the slippery slope that could come from it. Whether it is the setting aside of the Sule convention or other attacks on the devolution and powers of this Parliament and indeed that of Wales, there is clearly a pattern of behaviour here that is there for all to see. And when we hear one of the defences put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland that you cannot have divergent systems in the UK, well that does rather question all of the other divergent systems that this Parliament has put in place to make the lives of people here in Scotland better. So I think that it is very much a slippery slope and as for working with others absolutely I want us to work together across this Parliament but also to reach out and we work with Mark Drakeford and the Welsh Government on a number of issues and I would be pleased to work with him and indeed members within the UK Parliament. I thought that there were some very probing questions to what was a very thin statement with a very late rushed out statement of reasons which actually is also very thin. So I think that we want to work across all those who want to uphold democracy and importantly want to improve the rights for transgender people. Thank you. There are many requests and I'd like to get through as many as possible so concise questions and responses would be helpful in that regard. I call Jo Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, this bill was passed overwhelmingly with a two thirds majority by this Parliament with the support of members from all parties and after months of extensive scrutiny. Six years ago, when the process of the bill started, all parties agreed reform of the Gender Recognition Act was needed, as did the UK Government up until a couple of months ago. At the Equalities and Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, we heard lots and lots of evidence but we did not hear from the UK Government regarding its views on the bill or what changes it wanted. To be clear, in response to Jo Fitzpatrick, the UK Government at no point has raised its concerns with me until a reply was finally received months later to my letter of October last year when I wrote to the UK Government seeking further discussions about cross-border issues. In reply to my letter, there was finally a meeting that was established with Kimmy Badenog the day before stage 3. At that meeting, no mention was made of section 33 or section 35 order being considered. Those are the facts and I think that Parliament will judge for itself whether or not the UK Government has made any efforts to be constructive or not around this bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland has acted on legal advice, taken on the cross-border implications on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. Legal experts arrived at the conclusion that this bill would have consequences for the operation of the UK-wide Equalities Protections. That is a reserved matter that falls outside this Parliament's devolved competence. We have also heard in Westminster Monica Lennon's Labour counterparts agreeing with the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, the Secretary of State has recognised that the intention of this bill is to respect, support and understand the needs of transgender people going through the process of changing their legal sex and has offered to work with the Scottish Government to create a bill that is legally competent and falls within the devolved powers of this Scottish Parliament. Will the cabinet secretary accept his offer? Let's hear Ms Hamilton. Ms Hamilton, I could not hear your question and would be grateful if you could repeat your question. Will the cabinet secretary accept the secretary's offer to work with him? It would have been better had the Secretary of State made contact perhaps at the start of the process rather than through a section 35 order. As I said this morning, I am always up for discussions with the Secretary of State or anyone else, but I thought that it was quite telling that in answer to one of the questions during his statement, the Secretary of State said that there cannot be two different regimes for gender recognition in the UK. Therefore, I am struggling to understand what amendments would need to be brought to the bill and what amendments would be allowed to the bill in order to avoid two different regimes for gender recognition. Does that mean that, essentially, we would have to revert to the 2004 process? He was unable to answer any of the questions from across the chamber asking for specifics on what amendments would be required. I am all up for discussion, but I think that the onus is on the Secretary of State to make his position clear and explain what he means by that. Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me be clear. I am proud of reform and the work that many of us did across this chamber on this bill. I continue to support the bill and I hope that it gets royal assent as soon as possible, because at the heart of that is trans people's lives. In response to a letter that I sent raising concerns about potential cross-border issues, the cabinet secretary confirmed to me that the Scottish Government had committed to working with the UK Government on a section 104 order. Can the cabinet secretary give the Parliament an update on those discussions? Does she admit that the Scottish Government knew there could be potential cross-border issues with the bill prior to stage 3, and that she reassured Opposition parties that that was in hand? First of all, let me say to Pam Duncan-Glancy, I think that it is really important that we come together over this issue and we work together to make sure that the bill that we all passed collectively and work together to amend is the bill that is finally enacted. With reference to the section 104 order, every piece of legislation has cross-border issues and making sure that those issues are resolved often involves the section 104 order. Officials have been talking to officials in the UK Government about those issues for many months. Despite all that work going on behind the scenes, there were plans afoot, obviously, for a section 35 order. Let's put the blame where it lies. We have done this in good faith in order to improve the lives of trans people. I do not think that that is the motivation of the UK Government here. Let's work together to make sure that the expectations that this legislation has enacted go ahead and let's work together to make sure that we achieve that. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary will share my confusion at Rachael Hamilton's line of questioning. Given that the reasoning published this afternoon would suggest that no amendment to the bill would satisfy the UK Government's concerns and that no divergence in a process for obtaining a GRC would ever be legally competent. Yet Conservative MSPs were still offered a free vote on the bill. Conservative members in both parliaments have said throughout that the bill is a danger and is riddled with holes, and yet their health spokesperson, their justice spokesperson and respected former leader Jackson Carlaw all voted for the bill. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the free vote, the division in their own benches, would suggest that those legal arguments do not carry any weight at all and that a swift application for judicial review in the United Kingdom Supreme Court will both demonstrate that and offer reassurance to the general public and deliver much-needed reforms for our trans constituents? Yes, I agree with that. Alex Cole-Hamilton is right to suggest that the idea that there can be some simple amendments brought that if we just amended around the fringes of the bill, that it would be acceptable to the UK Government. None of the statements made today by the secretary of state would give me any confidence in that whatsoever. I think that it is a smoke screen, a fig leaf, whatever you want to call it, that they have no intention whatsoever of allowing this bill to proceed. That leaves us with really no option other than to take the action that we need to take in order to make sure that that happens. Alex Cole-Hamilton actually made an important point that this bill was supported by members of all parties in the chamber. I would pay tribute to the Conservative members who voted for the bill, because it was against a very large pushback that I am sure is from the powers that be in the Conservative party. Let's go forward on the basis that this Parliament has spoken. It has made its position very clear, and we now need to work together to make sure that we can enact this legislation that, as I say, will make a difference to a small number of people but an important difference to their lives. That the UK Government has chosen an equality issue to use section 35 powers for the first time speaks volumes. The Scottish Government has, rightly in my view, said that no nuclear energy power will be developed in Scotland, and the UK Government confirmed it would not impose nuclear reactors on Scotland. Energy is reserved. The Scottish decision about this does impact the energy market of the whole of the UK. It is therefore interesting that it is an equality issue that the UK Government uses to attack Scottish Parliament powers. Does the cabinet secretary believe that this is part of a cynical and despicable culture war on trans people and other minorities? What does she think that it means for other equalities and human rights issues in Scotland? I thought that one of the points made by a number of MPs across the chamber at Westminster today was about that very point. That this is a Government in its death throws was one of the comments made, and that they were looking to distract attention perhaps from some of those serious issues and that this culture war is a convenient way of doing that. That is what others have said. I think that there is a lot of evidence to support that contention. Maggie Chapman also makes an important point about a pattern of behaviour. What we are saying is increasingly draconian behaviour from the UK Government, whether it is on this issue or indeed undermining the right of people to take strike action, for example, or threatening to roll back on human rights protections. There is a pattern of behaviour here, which is fundamentally attacking the rights of people. We need to be really clear here that this is the thin edge of the wedge in terms of the powers of this Parliament, and we need to stand united to push back on any attempt to undermine the powers of this Parliament and the powers of devolution, and we stand united to do that. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. According to the UK Government website, as of 21 December 2022, there were 41 countries on the list where the UK does not require medical reports when applying for gender recognition in the UK. Presumably, that does not impact on the Equalities Act. Can the cabinet secretary advise why, apparently, breaching the Equalities Act only applies when the Scottish Parliament, by an overwhelming cross-party majority, merely does what many other countries have done, or will this result in the UK removing 41 countries from that list? Christine Grahame is a good point that, for some time now, for years, the UK Government has been recognising the gender recognition certificates from countries that have got a similar system to the system that we were seeking to introduce. That, I think, speaks volumes that we have not seen any evidence that has caused any difficulties within the United Kingdom, and, indeed, the processes that are under way in terms of the self-declaration system in so many other countries show that there is no evidence of any of the harms that have been alluded to by the UK Government. Donald Cameron I refer to my register of interests as an advocate. Prior to the bill passing, many people, most notably the Equality and Human Rights Committee, raised the specific issue of the bill's cross-border implications and the impact on UK equality law with the Scottish Government. Can I ask the cabinet secretary if the Scottish Government obtained legal advice on those particular matters, and if so, was that advice followed? We have taken legal advice through the passage of the bill in various aspects, but let me say two things about that. I have already said in response to Pam Duncan Glancy that we accepted, like many pieces of legislation, that there would be some practical issues that would need to be resolved, and that a section 104 order would be the settled way of doing that, and that officials have been working in good faith to make that happen. On the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it has given a view on a number of aspects of the bill. However, I would point out that it was the Equality and Human Rights Commission that there were biggest advocates for the change to the process and actively lobbied all parties in advance of the 2021 Scottish Parliament election to make the reform of gender recognition the top priority for parties. We are now delivering on the request from the EHRC at that time. Julian Mackay Thank you, Presiding Officer. This move by the UK Government is as cruel as their reasons are flimsy. It weaponises the lives of trans people as part of a culture war on equalities, but, as many others have said, there are real people at the heart of this. Can the cabinet secretary outline what we can do to ensure that trans people do not face further hate and prejudice, and will she meet with myself and colleagues to discuss what additional support we can provide for trans people in light of the increasing bigotry they are facing? I think that Julian Mackay makes an important point. The work that has been going on, that Christine McElvie has been leading around tackling hate crime, is very important in this regard, because we know that the levels of hate crime towards trans community have been increasing. Partly, that is down to some of the media discourse around those issues. I do not think that that has helped at all. Of course, they are one of the most marginalised groups in society. Importantly, we need to reassure them that this piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that we will collectively fight for and that we will work together in order to do that. As the cabinet secretary knows, I was opposed to this bill and I remain opposed to this bill. However, a democratic decision has been made by this Parliament, and does she agree that Westminster is effectively telling Scotland that we are second rate and that we should just get back in our box? John Mason makes an important point here, because I have seen quite a lot of commentary from people who are not in favour of this bill and have made their position clear, but they are in favour of Scottish democracy and the right of this Parliament to decide. When this Parliament was established, it was not established on the basis of that you could only legislate if you happened to agree with the legislation. People elected to this Parliament from all the different parties come to conclusions about legislation and whether or not we agree with every single aspect of it. Once a decision is made, the democratic decision of this Parliament should be respected, and that is why it is so important that we draw a line and say to the UK Government this far and no further. The First Minister told the BBC that the Scottish Government will inevitably end up in court over the gender recognition reform bill, and that it will vigorously defend the legislation. If the situation ends up in court, will she commit to respecting the court's decision regardless of any outcome? Perhaps the member should have respected the outcome of this Parliament, and the UK Government should have respected the outcome of this Parliament. That is where respect starts, but we will vigorously defend the legislation. In our democratic process, of course, it would be a democratic outrage not to. Perhaps there are questions for the Tory members about the position that they now find themselves in, because they are being told to come and have warm words about amending the bill and we can bring it back, whereas the reality of what Alistair Jack said in the statement to the Westminster Parliament was clearly that that could not be on the cards, because there could not be two different systems of gender recognition within the UK. It is a very cynical approach and, as I said earlier, a fig leaf and very disingenuous in its entirety. I will come back to Parliament with the next steps in due course, given that we only saw the section 35 order details this afternoon. I will also be happy to meet Opposition members who are in support of the legislation to work together to make sure that we can ensure that the democratic will of this Parliament is what prevails.