This is a sensitive and complex issue. I know that members from all parties have a range of different concerns about it. That is why we should have the time to debate it properly.

I hope that today MSPs will show compassion for the 500 transgender Scots and their families who are living with the consequences of gender dysphoria and that they will give the go ahead to this flawed but effective Sewel motion. That will enable the UK to move forward swiftly to legislate in this area and, in so doing, fulfil its obligations under the ECHR, having been found to be in breach of those by the European Court of Human Rights. All other European Union member states, with the exception of Ireland, already give legal recognition to gender change.

I echo many of the points that Nicola Sturgeon, Patrick Harvie and others have made. It cannot be right that a piece of controversial legislation that introduces a new ground for divorce in Scotland, raises concerns about our sexual offences legislation and confers legal rights at the age of 18—rather than 16—should be subject to so little parliamentary scrutiny. The Sewel route has its pragmatic advantages, but we must retain the right to spend the time that is necessary to investigate fully changes to Scots law. The Parliament has had only two weeks to examine the bill in committee and to debate it in the chamber—a total of one hour of parliamentary time. That may be the result of Westminster constraints, but the handling of our input in that way throws up serious questions about the continued use of the Sewel mechanism.

There are a number of concerns about the bill. The Justice 1 Committee had concerns about the potential cost to applicants, about the need for Scottish legal practitioners to serve on the relevant panel and about certain privacy issues. The Executive has said that it does not want to make special allowances for transsexual people that do not apply to other groups. That means that the 5 per cent of couples concerned who wish to remain together, against all the odds, will be forced to divorce by the state, rather than being allowed to remain in a same-sex marriage. The Government is content that civil partnership will represent an alternative legal union, but that is not in place. I seek assurances from the minister that if an existing marriage is replaced by a civil partnership the transition will be seamless and there will be no loss of rights relating to pensions, for example, arising from the length of the partnership.

The only ground for divorce in Scots law is irretrievable breakdown, so the bill would introduce a new ground for divorce. Many of my colleagues on the Justice 1 Committee are still unclear about what the rights of the other party to that divorce and the procedure for divorce would be. There is a need for greater clarity in that regard.

The other real area of concern goes further than the bill. I refer to the lack of clarity regarding sexual offences. I recognise that in committee the Deputy Minister for Justice agreed to examine that issue further. Transgender people must be protected fully when they are the victims of sexual assault—as they very often are—and must be prosecuted when they are the perpetrators. That protection must be in place before, during and after the acquisition of a new gender. English law already deals with that because it is gender-neutral. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 extended the law explicitly to surgically constructed genitalia. That is not the situation in Scotland. The Executive tells us that provision has been made in clause 19 to switch off a person's legally acquired gender if otherwise criminal liability would exist, and I understand that an amendment will be lodged at Westminster to that effect.

I hear what Bill Aitken says about passing the matter down to Westminster, but we have to ensure that the key differences between Scots and English law will be examined at Westminster, because we have not had enough time to consider them fully in this Parliament. However, I recognise that the minister gave me the assurance last week at the Justice 1 Committee that

"if any changes of significance for this Parliament are made to the bill, they will be brought back"—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 28 January 2004; c 523]

to committee and to Parliament. I certainly welcome that assurance.

Despite my reservations, I encourage members throughout the chamber to support the measure and to deliver at last a certain amount of justice and peace of mind to one of the most vulnerable groups in the country.