Official Report 125KB pdf
I received a letter from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and I thought that the committee should consider it, as it asks me to nominate a woman to represent the committee.
On the ground of equality, I take great exception to the organisation's demand.
Aw, Phil.
Scott Barrie may shake his head, but people cannot have it both ways. Either the committee has equality and treats males and females the same, or it does not. I have no doubt that many men are interested in the women's conference and I am surprised at the STUC's line.
The letter was obviously hastily sent after the reshuffle of the shadow cabinet. It was addressed to me, but asked me or another woman to participate.
I move, that we do not accept the invitation, for the reasons that I have given.
First, we must establish whether anyone wants to go. Is any woman member prepared to represent the committee, should we decide to follow that route?
I would go. Phil Gallie could go in a skirt if he liked.
Mr Gallie moves that we should not have a representative. Does anyone wish to make a proposal to the contrary?
I propose Christine Grahame.
I think that a majority on the committee would like to send a representative. Phil Gallie can press the issue to a division if he wishes.
I am strongly against the idea behind the invitation, so I will press my motion to a division.
We have a motion from Phil Gallie that we should not send a representative, and a proposal by Gordon Jackson that we should send a representative, who would be Christine Creech.
My surname is Grahame.
Sorry, that was my fault. Old habits die hard, Christine.
I say to Phil Gallie that the STUC is asking for a woman's experience of the Parliament. It seems relevant that a woman should go. It would be difficult for Phil Gallie to describe that experience.
It would not be difficult at all. I am arguing for the principle of equality. The matter is up to the committee. To be honest, I can think of no better representative than Christine Grahame, but the principle is important and the terms in which the letter is couched give me cause for concern.
The question is, that Phil Gallie's motion, that we decline the invitation, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Motion disagreed to.
I suggest that we follow Gordon Jackson's proposal. We will write to the STUC to say that Christine Grahame will be our representative. Is that agreed?
Previous
Legal Aid Inquiry