Chamber and committees

Regrettable is one word, but disgraceful is another, because, in some areas of the country, 60 per cent of children and young people are not being seen until between 19 and 35 weeks after their referrals to child and adolescent mental health services. How does the minister intend to tackle CAMHS waiting lists when funding for those services has been disproportionately cut by £18.8 million? Does she feel that those cuts are proportionate?

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Of course, we have the children’s commissioner. Young people across Scotland have different experiences and different needs and require different levels of support, and I am sure that everyone will agree that the children’s commissioner does sterling work in making sure that young people throughout the country are supported.

Therefore, when it comes to representation and advocacy, do you think that a disability commissioner would not be able to perform the same role as the children’s commissioner performs? Again, it all links to rights—we cannot get away from human rights. There are commissions on human rights, there is a children’s commissioner and we could potentially have a disability commissioner. All the existing bodies play an important role in supporting and advocating for the people whom they are there to help.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister.

You mentioned pathways and expectations to improve and support the lives of people with disabilities, which we can collectively agree on. However, that is completely different from advocacy, which is important when we look at commissioners. A concern has been brought up in the conversation this morning about what a broad disability commissioner would advocate for with regard to people with various different types of disabilities. Is bolting on disability to the role of the human rights commissioner diluting the voice of disabled people? I think that that is the primary reason that we are discussing a disability commissioner.

I am pleased that we have spoken about the need to avoid a hierarchy of rights, because I think that that is really important. I am glad that the Government is now moving in that direction, but is it not the case that because it encompasses everything, its approach to human rights is far too broad, which is why we face the problems that we face?

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. Tone and language are important when talking about gender identity healthcare and I echo calls for members to lead by example today.

The minister will be aware that I have held events at Parliament, alongside families impacted by gender care. Their stories are harrowing and each one outlines the importance of the evidence-based Cass review, but, due to the parliamentary recess, families and young people have had to wait weeks for a response from the Scottish Government, following the chief medical officer’s recommendations. During that time, MSPs have been unable to ask direct questions on behalf of their constituents. I hope that that will be reflected on.

The Cass review concluded that there is a lack of evidence to support the use of puberty-suppressing hormones and also says that children and young people might not be offered the right psychological support and assessments when they experience gender distress. The use of puberty-suppressing hormones has been paused in Scotland and, according to the minister’s statement, a UK-wide study is now under way to assess that treatment option. I therefore ask the minister whether the use of puberty-suppressing hormones will remain paused here in Scotland until that study has concluded.

How involved has the Scottish Government been over the past year or so with the specialised committees that have been set up to support implementation of the UK-EU trade incorporation agreements?

The reason why I raised the issue is that, in the letter that you sent to the committee before today’s meeting, you stress that those specialised committees represent one of the primary opportunities to influence the implementation of the TCA. Given that that is the case, I question the frequency of the meetings. Seventeen of the 18 specialised committees met only once in 2023, and the fisheries specialised committee met only twice. Could those meetings be more frequent, or should a case-by-case approach be taken?

That is really helpful. I thank you all.

The cabinet secretary is absolutely spot on. The bill is a short bill, but its contents can be seen as frustrating, because we are spending parliamentary time today fixing yet another mess that was created by the Scottish Government in the previous parliamentary session. The previous Scottish National Party Government changed the definition of a woman when it passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The definition that was contained in the 2018 act wrongly confused two distinct protected characteristics in a separate law—those of a biological woman and those of people who are transgender. The nature of protected characteristics is also a reserved matter, so the definition of a woman in the 2018 act impinged on matters that were not devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Changing the definitions of a protected characteristic is, of course, not permitted in law, and it led to the conclusion that the respected act was outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence.

Had it not been for women’s groups challenging the 2018 act, the amending bill would not be before us today. I am pleased that we have fierce, resilient and brave women right across Scotland who will not tolerate their rights being eroded. They have challenged this Government over its policies and decision making and continue to be unapologetically vocal in their fight to protect women and girls.

It was For Women Scotland that brought the judicial review on the Scottish Government’s new definition of a woman, and the inner house of the Court of Session ruled on 18 February 2022 that the 2018 act was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as it amended the definition of protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010.

As the 2018 act could not be amended quickly, the court issued an order that declared that the definition should be formally removed from the 2018 act and the statutory guidance. That means that the act has been operating under the Equality Act 2010 definition of a woman since 19 April 2022.

I believe that the outcome that was determined by the court shows that biological sex matters. The bill that we are discussing today removes the unlawful definition from the 2018 act, and that is welcome.

It is, of course, a step in the right direction, but it is not one that the SNP Government took on its own. The SNP is continuously tying itself in knots when it comes to its understanding of protected characteristics. Through the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, it tried to create a hierarchy of protected characteristics, pitting groups against one another. We are still feeling the aftermath of the deep division that was sown by the Scottish Government over issues such as self-identification. Women are witnessing their hard-won rights being diluted and feeling that their legislative protections are worth less than those of other vulnerable groups. The Government has not supported them, has not engaged with them and has dismissed their concerns as being not valid. That is not how we create equality. It is a sad reflection that women feel the need to challenge the Government to ensure that their rights are upheld. Lessons need to be learned from that.

That brings me on to the impact of the never-ending legal challenges. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have already been squandered by the SNP on gender-related matters. Whether it be judicial reviews or the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we are seeing a pattern. In my view, it needs to stop. It creates more division, and I am sure that we agree that taxpayers’ money could be better spent elsewhere.

Here are my asks of the Scottish Government today. Accept the rulings and stop meddling in matters that are reserved. Do not stray into areas that make legislation unlawful. Please listen to women’s groups, because all that they want is for their rights to be protected and respected. There is nothing controversial in any of that.

Given that we are here today because of the hard work and efforts of For Women Scotland, I will end my contribution by thanking them for their hard work, their tenacity and their expertise. They are the women who would not wheesht. For Women Scotland turned six years old today. I congratulate it on its campaigning success so far. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with it on these issues.

I finish by asking For Women Scotland directly to keep powering on to protect the rights of women and girls in Scotland.