Chamber and committees

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.

On 8 May this year, the Scottish Conservatives held a debate on gender identity services for children and young people and the Cass review. Every party except the Scottish Greens voted for an update from the Scottish Government on the Cass review before summer recess. The Scottish Conservatives voted in good faith that the matter would be taken seriously, so as to support vulnerable children and young people experiencing gender distress in Scotland, yet here we are, with only six sitting days to go, and there has been no update from the Scottish Government.

I give the kindly reminder that I requested a ministerial statement, which has yet again been refused by the Scottish National Party. This time, the excuse was purdah rules. That makes no sense whatsoever.

An update on the Cass review was promised before the general election was called, and we have heard nothing from the Scottish Government since. The matter of national health service services for children who are experiencing gender distress is, of course, devolved to Scotland. At no point has the minister approached the Opposition to advise us why the update would not take place before summer recess.

Children, young people and families do not have the time to wait. Child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists are through the roof, young people with gender distress are waiting years for an appointment, and there are currently no measures in place to ensure that children who receive support at gender clinics are receiving the right care and psychological support. That simply is not good enough.

Why, then, did the Government promise that an update would be provided before summer recess? If the Government makes that promise, it cannot go back on its word.

Martin Whitfield is absolutely spot on. This is about getting the right care and support for young people.

The parties that voted with the Scottish Government on the issue back on 8 May did so in good faith. Since that debate, I have held an event in the Parliament with families who have been impacted by gender clinics in Scotland. Their testimonies are heartbreaking, and they deserve to know what the Government will do to support them.

All the while, we have heard rumblings from media reports that a new NHS child gender service will be set up in Scotland. However, that does not appear to be a balanced approach. That is why we need an update in Parliament. Young people, children, families and parents need to know what is going on and what the next steps will be. They need to know how the Scottish Government will address the serious concerns that are being raised and how it will reassure everyone that it will take a scientific and evidence-based approach.

I understand that some items cannot be discussed because of the on-going election; I am certain that all MSPs understand that. However, it is imperative for the Scottish Government to share with members what correspondence the Minister for Parliamentary Business has had with the relevant portfolio holders and to explain on the record why an update cannot be given to the Parliament. Otherwise, the update that Parliament voted for and which families have been calling for will be yet another broken promise of the Scottish National Party Government.

I move amendment S6M-13692.1, to insert at end:

“(c) Thursday 20 June 2024—

after

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: Applying the Cass Review Recommendations to Scotland

delete

4.25 pm Decision Time

and insert

4.55 pm Decision Time”.

I echo everything that Fulton MacGregor has just said. Does he agree with me that Diane Delaney is an absolute trailblazer when it comes to campaigning and highlighting those issues?

I was not intending to say anything in this debate, but members have made very thought-provoking contributions. I have to say that I am a stickler when it comes to this issue and will talk about improving the lives of children and young people at every given opportunity.

This week, I received in my inbox a fascinating manifesto pledge by the campaign group 2020 Together entitled “It’s all about the children”. It had a launch last week; unfortunately, I was unable to attend, due to other commitments, but I think that it hits home in showing the importance of the early years to a child’s development.

Back in 2016, the Scottish Government promised to provide 1,140 hours of free childcare to children from the ages of three to five, which is exactly the age range that we are talking about today as we look at how we advance the learning experience of children and young people from a really early age. I do think that we need to look at what we have right now before we look at what we can do in the future, because we need those structures to be in place if this sort of scheme is to work. Indeed, Fulton MacGregor touched on that in this speech. The early years offering that we have just now will need to be relooked at, should we embark on this huge challenge, but I do think that it is a challenge worth embarking on.

The manifesto that I mentioned contains some really important elements, and I would appreciate it if the minister and I could discuss it, perhaps not today, but at some point in the future. It comes from a group of active campaigners in my region who want to make sure that the experience for children at the early stages of their lives is the best that it possibly can be. Although the early years offering just now has been positive for local authorities, it has certainly not been as positive for the private, voluntary and independent sector. Although the nurseries in that sector provide the same level of care for children, and although their staff have the same qualifications as those in local authority settings, the pay disparity between the two settings is stark. Someone in a private, voluntary and independent nursery will get a living wage of around £12 an hour, while someone in a job in a local authority early years setting will get roughly £16 an hour.

That makes clear the disparity that exists for those trying to give our young people the best possible start in life. We can see how things are already on an unequal footing, even before we begin to look at redeveloping childcare and early years according to the terms of today’s debate on a kindergarten stage and on learning through play. That sort of learning is vital to a child’s development. Indeed, I know that for myself; my toddler, who is going to be two next month, challenges me every single day to learn through play, and I have thoroughly enjoyed that experience with her.

As I have said, in looking at this issue as a whole, we need to look at what we are offering just now, get the structures and pillars in place and sort out the fundamental problems. Once we do that, we will have the right opportunity to look at how we can improve things and create and develop something new for Scotland that gives children the best possible start in life. I therefore challenge the minister to look at what we have just now and fix the problems with the provision of 1,140 hours to ensure that, when we come to look at the kindergarten stage, we are starting from the best possible place. That is what will benefit our children best, and that, after all, is the most important thing that we as parliamentarians can do.

I apologise for getting ahead of myself at the start, Presiding Officer.

I have heard everything that the minister and Gillian Mackay have had to say about signage, and I certainly agree that no one wants to cause any further distress to women who are simply trying to access healthcare. With that in mind, I will not press amendment 2.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 5

I echo the comments made by Gillian Mackay and the minister about the tone of the debate, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the bill at all its stages.

As I have said in the chamber previously, this debate is not about abortion. Members will, rightly, have views on abortion, and all views are valid, but those views are not for today. Today’s debate is about women and their right to access healthcare safely, which is why the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 3. Women should not feel threatened or intimidated, especially when they are going through one of the most difficult and traumatising times in their lives.

The bill that Gillian Mackay has brought to the chamber puts in place measures should groups congregate outside premises where abortions can take place. We have been in the unfortunate situation in which women have felt unsafe and have even missed healthcare appointments because graphic placards have been placed outside clinics by some groups. People have tried to directly influence women’s decision making, women have been harassed or have felt judged for making a decision that they felt was necessary, and some groups have tried to prevent patients and staff from gaining access to such premises.

It has long been my personal view that no one should deliberately influence a woman when it comes to their right to have an abortion; it is unacceptable for anyone to think that they know better than the person who has made a decision about their body.

However, as has been highlighted through the amendments that we have just debated, all options should be made available for women, and they should not be restricted by legislation should they wish to seek support from various different places. We need buffer zones so that there is a clear marker for women to know what measures are in place to support them.

I hope that the minister and Gillian Mackay recognise the intended sincerity with which I lodged my amendments on signage and recording. I want to ensure that the bill works and that women are protected when accessing clinics, and I know that they do, too.

That does not mean that the bill is perfect. Through discussions with the minister and Gillian Mackay, I know that we will need to review the bill in order to measure whether it has been successful and ensure that the right information is being collated. I was pleased that the Parliament accepted amendments that were lodged by my colleagues Rachael Hamilton and Tess White on that issue.

We also need to consider arguments relating to freedom of speech and expression. Although such arguments were well rehearsed at stage 2, some people argue that silent prayer does not come under intimidation or harassment, and the bill has not resolved that issue. However, I appreciate the approaches that were outlined by the minister and Gillian Mackay regarding police involvement and the engagement exercises that will be undertaken as a result of the bill’s passage today.

One of the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 related to potential legal challenges, and it is my understanding that the bill could be challenged as a result of today’s vote. I am sure that that is not unexpected, but it reaffirms the importance of scrutiny at all times to ensure that the legislation holds up. As a Parliament, we have a duty to create good law.

I hope that the bill has plain sailing and that we are able to ensure that women can access healthcare safely. We owe it to the brave women and healthcare staff who have put themselves forward to give evidence and to share their experiences, as the bill would not have been possible without them and campaigns such as Back Off Scotland. I thank them for challenging MSPs right across the chamber to ensure that access to healthcare is safer for women.

Amendment 3 would make it an offence to photograph, record, store, broadcast or transmit anything of a person “without their express consent” when the person subject to the recording was in a safe access zone

“for the purpose of accessing”

or

“providing ... abortion services at the protected premises.”

I discussed amendment 3 with the minister and Gillian Mackay. I do not intend to press it, but the issue is worthy of further discussion, because the amendment is about protecting women by saying that it is not okay to photograph any woman or member of staff who is entering or leaving protected premises, as highlighted in the bill, and about ensuring that all the stipulations attached to that matter are recorded in the bill.

Having had discussions with the minister and Gillian Mackay, I understand the concerns that they have raised about drawing the issue to the attention of groups that might wish to find alternatives to standing outside healthcare facilities. With that in mind, I do not intend to press amendment 3 when the time comes, but I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with the minister and Gillian Mackay.

I move amendment 3.

I move amendment 2.