Chamber and committees

No, I am fine, convener—I tied my questions into one.

Perhaps Lucy Mulvagh will answer this question. I know from this committee and from working with people from ethnic backgrounds that it is sometimes hard to get that information and to reach out to those communities because of the trust issue. Have you done any work there, and have you found it difficult to reach out to those people?

I thank my colleague Tess White for lodging the motion, which recommends

“that the Parliament remove Maggie Chapman MSP from office as a member of the Committee.”

I agree with the points that Tess White has made and I will vote for the motion.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to set an example for the people of Scotland. After all, our constituents chose us to be their voice and represent their interests in the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, the shocking behaviour that we witnessed on 20 April from Maggie Chapman MSP shows that she is not fit for the role. Maggie Chapman, MSP and deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, with regard to the UK Supreme Court judgment on the definition of the word “woman”, said:

“We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court”.

That is shocking behaviour that is not appropriate for a member of the Parliament, let alone for the deputy convener of this committee, which deals with matters relating to civil justice and to equality. Therefore, her position is untenable.

I was privileged enough to witness the UK Supreme Court judgment in the For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers case in person in London two weeks ago. I was sitting in the courtroom as Lord Hodge eloquently delivered the court’s unanimous decision. He used understandable, measured and balanced language, free of legal jargon—that was a sentiment that was shared by many people whom I spoke to.

In this country, our judiciary is tasked with upholding the law and acting as a check on Government powers. Its role is not to make law but, rather, to uphold, apply and interpret it. Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, members of the Scottish Parliament

“must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary”.

Members of this committee, which also covers matters of civil justice, ought to know that.

For Maggie Chapman to say that “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” come from our Supreme Court is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous. Roddy Dunlop KC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, has said in a letter to the committee, on behalf of the faculty’s office-bearers, that Maggie Chapman’s comments

“constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary ... and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves.”

The faculty has come out to say that it does not believe that Maggie Chapman’s words

“allow her to properly discharge her responsibilities as Deputy Convenor in line with the impartiality requirements”.

Judgments are there to be welcomed and respected, and there is no place for such language. We have seen examples from around the world in which death threats have been issued against members of the judiciary; we cannot have such examples repeated here. Scott Wortley, a legal academic from the University of Edinburgh, said that although judgments are subject to criticism,

“any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.”

When asked to apologise for making the comments, and whether she was considering her position on the committee, Maggie Chapman did not apologise but said:

“There are plenty of politicians in Scotland who are prepared to stand up and represent people with transphobic views, people who don’t think trans people should be out in public, should be allowed to use public facilities, like the rest of us do.”

Labelling supporters of the ruling and all those in favour of single-sex spaces transphobic is reckless, does a great disservice to women and women’s rights advocates and is a perfect example of gaslighting.

I have received correspondence from many constituents who have expressed concerns over Maggie Chapman’s flare-up. Today, the public is watching. We all have a duty as members of the committee to decide whether we continue to have people like Maggie Chapman on the committee, tainting the good work that we all do here. That cannot be the face of an equalities committee.

I fully support Tess White’s motion and encourage members to vote in favour of it.

I previously brought up the question of domestic abuse and the fact that more has to be done to identify when a victim or survivor is talking about abuse. In the past, when someone with a learning disability has spoken up, it has been said that they are not talking clearly, that the abuse is not happening or that the police are not trained to that level. There are a lot of gaps. It would be good if you could pass that report on.

I have one more question. Women from minority ethnic backgrounds and disabled women often face discrimination based on their sex and on their ethnic background and disability status, respectively. How can we, as policy makers, better include groups of women who face multiple discrimination in decision making and service design?

I will go to you first, Angela, but I will also go to Lorne Berkley on disabled women.

You say that the Scottish Government has put the sluggishness aside, but it needs to improve transparency to allow you to follow the money, and it needs to improve engagement. It needs to make sure that people at the heart of policies—whether they are women or people with disabilities—are heard, so that the Government can set its budgets in line with that. I take it that that is what you meant—is that right?

Good morning, and thank you so much for the information that you have provided so far. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommends enhancing gender-responsive budgeting and intersectional approaches. Gender-responsive budgeting is something that we frequently discuss in the committee. Could you give us any examples of good practice in Scotland and of where there is a need for improvement?

The report refers to hidden populations. The first of those includes those who are housed in forensic learning disability services and the second includes autistic people who are simply not identified in the data. Last week, we heard from people with learning disabilities, many of whom felt that they were let down by the system. In a previous evidence session, one witness said that they felt that they are at the “bottom of the pile” when it comes to the Scottish Government’s priorities. How do you propose that your concerns about the hidden populations should be addressed?

Good morning. Thank you for your very powerful and honest statements, Jan.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report states that significant data gaps make it impossible to accurately measure progress. Data gathering is very important—first, to identify problems, and secondly, to come up with the right solutions. I have seen that personally while working on my proposed domestic abuse (prevention) (Scotland) bill—to prevent domestic abuse, we need to see which populations are affected more than others.

The same can be said about people moving from care settings to independent living. Jan, you said that the Government needs to produce an action plan. However, you also know that there are continuing issues of poor data collecting. Is the Scottish Government doing enough to improve data collection? If not, what else should the Scottish Government be doing?

I want to ask about data collection. One issue that was brought up during a private session last week was that people from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community face much discrimination. For example, a person could be autistic and face discrimination or stigma, but they could also be a person of colour, and, as we were told last week, they would not know whether they had been discriminated against because of their colour or because of their disability. Is any data collected on that? We were told that a lot of BAME communities are more affected because of the layers of intersectionality. Do you think that there are issues with the collection of data about people from different backgrounds? Obviously, we cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution. Solutions have to be tailored to cultural backgrounds, especially if those concerned have other things going on—for example, if they are a person of colour or if they have more than one disability. What is your view on that, Cathy?