Chamber and committees

In April, the United Kingdom’s highest court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Yet, as the months have passed, the Scottish Government has ignored that judgment and failed to direct its public bodies to adhere to it. Instead, it has dithered and delayed, and now sees fit to defend its policy that allows biologically male prisoners to be housed in women’s prisons. Does the cabinet secretary support single-sex spaces—yes or no?

Scotland’s prison system is a shambles and it needs leadership from the cabinet secretary. While the Scottish National Party is preparing to let more criminals out early, because its soft-touch approach to justice means that our prison estate is buckling under the weight of a surging population, its prison guidelines leave vulnerable women and girls at serious risk. If those guidelines remain, I am extremely concerned about the spine-chilling risk of a repeat of the Isla Bryson case in which, under the Scottish National Party’s watch, a dangerous male criminal was put in a women’s prison.

My understanding is that the cabinet secretary can answer my question. Does she still agree with what she said on 28 November 2017, which was:

“Women should feel safe in every space they wish to inhabit—this is a matter of fundamental human rights.”

Does she stand by what she said—yes or no?

Today, the Parliament is again asked to consider a legislative consent memorandum dealing with the UK Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. As a whole, the bill has given my colleagues—both here and in the UK Parliament—significant concern. Against the tide of illegal immigration, the bill proposes little in the way of solutions. It was reported just this week that 39,075 migrants have made the journey across the channel so far this year. Labour has failed to deal with immigration and securing our borders.

Labour’s recent announcement about housing hundreds of asylum-seeking men in barracks in Inverness has alarmed us all due to the questionable suitability of that approach. Instead of being meaningful legislation that will deliver solutions, the bill bulldozes across previous building blocks, such as by repealing key sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party continues to be out of touch with public sentiment. The Scottish Government has appeared to offer an open door to illegal immigration, which is an approach that is not in keeping with public sentiment and that would be damaging to Scotland. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist—

It is ludicrous of Mr Whitfield to suggest that.

The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, unlike Scottish Labour, remains the only party in Scotland that is serious about restoring the integrity of our borders through proper control—I stress “proper”. However, we also respect the competences given to the Scottish Parliament through the devolution settlement and the functions that are reserved by the UK Parliament. Therefore, despite our significant opposition to the bill, we will abstain in the vote on the motion.

I will take this opportunity to raise my concern about the process that the Parliament has allowed for the passing of the LCM. The Scottish Government has highlighted the serious issue surrounding the LCM; it is fundamentally one of criminality, as Mr Whitfield says. However, due to the lack of time, the Parliament has disregarded the usual standing orders, skipped the stage where a lead committee would thoroughly scrutinise the LCM and brought it straight to the chamber. It is much more than “far from optimal”, as the cabinet secretary says—it is much worse than that. It is the third time that this has happened. The disregard for our standing orders and normal process of methodical scrutiny is of some concern to me and my colleagues. Although I understand that there might be little option left, in the interest of time, I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that disregard of our normal process does not become the norm.

To ask the Scottish Government what its justification is for pursuing legal action in relation to its policy on transgender prisoners, in light of the judgment in the case, For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers. (S6T-02747)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you confirm that the matter relating to my topical question—the Scottish National Party’s transgender prisoner guidance and the subsequent legal action—can be spoken about freely by ministers, because section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 allows

“matters of general public interest”

to be discussed without fear of that being treated as contempt of court?

Presiding Officer, will I get the time back?

Police Scotland has ordered a director of For Women Scotland to attend a police station to face vandalism charges over a complaint about a broken umbrella. If she does not attend, she could be banned from Holyrood—a Parliament that is supposed to represent her, too. The optics of that for the Scottish Government are terrible. To many people, it looks like a threat to free speech and an attempt to silence criticism, silence women and intimidate that particular organisation. Who is protecting whom here? Does the First Minister agree that the police should focus on much more serious incidents than a broken umbrella? Does he think that Susan Smith should receive an immediate apology?

Deaf women are more than twice as likely as hearing women to experience domestic abuse. In the north-east, local stakeholders report that BSL services remain seriously underresourced, with limited interpreting capacity and little dedicated funding for specialist support. Given that Gaelic and BSL are both the Deputy First Minister’s responsibility, does she accept that that failure of national co-ordination and investment has left deaf women in particular at greater risk, and that equality means nothing without the resources to make it real?