Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As you can see, the gallery, again, is not full. Again there are people who would like to witness what is happening today but who have been refused tickets. They have been told that they cannot have access. That is completely unacceptable. Will the Presiding Officer take a view, please, on those women and people who cannot get access? It might be too late, but there are some who would like access to the empty seats in the gallery above us. Thank you.

Over the past few days, we have heard from several members about how important reporting is. Amendment 131 would create a statutory duty for ministers to consult on how, and how often, they should report on the legislation’s impact on women and girls. Ministers must then make regulations that specify the details for reporting on that impact.

Amendment 136, which goes hand in hand with amendment 131, would delay commencement of section 2 until the regulations have been made.

I have brought those amendments back from stage 2—with modifications—for two reasons. I was deeply concerned by the lack of debate on the amendments during stage 2. The cabinet secretary gave them nothing more considered than a cursory mention in a massive grouping. By dodging the key issues and denying that there is a problem to begin with, the discussion of the amendments at stage 2 felt like a microcosm of the wider GRR debate and the bill’s impact on women and girls.

However, events since stage 2, over just a few short weeks, demonstrate precisely why amendments 131 and 136 are needed. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has raised concerns that the bill’s proposals present potential risks to the safety of women.

Meanwhile, last week’s court ruling underscores further why the legislation’s impact on women and girls should be reviewed on a statutory basis, as we move forward. It states that

“‘sex’ is not limited to biological or birth sex”

and that a person who obtains a GRC in their acquired gender legally changes their sex. Like Pauline McNeill, I am confused by that. The Scottish Conservatives called for the bill to be paused while the implications of the verdict are considered, but the Scottish Government has ignored those calls. However, it desperately needs to recognise that the legislation gives the key to the door to an undefined group of people by making it significantly easier for them to change their sex.

I believe that the intent of the bill is good, but the unintended consequences could be greater for the rights and safety of women and girls. Those who act in bad faith will exploit loopholes in situations where there is access to women and children, and there is a real risk that women will self-exclude from services.

Last night, vital safeguards that were proposed by Russell Findlay and Michelle Thomson were rejected. More than ever, post-legislative scrutiny of the bill’s impact on women and girls is so important.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I thank Gillian Martin for that, but I did not feel that they were robust enough. Gillian Martin and I both come from the energy sector, which looks at risk and risk management. It also really focuses on data and data reporting, which are the substance of my amendments.

The cabinet secretary objected not to the substance of the amendments, but to their drafting. As such, I instructed the bill team to make them clearer in order to address those concerns. There are some strong amendments in the group, and I am supportive of them all.

I will briefly highlight Brian Whittle’s amendments 58, 59 and 67 on sport. Statutory changes through the GRR bill will have a significant impact on sport. That is already happening, but the legislation will accelerate it. It has implications for the safety of competitors and for fairness. It is only right that that should be reviewed on a statutory basis, and it is the responsible thing to do.

My amendments are a bandage and a sticking plaster. I deeply regret the Scottish Government’s disastrous handling of this aspect of the process, but this is an opportunity to change course. Therefore, I strongly urge colleagues to support amendments 131 and 136.

I have evidence, and I will feed that to—

Does the member agree with Johann Lamont, who said that the proposed safeguards “are utterly risible”?

The convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Kenneth Gibson, said that, with the bill, it seems that the Government is

“using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 25 October 2022, c 24.]

With members of your party and the finance committee raising concerns about the spending in relation to the bill, how can you possibly justify the costs? I thought that it was £1.3 billion, but you actually said this morning that it is £1.4 billion, and that is not including terms and conditions of employment and benefits. Some even say that the bill is an open cheque book.

Minister, I welcome the fact that you have said that you are being open and transparent. The adult social care independent review that was published yesterday does not mention your desire to improve maternity benefits for social care staff. If it is so important to you, why has it not been mentioned, and why has it not been costed? Is it on top of the £1.3 billion estimate for the NCS?

I ask this question wearing three hats: as a member of the committee; as a representative of a largely rural area; and as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development with experience of legislation such as the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—TUPE.

Have you considered the cost of harmonising the terms and conditions? I accept your saying that not all the 74,000 employees will transition under TUPE, but a large chunk of them could. Even increasing mileage rates from 45p a mile to 65p a mile—that figure was given to us by some witnesses—will cost millions of pounds, not to mention harmonising sickness and pension benefits, which will go into the billions. Are you really serious about wanting to transition to a central service—referring to what you said in your opening remarks—or are the proposals a power grab, plain and simple, to centralise services with a view to taking budgets away from local councils?