Chamber and committees

What safeguards will be put in place to prevent those who fraudulently obtain a GRC from accessing women-only spaces?

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.

I want to press you on that point, minister. We have heard that one of the current staffing issues is that social carers cannot be recruited, partly because of the 45p mileage rate. Carers are looking for mileage rates equivalent to 65p. The difference between 45p and 65p might seem small to you, minister, but to many carers that could make the difference between surviving in a job and not surviving. Harmonising the mileage rates would cost millions of pounds. You might say, “We are not going to do it and we are not going to think about it” and talk about TUPE legislation and all that sort of thing, but just thinking in terms of fairness, if someone is working and doing the same job as someone else and they are on 45p per mile and the other person is on 65p per mile, that could lead to employee relations issues and industrial unrest. Do you have any comment on that?

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?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill defines children as

“persons under the age of 18.”

Does Martin Whitfield agree that 16 and 17-year-olds are still children?

Although we welcome the member’s amendments, does she agree that there are still far too many loopholes in the bill that need to be addressed in order to protect women and girls?