Chamber and committees

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”?

Does the member think that a public board that is 50 per cent men and 50 per cent transgender women is gender balanced?

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?