Chamber and committees

How will you make sure that all the right organisations are involved in reviewing that, particularly in the light of the Supreme Court judgment?

Do you have any idea on the timing of that?

You are therefore confirming that the Scottish National Party Government is proactively looking at all the policies in relation to the judgment.

Minister, do you have any further detail on the forthcoming equality strategy for women and girls, which Shirley-Anne Somerville announced on 22 April? Do you have any thoughts about the organisations that will be involved in it?

Okay—thank you.

As we have heard before, biological sex has been erased in data collection across our public institutions. However, this is not just about integrity of statistics—it is about safety. Recommendation 12 of the Sullivan review called for the national health service to stop allowing people to change their gender marker—especially children, as the review said that that poses a “serious safeguarding risk”. Shockingly, the Scottish National Party Government has already confirmed in writing that there are no plans to stop that practice. Will the cabinet secretary accept that the Government must now hit the brakes and commit to working with the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to urgently implement that recommendation?

I, too, thank my colleague, Meghan Gallacher, for securing parliamentary time to debate such an important topic.

The centralisation of neonatal intensive care is causing massive concern among clinicians. Families have said that it could be catastrophic; there has been strong criticism of the arbitrary scoring mechanism; and it means that new parents to premature and seriously ill babies, at the most vulnerable point in their lives, could—as we have heard today—have to travel miles to visit them, in such difficult circumstances. Tragically, one parent said:

“you don’t know what to expect. The family could be called in at any minute to say goodbye.”

I ask members to imagine having to travel for hours to Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow to do so.

I pay tribute to campaigners who are fighting to stop the downgrading of existing facilities. The service at Ninewells hospital in Dundee, in my region, is one of those facilities. For more than 50 years, Ninewells has had a first-class AMU—alongside midwifery unit—with neonatal intensive care as part of that offer. The unit was refurbished in 1999. The AMU means that mums have a safety net, and a psychological boost from having access to obstetric labour suites, specialists and equipment almost at their bedside. The Dundee midwifery unit is separate from the obstetric consultant unit, but it is still in the hospital, which allows for easy access to medical support if that is needed.

For years, however, there has been a centralisation of maternity services in Tayside. When the Fyfe Jamieson maternity hospital in Forfar closed in 1993, it was to be replaced by a midwifery service at the new Whitehills health and community care centre. That did not last long before it closed, and mums were sent to Montrose and Arbroath.

When the Montrose community maternity unit shut in 2016 because of a lack of staff, that was supposedly for three months, but it never reopened. Proposals for a new maternity unit that was planned for two decades were shelved in 2013. The CMU was centralised to Arbroath, and I am told that the standard of care is second to none, but it is based in a building that is more than a century old, and there is little hope of it being replaced.

Why is that relevant to Ninewells? When previous closures have taken place in Angus, it has been with the facility at Ninewells in the background, as a safety net for the most difficult births in the community. As with many of the centralised services in Tayside, specialism has come at the cost of long drives, bus journeys, ambulance trips or plain old inaccessibility for people who do not have a car.

If Ninewells loses its top status for NIC, that could lead to an insane situation in which mums with sick babies living in Dundee will be sent 66 miles away, by the A90, to Aberdeen. As most of us—and most of our constituents, including mums and fathers—know, that would involve navigating the Forfar Road and half of the Kingsway, which is often at a standstill for hours of the day. Surely resourcing NHS Tayside is the best outcome, with a focus on recruitment and retention rather than the erosion of healthcare.

Finally, if even one tragedy can be averted by having a full local NICU, why take the risk?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Maybe that is something that the committee could help with.

I have heard what members have said, and I thank Paul O’Kane for his words and for actually stating that we do have a solemn duty to respect the rule of law.

To go back to what Marie McNair MSP said, I respectfully disagree. We can represent the voices of our constituents, but to do so in the manner that Ms Chapman has done, and to weaponise language like that and make it a direct attack, sets a dangerous precedent that says that parliamentarians can act in one way in the committee and in the chamber but that the rules do not apply when we are in our constituency and being the voices of our constituents. I would push back and ask, is that the Scottish National Party position? I would ask the SNP to reconsider that, because it is setting a dangerous precedent.

I would like to make one point of substance, and then I will sum up. There are protections under the Equality Act 2010 for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—I think that it is very important to say that.

Maggie Chapman, in her remarks this morning, did not engage at all with the statutory duties of an MSP, or with the premise that, as deputy convener of the committee, she has responsibilities under the 2008 act, in particular as the committee oversees civil justice matters.

I say to the convener and the committee that, this morning, we have seen absolutely not a jot of self-awareness. There is no self-reflection at all, which in itself is dangerous. This is not about freedom of expression; it is about the words that Maggie Chapman used to attack the Supreme Court. She has weaponised language and the verdict, rather than engaging with the substance of the verdict. No one is questioning her right to critique, but she has violated very important boundaries and disregarded the rule of law.

The Supreme Court was clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act 2010, but today we have heard no apology from Maggie Chapman, and no remorse. Therefore, I urge the committee to support my motion, which says that her position on the committee remains untenable.

Will you be requesting a meeting with the Scottish Government to progress that?