On my point about access to justice, we already have a problem with legal aid. We have looked at only three local authorities but, for the whole of Scotland, based on the stats and the estimates, 4,000 pupils could fall into the category. There could be disputes between what a parent wants and what a child wants. We need to think about that.

My second question builds on what my colleague Dr Gosal talked about in relation to capacity. The bill is looking to give very young children the ability to make decisions, when the age of capacity is usually 16. My understanding is that a child is legally allowed to be left alone at age 12 and that there is a different age for when a child is allowed to be left overnight. Therefore, the law must be very clear.

Professor O’Hagan talked about access to justice. If there is a conflict, will legal aid need to be provided to children if they disagree with their parents? I understand that the age at which a child has the capacity to access legal aid is 12. My point is that the law must be clear, as the starting point in the bill is that the child has capacity. Professor Sutherland, what is your view? I know that it is very complicated, but the law must be clear.

I have two questions and will address my first one to Professor O’Hagan. You have just talked about the intent of the bill and Dr Hill talked about the lack of a scoping exercise. We looked at three local authorities and our data shows that, of 700,000 pupils, 143 pupils withdrew from RO only, nine pupils withdrew from RME and 61 pupils withdrew from both. Why not wait until the Scottish human rights bill and do it all properly? We have four legal experts here who support the view that the bill is a sticking plaster. So, Professor O’Hagan, why not just wait until the Scottish human rights bill?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Communities in Aberdeenshire are tolerant, respectful, welcoming and understanding, but they face a situation that was supposed to be temporary. Aberdeenshire Council is at a disadvantage because it is the fourth-lowest-funded council in Scotland and is now making swingeing cuts to its creaking services, which are already at capacity. How much of the £7.9 million, and of the additional £300,000, will go to Aberdeenshire Council?

Huge sums of taxpayer money have been used to line the pockets of penny-pinching paper pushers in Glasgow as they sail off into taxpayer-funded early retirement. There is no accountability. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that there is a code of conduct for council chief executives and officers, with proper sanctions, to stop rogue officers exploiting the public purse for personal gain?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has engaged with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in relation to the 19 public bodies and organisations that were found to have misrepresented the Equality Act 2010. (S6O-04949)

The Scottish National Party Government has let public bodies break the law, betray women and burn public money. It is defending the indefensible, and that is absolutely shameful. The EHRC has reprimanded 19 organisations for misrepresenting the 2010 act, yet the SNP Government is still peddling guidance that promotes self-identification to schools and prisons. Public bodies are completely at sea because the SNP puts ideology before women’s rights. Will the minister be finding out whether any of those organisations are based here in Scotland? Will she and the Government issue a directive to public bodies to follow the law by the end of the year at the latest?

I apologise for being 40 seconds late for this important debate. Like others, I pay tribute to my colleague Pam Gosal for securing the parliamentary time for it.

We are five months on from the Supreme Court judgment, and it should shame the SNP Government that MSPs are still having to call for policies to be updated in line with the law. I am delighted that Jackie Baillie has spoken in the debate. I thank her for that, but I would have liked to see more of her Labour colleagues speaking in the debate.

To Maggie Chapman, I say that I find the term “cis woman” offensive, and I say to Rona Mackay that she must have drawn the short straw to have to come here tonight to be the Scottish Government’s spokesperson.

When Scottish ministers are determined to dodge scrutiny, we must use every available lever to demand answers. It is shocking that my colleague has to bring a members’ business debate in order to do that. Whether it is because of their arrogance or ignorance, we will not let SNP ministers get away with it.

Let me first congratulate the tenacious trio who are here today from For Women Scotland. Marion Calder, Susan Smith—I am sorry; I am getting emotional—and Trina Budge courageously fought for women’s sex-based rights from their kitchen tables to the highest court in the land. After meeting on Mumsnet, those three incredible women defended women’s rights while the SNP Government and its army of lawyers did their best to dismantle them. Sex Matters and Scottish Lesbians, as interveners in the case, should also be thanked.

The Supreme Court judgment was unanimous: under the Equality Act 2010, “woman” means a biological woman, and “sex” means biological sex. We cannot get clearer than that—no ifs, no buts.

The Scottish Parliament has acted to comply with the law. So, too, has the City of Edinburgh Council. Even the beleaguered Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has fallen into line. However, under the SNP Government, there are still men in women’s prisons; too many hospital wards are still mixed sex; women and girls are still having to get changed in gender-neutral changing rooms at their local leisure centres; and children went back to school in August with unlawful trans guidance still in place, which means that teenage girls still have to share school toilets with boys. It is absolutely shocking.

Shamefully, there has been no directive from John Swinney to Scotland’s public bodies to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, leaving them, as my colleague Jackie Baillie said, wide open to litigation. The foot dragging from Scotland’s First Minister is sending a clear message to women and girls across the country. As Michelle Thomson said, inaction is action. The captured SNP would rather keep our rights in limbo than confront biological reality.

The SNP is fixated on self-ID and is pandering to party activists rather than upholding the rule of law. It is not wishful thinking; it is wilful ignorance. Now, Scottish ministers are throwing away even more taxpayers’ money to defend themselves again in court. I do not know the exact figure that is being spent—it was quoted as being £250,000, but my understanding is that, this week, the figure has risen to £600,000, and, as Jackie Baillie said, could go up to £1 million. That is shocking. NHS Fife is paying only a small part of that; the large part is being paid by the Scottish Government.

There are fears that the can could be kicked well into 2026. I would like to ask the minister to address that point in closing the debate. Is the Scottish Government going to kick the issue into 2026, or is it going to follow the law this year? If it is kicked down the road into next year, that beggars belief.

I say to the SNP Government that the game is up. As Jackie Baillie and my colleagues have said several times in the chamber, nobody is above the law. The Supreme Court has provided clarity, and now the SNP Government must restore its tattered credibility.

In closing, I echo the words of women and girls up and down the country who cannot speak for themselves: just get on with it—women will not be ignored, and we will not wait.

I am an MSP for North East Scotland.