Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Convener, I have one more question, which touches on budgeting. Can I ask that quickly?

Thank you, Cat—I am very pleased about that because that has not happened in the past. Those groups have spoken about that. To be honest, when evidence is taken, whether it is in this committee or whether it comes to you as the Scottish Government, it is important that we hear from everybody to make sure that we are implementing things in the right way.

There is a balance, but those organisations have not been heard in the past, so I am really pleased with what you have said. If that does not happen, I will be writing to the minister to ensure that we include those groups.

I do not think that it will.

My question is just on the back of what the minister said.

I have two supplementaries, following on from Tess White’s questions.

Minister, the recent decisions by the UK Supreme Court in London and by the Court of Session in Edinburgh have made it clear that women and girls need to be protected. Single-sex spaces and services are vital for their protection, yet all too often the Scottish Government has put gender ideology above the rights of women and girls. Will the Scottish Government be implementing the EHRC’s interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment?

Also, do you not think that, the longer that you wait, the more that you are not only putting women and girls at risk, but leaving public bodies liable in cases such as the Sandie Peggie case? You have updated us a little bit on that matter, but I am concerned about what happens while we wait. People are being affected every day. Women and girls are not protected at this moment, even though the judgment has been issued. Will you clarify what you are doing now, while you are waiting for certain things to come through?

No, I am fine, convener—I tied my questions into one.

It is very good to hear that you will move at pace because, as I said, this is about protection. It is also about rights, so there could be more court cases.

I wrote to you asking whether the Scottish Government will implement the recommendations of the Sullivan review on collecting data based on biological sex. Your response to my written question stated:

“The Scottish Government has previously committed to reviewing its guidance on collecting data on sex and gender by the end of 2026 as part of the Non-Binary Equality Action Plan.”—[Written Answers, 17 April 2025; S6W-36211]

When my colleague Tess White highlighted in the chamber last week that there is a “serious safeguarding risk” with regard to changing the gender marker of children in national health service records, she received a non-answer from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice. As the Minister for Equalities, can you give me a clear answer as to whether the children’s gender markers should be changed in NHS records?

I thank my colleague Tess White for lodging the motion, which recommends

“that the Parliament remove Maggie Chapman MSP from office as a member of the Committee.”

I agree with the points that Tess White has made and I will vote for the motion.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to set an example for the people of Scotland. After all, our constituents chose us to be their voice and represent their interests in the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, the shocking behaviour that we witnessed on 20 April from Maggie Chapman MSP shows that she is not fit for the role. Maggie Chapman, MSP and deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, with regard to the UK Supreme Court judgment on the definition of the word “woman”, said:

“We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court”.

That is shocking behaviour that is not appropriate for a member of the Parliament, let alone for the deputy convener of this committee, which deals with matters relating to civil justice and to equality. Therefore, her position is untenable.

I was privileged enough to witness the UK Supreme Court judgment in the For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers case in person in London two weeks ago. I was sitting in the courtroom as Lord Hodge eloquently delivered the court’s unanimous decision. He used understandable, measured and balanced language, free of legal jargon—that was a sentiment that was shared by many people whom I spoke to.

In this country, our judiciary is tasked with upholding the law and acting as a check on Government powers. Its role is not to make law but, rather, to uphold, apply and interpret it. Under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, members of the Scottish Parliament

“must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary”.

Members of this committee, which also covers matters of civil justice, ought to know that.

For Maggie Chapman to say that “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” come from our Supreme Court is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous. Roddy Dunlop KC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, has said in a letter to the committee, on behalf of the faculty’s office-bearers, that Maggie Chapman’s comments

“constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary ... and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves.”

The faculty has come out to say that it does not believe that Maggie Chapman’s words

“allow her to properly discharge her responsibilities as Deputy Convenor in line with the impartiality requirements”.

Judgments are there to be welcomed and respected, and there is no place for such language. We have seen examples from around the world in which death threats have been issued against members of the judiciary; we cannot have such examples repeated here. Scott Wortley, a legal academic from the University of Edinburgh, said that although judgments are subject to criticism,

“any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.”

When asked to apologise for making the comments, and whether she was considering her position on the committee, Maggie Chapman did not apologise but said:

“There are plenty of politicians in Scotland who are prepared to stand up and represent people with transphobic views, people who don’t think trans people should be out in public, should be allowed to use public facilities, like the rest of us do.”

Labelling supporters of the ruling and all those in favour of single-sex spaces transphobic is reckless, does a great disservice to women and women’s rights advocates and is a perfect example of gaslighting.

I have received correspondence from many constituents who have expressed concerns over Maggie Chapman’s flare-up. Today, the public is watching. We all have a duty as members of the committee to decide whether we continue to have people like Maggie Chapman on the committee, tainting the good work that we all do here. That cannot be the face of an equalities committee.

I fully support Tess White’s motion and encourage members to vote in favour of it.

Perhaps Lucy Mulvagh will answer this question. I know from this committee and from working with people from ethnic backgrounds that it is sometimes hard to get that information and to reach out to those communities because of the trust issue. Have you done any work there, and have you found it difficult to reach out to those people?

I have one more question. Women from minority ethnic backgrounds and disabled women often face discrimination based on their sex and on their ethnic background and disability status, respectively. How can we, as policy makers, better include groups of women who face multiple discrimination in decision making and service design?

I will go to you first, Angela, but I will also go to Lorne Berkley on disabled women.