Seòmar agus comataidhean

Minister, when you have been in the committee in the past, we have spoken about budgeting across all the departments and asked how we ensure that, throughout its work, each department adheres to women’s rights and other rights. Can you guarantee that every department will implement, for example, the EHRC guidance? As Cat McMeeken said, the policy might sit in different areas, such as education, or it might sit in your area. We have not yet got the budgeting right to implement a lot of this. What guarantees can you give that every department will implement the EHRC guidance and that everybody soaks it up in relation to single-sex spaces, places and services?

Thank you—that would be really helpful.

Minister, to follow on from Tess White’s question on engagement, women’s rights groups, including For Women Scotland, feel neglected by the Scottish Government. That was especially true during the debate on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, when the Scottish Government spent more time engaging with groups that supported the bill.

What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that, going forward, all sides are heard equally? Will you, in your ministerial role, personally guarantee that women’s groups such as For Women Scotland, and groups such as Sex Matters and LGB Alliance, will be called for evidence?

Thank you, Cat—if you could write to me on that, that would be great.

You mentioned that information will come forward from the Sullivan review and that there is a lot in it to unpack. Parts of that review are for the UK Government to act on, but there are also implications for the Scottish Government. Do you have a date for the information coming forward?

It was in relation to children’s gender markers.

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?

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

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 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.

I previously brought up the question of domestic abuse and the fact that more has to be done to identify when a victim or survivor is talking about abuse. In the past, when someone with a learning disability has spoken up, it has been said that they are not talking clearly, that the abuse is not happening or that the police are not trained to that level. There are a lot of gaps. It would be good if you could pass that report on.

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.