Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sarah Boyack’s amendment raises a number of important issues. I want to address the question of what everyone is calling bad actors. I have dealt with a lot of legislation, as have other members, so I know that it is perfectly normal in legislation to close loopholes, even if you do not think that there actually is a loophole. Although the Government has moved on the question of sex offenders, which I welcome, I do not understand why it is so resistant to closing the loophole.

There does not seem to be anything to prevent someone who wants to misuse the legislation from doing so. We are not talking about a trans person here; we are talking about a man, for example, who could easily acquire a GRC—let us face it, it will be a simple process. The Government does not seem to think that that is a loophole or that further action is needed to prevent that from happening. I plead with the cabinet secretary to think about the issue for stage 3. As legislators, we are here to look for loopholes in proposed legislation and say, “I’m not sure about this.” I might be wrong, but it looks to me that there is a loophole here. I do not understand why the Government is so resistant to that, because it does not undermine the principles of the bill or what the Government is trying to achieve.

I just point out the reality of life, which is that men have abused their positions in professions, including in the NHS, in relation to women. Why would they not use this as an opportunity, in another way? Therefore, why can we not think about how we could close that loophole, for the purposes of complete closure?

I was going to mention this later, cabinet secretary, but I will talk about it now, as you have mentioned it. You will be aware of the briefing that MSPs have received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which believes that, because of the significant differences between this bill and the 2004 act, there will be significant issues with regard to the interaction between this bill and the Equality Act 2010.

For completeness, ministers must address what the EHRC has said about that. The commission agrees with you on some points, but as the body responsible for guidance on the 2010 act, it thinks that there are significant issues. It would be wrong of the Scottish Government not to address that before we make decisions.

Thank you—it is because you touched on my amendment.

I had hoped that you would address the significant question around exclusion. You said that the 2004 act sits alongside the 2010 act. Forgetting for a moment your definition of sex versus my definition, I am interested in how the 2010 act is used for exclusions.

As I said, the Government has a minister who is telling health boards that they cannot exclude people and that if they do so, it might be discriminatory. That is completely unhelpful for the purposes of this debate, and I would like an explanation for that from the Government somewhere along the line.

I go back to the Glasgow Life example. I think that some bodies are either confused or potentially not implementing the section of the 2010 act that allows them to make a “proportionate” decision for a “legitimate” aim. In some cases, they are actually saying that they will not make any exclusions. That is not what the 2010 act says.

Given those examples, surely the Government has to step in and say, “Now hold on a minute—you are allowed to make exclusions under the 2010 act.” Do you see my point?

I was referring to the EHRC’s briefing, which says that we should consider the relevant amendments.

Will you take an intervention?

Your comprehensive amendment refers to a GRC being “fraudulently obtained”. What would need to be shown in court to prove that? You will be aware of the considerable debate around the provisions in the bill that say a GRC is fraudulently obtained if it can be shown that someone has done that for the “wrong reasons”, as you mentioned.

I have concerns that the bill does not set out what would be needed to be shown in court, given that self-declaration is a simple process.

The amendment is a good one, but I would be really grateful if you could outline what would need to be shown in court to prove that a GRC had been fraudulently obtained.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

If ever there were to be a case for changing the rules of privilege in the Scottish Parliament to include questions that are sub judice, it would be this one. I understand why it is so, but I do not think that it is good enough that we cannot get accountability for the decision. I agree with Russell Findlay that the case has brought the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service into complete disrepute. We have been unable to ask any questions and it is now a long time since that all happened. I am beginning to worry about the quality of the answers that we will get.

I totally support the notion that, whenever we can do so, we should ask the Lord Advocates to come to the committee. The committee needs to be the body to question the Crown Office on how such a decision could ever come to pass. Who else will do so? The money is an issue to some extent, but at the heart of the matter is the question of why our Crown Office and Lord Advocate took a decision that, on the face of it, now seems highly questionable and which has been described as involving a malicious prosecution against the directors concerned. We need answers on what was behind that decision. The sooner we can get those, the better.

Good morning. I have both a local and a regional interest in Barlinnie prison, which you have spoken about. For the record, and to add to what you said, I note that it has only five cells that are suitable for disabled prisoners, that there are no shared spaces for prisoners to sit and converse with others at mealtimes and—this is quite shocking—that prisoners have to eat all meals in their own cells. Where there are two prisoners to a cell, that might breach the standards on space.

I imagine that not much can be done about the situation right now, but how concerned would you be if the timetable for the new build were to slip? Have you had any discussions that would give cause for concern about that timetable? I appreciate that it is in the hands of the Scottish Prison Service but, given what you have said, I imagine that you have a strong interest in it, too.

I have a question to follow on from Jamie Greene’s questions. Of all the alarming things that I read in the committee papers, the one that jumped out at me was what you had to say about the heightened risk of prison disturbances. You did not mince your words.