Official Report 1017KB pdf
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-16518, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—
(a) Tuesday 18 February 2025—
after
followed by Ministerial Statement: Community Wealth Building Progress and Future Ambition
insert
followed by Ministerial Statement: Securing a Future for Grangemouth
delete
5.00 pm Decision Time
and insert
5.15 pm Decision Time
(b) Wednesday 19 February 2025—
after
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands;
Health and Social Care
insert
followed by Ministerial Statement: The Promise Oversight Board Report 3: Progress and Next Steps Towards Keeping The Promise
(c) Thursday 20 February 2025—
delete
2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.30 pm Portfolio Questions:
Social Justice
and insert
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Social Justice
after
followed by Scottish Government Debate: Independent Review of Sentencing and Penal Policy
insert
followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Great British Energy Bill - UK Legislation
delete
5.00 pm Decision Time
and insert
5.15 pm Decision Time—[Jamie Hepburn]
I call Tess White to speak to and move amendment S6M-16518.1. You have up to five minutes, Ms White.
14:04
Sandie Peggie, who has been a national health service nurse for 30 years, spoke up for her sex-based rights in her workplace because she did not want to share a changing facility with a biological male. However, in doing so, she is being treated as the perpetrator, not the victim.
I know that the Presiding Officer considers this case to be sub judice. Nothing I say here today will prejudice any live proceedings, because at the heart of this case are the policies of the Scottish National Party Government.
Presiding Officer, we need a ministerial statement on public sector workers and single-sex spaces. I am grateful to the Minister for Parliamentary Business for being open, despite the late notice, to considering that request.
The protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex is a matter of law—it is in the Equality Act 2010. In supporting the amendment calling for a statement, I ask whether Tess White agrees with me that the Scottish Government and its agencies are not above the law.
I thank Jackie Baillie, and I completely agree with her that the Scottish Government and its agencies are not above the law.
The situation that has arisen in NHS Fife speaks volumes about what is happening behind closed doors in Scotland’s public sector under the SNP Government. The reality is that Nicola Sturgeon’s self-identification policy has binned the rights of biologically female employees to access single-sex spaces. Taxpayers’ money is being used to cover legal costs to defend a public body’s gender policy, but there is no transparency over the cost to the public purse because the health board involved will not disclose that information. That is simply not acceptable, especially when the health service is in crisis and budgets are being squeezed.
It has been reported that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, was made aware in June last year of the situation in NHS Fife and the legal implications of it. We need clarity over Neil Gray’s involvement or lack thereof.
The public interest in the issue is huge. It has been covered extensively in the press and MSPs have been contacted by constituents with legitimate questions and concerns, and yet we have not been able to bring those questions to the chamber. Topical questions, First Minister’s questions and urgent questions that have been lodged on the issue have not been selected. Meanwhile, our colleagues in Westminster have been able to raise it. It is deeply disappointing that, once again, this Parliament cannot discharge its duties to the public because members do not have parliamentary privilege.
Women are watching today. The public has had enough of the recent abdication, obfuscation and moral cowardice from the Government, and we are only going to see more witch hunts at the public’s expense if we do not get clarity on the Scottish Government’s position. I urge members to support my amendment.
I move amendment S6M-16518.1, to leave out first “5.15 pm Decision Time” and insert:
“followed by Ministerial Statement: Public Sector Workers’ Access to Single Sex Spaces
5.45 pm Decision Time”.
I call Jamie Hepburn to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
14:07
I will set out why we cannot accept the request for a statement and cannot agree to the amendment in Tess White’s name. First, she has clearly indicated that the rationale for lodging the amendment was her disappointment that an urgent question—I do not know whether it was in her name or another colleague’s name—was not selected for answer today. That is your prerogative, Presiding Officer, and not the Scottish Government’s prerogative. Where any question is put to the Scottish Government that you have selected, we will, of course, come to the chamber to answer it.
With regard to the request for a statement, there are three reasons in particular why I do not think that we can accept it. The first is the schedule that we have before us, which is already busy. The Government is always open to ensuring that we are—rightly—held to account by members. That is the very reason why I stood up to move a motion on an amendment to business just a moment ago. There was a request by the Conservatives for a statement on the future of Grangemouth; I proposed that we schedule it for today, and the Parliamentary Bureau has agreed to that. There was a request from the Labour Party that we schedule a statement on the Promise; I agreed to that and it was agreed at the Parliamentary Bureau, and I proposed that we schedule it for tomorrow.
There is a debate being added on a legislative consent motion on the Great British Energy Bill. I had suggested that the LCM required only to be moved and then voted on, because an LCM had already been brought to the chamber. It was suggested that there could be interest in having a wider debate on the issue, and I have acceded to that.
This Government is not afraid of being held to account by members, but I am afraid to say that what we have already added to our parliamentary schedule this week does not allow us to accommodate another statement.
The second issue is that we need to be conscious of the law. I do not think that any of us would suggest that any individual—here, in the Government or in any Administration—is above the law. Notwithstanding Ms White’s feeling that she has navigated safely and is staying on the right side of sub judice, I believe that there is an inherent danger. We heard quite clearly the rationale for the request for the statement, which relates specifically to an individual employment tribunal, so there is a danger that we could stray into that territory. I do not think that any of us would want to step across that on-going process and put it in jeopardy. That would not be fair to any party that is taking part in that process.
I entirely understand the Government’s reluctance to comment on a live criminal case—particularly a criminal case that involves a jury, which might be swayed by comments that are made in Parliament. However, this is not a criminal case but a civil case that is being determined by a very experienced employment specialist judge. Other than cowardice, there is no barrier to or risk of prejudice from a minister in this Government speaking on the broader issue of access to single-sex rights.
There speaks the voice of inexperience—sub judice relates not just to criminal cases but to civil cases. That is an absolute nonsense from Mr Fraser. It is a live case, and there will be a tribunal, so we need to be careful about what we say, and I will say no more in relation to that matter.
Will the minister give way on that point?
I am afraid that I will not give way to Mr Kerr. We hear from him all too frequently, so we will not hear from him on this occasion.
The last point, which is also an important one, is that the request was not made at the 11th hour—it was made at beyond the 11th hour. It is not good enough to come at the last minute to ask the Government to make a statement on the same day. Frankly, it is not acceptable to ask that of ministers, but it is also not fair on Parliament because scheduling a statement for the same day does not give Parliament the courtesy of having enough lead-in time to ask questions. [Interruption.] That lot over there might have known about the plan, but no one else did, and that is not fair.
I urge Parliament to reject the amendment.
I remind all members of the need to treat one another with courtesy and respect.
The question is, that amendment S6M-16518.1, in the name of Tess White, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16518, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.
14:13 Meeting suspended.
We come to the vote on amendment S6M-16518.1, in the name of Tess White, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16518, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a technical issue. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms Grahame. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had the same issue. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Choudhury. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O'Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The result of the division on amendment S6M-16518.1, in the name of Tess White, is: For 47, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment disagreed to.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Parliament has just decided—we assume with the votes of Scottish National Party and Green members—not to allow a statement on this crucial issue. [Interruption.]
Parliament has just decided that—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Ross. Do continue.
SNP members seem to think that this is funny. I think that it is serious that Parliament should be able to address an issue that is both topical and urgent. Presiding Officer, I use those words because topical, urgent and First Minister’s questions on this matter have been submitted to you, of which none were selected. I know that it is frowned on for members to challenge the ruling of the chair, but given that Parliament has just taken the decision not to allow the Government to give a statement on the issue, and given that you, as Presiding Officer, will not select questions on the issue, when can the Scottish Parliament and members of the Parliament debate this important issue?
Will you also advise whether there is an opportunity for Parliament to sit longer tonight? One of the three reasons that the SNP minister refused the Conservatives’ request for a statement was that Parliament is already sitting until 5.15 tonight. Is it really the Parliament’s decision that we cannot sit until, perhaps, 6 o’clock to debate the issue and get a response from ministers?
Will you also give advice on the sub judice point? The purpose of the question that I submitted on the issue this week, as both a topical question and a First Minister’s question, was to get advice and guidance for all national health service boards across Scotland, not just NHS Fife. Surely it is not right for constituents of all those health boards to have to wait until, potentially, after July for the employment tribunal to reconvene before they get the answers from Government ministers in this Parliament.
In line with long-standing convention and in common with my predecessors, I do not give reasons for selection decisions. I consider each question that is lodged carefully and in line with published criteria.
Many important questions are submitted each week. I do not expect challenges to my authority when a member is not selected on a specific item of business, and, as Mr Ross pointed out, members have opportunities throughout the week to raise this issue.
When?
Mr Ross! I ask you to stop speaking from your seat in that manner. You are an experienced member of this Parliament, and I am sure that you are wholly aware of the opportunities that are available to you.
On that, I have a point of order.
Further to that point of order, Mr Ross, I have nothing else to add, so please do not repeat what you have said previously.
Further to my previous point of order, Presiding Officer, you said that you offered members opportunities throughout the week to raise those questions. Could you advise what those opportunities are? You have refused them all.
Mr Ross, I have explained the situation quite clearly. I am not sitting here and explaining matters that you understand wholly and thoroughly. You are very well aware of the opportunities that exist for all members to raise this issue, and that is the case this week, as with any other.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In connection with rules 13.3, 13.4, 13.6B and 5.4 of standing orders, I ask for your guidance on a significant matter of public interest, which is now being reported on outwith the Parliament.
The reason that has been given—or floated, I would suggest—for why the issue that Tess White and Douglas Ross have raised is not being discussed in Parliament this week as per the business papers is that the issue concerned is described as sub judice. Would you agree that, in fact, employment tribunals in Scotland are not subject to the sub judice rule? Would you care to clear the matter up? The media speculation might be misrepresenting what is happening inside Parliament. This is a big issue outside as well as inside this Parliament, and the people of Scotland need to know that the sub judice rule is not the specific reason why the matter is not being discussed, because it is not sub judice.
Mr Kerr, I confirm that I have not ruled that the matter is sub judice.
We will now continue with our item of business. The next question is, that motion S6M-16518, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Air ais
Time for ReflectionAir adhart
Topical Question Time