Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a bit of a technical supplementary. Section 112(3) of the Equality Act 2010 states:

“B commits an offence if B knowingly or recklessly makes a statement mentioned in subsection (2)(a) which is false or misleading in a material respect.”

Does EHRC consider that public bodies and the Scottish Government are potentially at risk of legal action if they continue to follow the 2011 code of practice? Given that the code is now clearly advising action, does the commission believe that the Scottish Government is out of line with the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling? Having advised the Scottish Government that it must abide by the ruling, disregard the 2011 code of practice and not wait for the new code, do you consider that civil servants or ministers might be committing an offence under section 112(3) if they fail to act in accordance with the law as clarified?

Good morning. Thank you for the information that you have provided so far. Can you confirm that the commission has changed its position on recording sex based on self-identification—which has been the case since the publication of the chief statistician’s guidance in 2021—and that you agree that it is necessary to collect data on biological sex for equality monitoring?

It is quite detailed, but it is important to understand if the Scottish Government is breaking the law.

Okay. I have a quick, sharp question. It has been almost a year since the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of the word “woman”, yet little progress has been made. Last month, I met with the chief constable, Jo Farrell, who said that Police Scotland did not wait for any guidance from the Scottish Government, but rather produced its own guidance, which is in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment and places an emphasis on biological sex as opposed to gender identity. Why have other public bodies not done the same?

We can do that. That is fine. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. Minister, in its submission to the committee, Murray Blackburn Mackenzie warned that

“Scottish public authorities are failing to meet their existing obligations in relation to protections for women and girls”

and that

“Failure to get the law right here carries a cost to the public purse”

because it

“is likely that more cases will be brought against Scottish public bodies.”

We have seen that in relation to the Sandie Peggie case, For Women Scotland’s lodging of legal action regarding school and prison guidance and the case of the Darlington nurses in England. Is MBM wrong to say that failure to properly implement the law could lead to more legal battles and, therefore, more taxpayer money being wasted?

Minister, it is good to hear that you accept the judgment and that you want to follow the law. However, it has recently emerged that SNP ministers have issued a declaration of incompatibility with regard to the Supreme Court’s judgment for the For Women Scotland case. Why is the Scottish Government seeking to undermine the law by putting the rights of dangerous criminals, who claim to be women, above the rights of some of the most vulnerable women?

I have spoken to Shakti informally many times and have heard that. My bill is there for serious offenders, not for someone who retaliates. That is why we set such a high threshold.

I will bring in Charlie Pound to talk about the technical stuff.

I have spent almost three and a half years on the bill. There is extensive information out there, including from survivors that I have managed to speak to. I totally understand and respect the committee. I also sit on a committee and I understand that timetables are tight, so I am in no way saying that the committee has done anything wrong. What I am saying is that there is extensive information out there and I do not believe that two evidence sessions can be enough.

I will give you an example regarding the organisations that wrote to the committee. Around 19 organisations have expressed concerns and are against certain parts of the bill, including three women’s aid organisations. There are then some 24 organisations that are in favour of my proposed domestic abuse register, subject to some conditions and amendments that they would like to see, and six women’s aid organisations that support it.

A vast number of people have provided evidence to the committee, but we have had only two evidence sessions, in addition to my three informal consultations and the initial consultation. Some people think the bill is good and some that it is bad, but some have a lot to add to the bill and amendments to suggest. So, yes, I do not believe that two weeks is enough.

I said that there will be some overcosting and undercosting. I make it clear to the member: we can only go on the information that is provided to us. The information was as stated at the time from the Scottish Government, and that is what we clarified. If something else is said somewhere else, we will have to look at that to see whether the Scottish Government was wrong or right.