���˿���

Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 17, 2025

Official Report 1036KB pdf

---

Supreme Court Judgment (Definition of “Woman” in the Equality Act 2010)

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17234, in the name of Pam Gosal, on welcoming the Supreme Court’s judgment on the definition of the word “woman”. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes and respects the judgment of the Supreme Court of the UK on 16 April 2025 in the case, For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers; recognises that the court unanimously ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex; congratulates For Women Scotland on what it sees as the group’s hard work and dedication in protecting and strengthening women’s rights; considers that this decision will have many implications for the rights of women and girls, including those living in East and West Dunbartonshire, and notes calls on the Scottish Government to review its policies to ensure that these are in line with the law.

17:19  

Before I begin, I welcome to the public gallery, and thank, For Women Scotland and all the organisations and individuals who are fighting tooth and nail for women’s rights. I am extremely proud to stand here today, delivering a speech on an issue that is so important to women and girls.

These are dark days in politics. Nicola Sturgeon’s dangerous gender ideology has put many women and girls at risk. However, the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment on 16 April this year was crystal clear: the definition of the word “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 is based on biological sex. There is nothing controversial about that. Men cannot become women, and it is shocking that in 2025, we need the highest court in the land to define such a simple word.

Where are we now? It has been five months since that monumental judgment, but the Scottish National Party is still shamefully refusing to implement it in law. In Scotland, we have nurses suspended for refusing to share changing rooms with biologically male colleagues; policies that allow for dangerous biological males with male genitalia to serve time in women’s prisons; and guidance allowing transgender offenders to be strip-searched by both male and female police officers. We have school guidance stating that young people

“where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel more comfortable with”.

We have teachers being called transphobic for expressing legitimate concerns over the provision of unisex toilets, and Scottish Government lawyers arguing that men can become pregnant. All that could have been avoided if the law had been properly implemented in the first place by the SNP Government.

I am not just disappointed that the Scottish Government has refused to follow the law—I am appalled. I am appalled that the Government has tried to silence us at every point. I am appalled that, during the consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, SNP ministers prioritised meetings with gender extremists who supported that dangerous bill. How could we forget that the First Minister at the time, Nicola Sturgeon, said that opponents of the bill were

“deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well”?

Of course, when Nicola Sturgeon and other members of her Government, including John Swinney, were asked if a male double rapist was a woman, they shamefully dodged the question.

However, actions speak louder than words. The SNP Government has wasted more than £20 million in taxpayers’ money to fund gender extremist organisations that are desperate to strip women and girls of their rights. That includes more than £3.6 million to the Equality Network and Scottish Trans; more than £2 million to LGBT Youth Scotland; and more than £0.25 million to Stonewall Scotland.

On the subject of wasting taxpayers’ money, we should not forget taxpayer-funded institutions such as the National Library of Scotland, which initially caved in to the woke mob by refusing to include gender-critical books such as “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht” as part of its exhibition. That decision was reversed, after the Scottish Conservatives called it out.

I ask members to imagine what would have happened if the shoe had been on the other foot, and the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the Scottish Government: we would not have heard the end of it. However, because the SNP did not get its way, it is dragging its heels.

A recent report from the Ethical Standards Commissioner, “State of the Nation: Diversity in Public Appointments in Scotland”, highlighted

“a tendency of policy-makers to seek to apply their own policies rather than following national law”,

resulting

“in ... legal cases”.

In fact, the Government has spent hundreds and thousands of pounds on legal costs, with taxpayers footing the bill. It has already lost two major court battles, and I am hopeful that justice will prevail in Sandie Peggie’s fight against the national health service, too.

Yet the failure to implement what has been set out so clearly by the Supreme Court and by the Equality and Human Rights Commission will lead to more legal challenges. Just last weekend, it was confirmed that there will be another legal challenge from For Women Scotland over flawed trans guidance for schools and prisons.

It is becoming clear that our voices as women do not matter for the law or the SNP Scottish Government. Women and girls deserve answers, so I have a very simple question for the Minister for Equalities: will the Supreme Court judgment be implemented immediately by the Scottish Government?

I am happy to give way to the minister.

The Scottish Government has always said that we accept the ruling of the Supreme Court in its judgment—that is not a contentious issue, and we are working at pace to review and implement guidance as necessary. That is not in question.

As I expected, there was no yes or no answer. That is all that I wanted from the minister—just a simple yes or no.

Let me be clear today: I will continue the fight against this toxic gender ideology, for every woman and girl in Scotland. It is my number 1 priority on which I will continue to hold the SNP Government to account. No matter how many hurdles are thrown in our way or how many times they try to silence or slander us, women won’t wheesht and women won’t wait. I promise that I will continue the fight with every breath that I have.

Nevertheless, how many more court cases are we going to go through before common sense prevails in the SNP Government? How much more taxpayers’ money is the SNP Government going to waste?

The Scottish Parliament is an institution that people respect, but under the SNP it has become an echo chamber that does not reflect the priorities of the people of Scotland.

Many women, including myself, are looking forward to receiving a response from the minister in closing. I hope that she will be able to give us that information.

We have For Women Scotland and many other organisations and individuals in the public gallery, waiting to hear from the minister whether she and her Government will implement the law in the Supreme Court ruling. We want just a simple yes or no, minister.

We move to the open debate.

17:27  

I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the debate to the chamber. I apologise to members, as I have to leave earlier than the conclusion of the debate.

I have to say that it fills me with despair to be speaking again in a debate to fight for women’s rights. I have never sought to be a victim, and I have always been wary of using traumatic events in my life to draw attention to myself, yet I feel the lack of action from the Scottish Government deeply personally.

Since I had to stand up and speak about this issue having barely just been elected in 2021, and then had to vote against the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill due to the casual introduction of self-identification without any consideration of safeguarding, I have met many women with a similar story to my own.

My early-years trauma has left me with a compelling need to feel safe, not just to be safe. I have a visceral fear of the physicality of men when encountering them in unexpected places—places where I thought that I could feel safe. That visceral fear, when it kicks in, leads straight to a trauma response, which includes acute anxiety, inflammation, tingling across my face and mouth, extreme tiredness and so on. That is how I live my life.

Therefore, having to continually stress the need for protected safe places and for dignity, safety and privacy is constantly re-triggering. Having to continually press the Scottish Government to do the right thing is constantly re-triggering. Yet, given the fact that 89 per cent of those reporting serious sexual assaults in Scotland are women, I am not alone—I am actually fairly typical.

In the chamber, there are women similar to me—both ���˿��� and members of the public watching the debate—whose direct life experience of being in the sex class of female has subjected them, as it has subjected me, to such experiences.

I have been so wary of ever mentioning myself, merely noting that I must speak for those who cannot be heard. However, I press myself to continue to do so, as the Scottish Government has failed to engage with women who have been raped or sexually assaulted. It failed to do so when the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee was looking at the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill; it failed to speak with For Women Scotland; and it is not listening still.

Scottish women simply want their legal rights back. They do not want to take rights away from anyone else, and they want their Government to do the right thing.

I am tired of being stuck in a groundhog day loop in which the Scottish Government states that it

“accepts the result of the Supreme Court judgement”

and insists that it will definitely do something at some point—what that something is, and the timeframe, are never defined—and when it is asked again, it repeats the lines, and so on.

Decision theory tells us that not making a decision is a decision in and of itself. Rather than face the consequences of acting on the Supreme Court judgment, the Scottish Government has gamed that it would rather live with the consequences of not acting on it, and those consequences are the continued denial of women’s rights. What does that say to me? What does it say to 51 per cent of the Scottish population?

Public money is really tight, yet there always appears to be money to contest women’s rights. I find it incredible that the Scottish Government is going to go head to head with For Women Scotland all over again, despite the Supreme Court judgment. That is surely the very definition of madness.

It seems ironic that, today, we saw the passage of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which really recognises the impact of trauma on women. I hope that sensible heads start to prevail and that the Scottish Government understands why safety, dignity and privacy are vital to women like me.

17:32  

I very much welcome the motion that has been lodged by my friend and colleague Pam Gosal. I especially back the motion’s conclusion, which urges the Scottish Government

“to ensure that”

its policies

“are in line with the law.”

The Supreme Court judgment in April was unequivocal in its conclusion: that the term “woman” refers to biological women and that “sex” refers to biological sex in the Equality Act 2010. Since the ruling, the Scottish Government seems to have been very reluctant to take that message on board and, five months on, a range of important public bodies are still waiting for instructions.

This should not be difficult. The ruling itself, as well as being obvious to many of us, and long overdue, is in fact very simple. I have recently written to three major public sector bodies—Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Prison Service—to inquire as to how they are getting on in enacting the consequences of the ruling.

Their replies were worryingly similar and betrayed the same issue: nothing concrete from SNP ministers has yet arrived, leaving all manner of taxpayer-funded organisations, which are all under the leadership of the Scottish Government, to muddle through on their own.

Police Scotland told me that it was reviewing the guidance, but that

“No formal guidance, instruction, or policy has been provided by the Scottish Government to Police Scotland.”

The SFRS is also moving forward with some engagement, but they—like their policing colleagues—warned:

“At present, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has not received any formal direction, advice or guidance from the Scottish Government in relation to the ruling.”

The Scottish Prison Service has said that, although it was reviewing matters “at pace”, it, too, was awaiting guidance.

A reasonable person would conclude that the Scottish Government is merely closing its eyes and ears and hoping that all this goes away. However, thanks to the efforts of groups such as For Women Scotland, which has rightly been praised in the motion, we know that that will not happen.

Ignoring the state of play could have serious ramifications for organisations. We know that female police officers need protection from dangerous male criminals who claim to be women just so that they can be searched by a woman police constable, humiliating, intimidating and degrading them in the process. We know that female firefighters expect dignity and privacy in a fast-moving and male-dominated organisation. Most shamefully of all, we know the lengths that some male criminals are prepared to go to to persuade the Scottish Government that they should be incarcerated in a female prison alongside some of society’s most vulnerable women.

In the absence of strong and unwavering guidance from the Scottish Government, those organisations cannot go full steam ahead with the changes that they need to make and which we know that they want to make. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service told me that

“The Supreme Court ruling has provided important clarity.”

All that is to say nothing of the situation in schools, hospitals and other public sector workplaces, all of which desperately need action from the Scottish Government. Parliament respecting the ruling of the Supreme Court is not a choice; it is a duty. Doing so does not just uphold the law but strengthens and protects the rights of women and girls across Scotland.

Several months have now passed since the ruling, and, disappointingly, Scottish ministers appear to have made no progress on ensuring that its public bodies are following the rule of law. I hope that the motion focuses the minds of those in Government, and I am delighted to give it my full and unwavering support.

17:36  

I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the debate to the Parliament and echo her comments about For Women Scotland.

When the Supreme Court was founded in 2009, under a previous Labour UK Government, it finally removed judges from the House of Lords and separated the different arms of the state. Politicians might make the law, but it was independent judges who would decide whether it was being appropriately and fairly applied. In April, the Supreme Court did just that, when it ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

As Lord Hodge said when presenting the court’s decision, this is not about pitting one group against the other but about interpreting the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. A court is a place in which to settle debates and clear up confusion. At the time of the ruling, the current First Minister was among those who said that the ruling gave clarity, and I agree. He pledged to engage with the implications of the ruling. I think that we can all agree that that was the sensible thing to do, so I have to ask myself why, nearly six months on, we are having this debate. It should be simple: the court has clarified the law; we are all bound by the law; we should respect it; and we should implement it. There is no need to wait for more guidance or consultations in order to follow the law—we can start the process now.

All that we are asking is for the Scottish Government to follow the law. It cannot be both a lawmaker and a lawbreaker. Just as the Supreme Court provides clarity to the Scottish Government, there are countless public sector employers in Scotland who rely on the Scottish Government to provide clarity to them. If the Scottish Government will not show leadership, who do they turn to? The First Minister could issue a letter today to public bodies underlining the position and reminding bodies that they need to act in accordance with the law. Failure to do so will simply lead to more expensive court challenges, such as the Sandie Peggie case against NHS Fife. We know that that is costing the public purse a huge amount of money, when, frankly, the NHS is in crisis. Other legal cases are in the pipeline, because the Scottish Government is intent on delay.

A report by the Ethical Standards Commissioner this week noted that there is

“a tendency of policy-makers to seek to apply their own policies rather than following national law, and for organisations to attempt to go beyond the law”.

As a result, it warned that

“Practice has diverged from legislation to a point at which there is perceived competition and resulting tension between equality groups”.

I come to this issue from the perspective of being a health and social care spokesperson. I am acutely aware of how busy and overworked staff are in hospitals, including managers who are trying to fill shifts and ensure that their front-line teams do not burn out. They do not have time for politics or ideological debates. They need to know that they are being supported and that they are following rules that are legal and fair.

Our NHS needs more equipment, better working conditions and more investment in primary care; it does not need more employment tribunals. According to some estimates, the case of Sandy Peggie against NHS Fife will eventually cost as much as £1 million, not including any potential compensation. NHS Fife has already spent a quarter of a million pounds on legal fees alone, and it is the taxpayer and patients who will bear the costs.

The longer that the Scottish Government drags its feet, the greater the risk will be of more tribunals, more confusion and more tensions in the workplace. Employers need clarity so that they can get on and think about the best way to accommodate the different needs of all of their staff. The SNP should today tell its public bodies to follow the law. There should be no more delay or equivocation—get on with it.

17:41  

It does not give me any pleasure to speak in this afternoon’s debate, but I am doing it because it is important that those who do not welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment and who have had their lives made considerably worse by it are represented in our Parliament today.

This debate frames women’s rights as if they are in conflict with trans rights. That is simply not true. Women’s rights and trans rights are not in competition; they are deeply interwoven. Our struggle is a shared one against patriarchal structures that seek to police our bodies, define us narrowly and limit our freedom.

The Supreme Court’s ruling has, in effect, rewritten the Equality Act 2010 to reduce the definitions of “woman” and “sex” to so-called biological terms. In doing so, it has stripped away rights that many trans people had relied upon and, crucially, it has made life harder, not safer, for all women—cis and trans alike.

Since the ruling, hundreds of testimonies have poured in from people across Scotland and the UK. “A Community Living in Fear”, a report that has been published by TransActual, captures the scale of the crisis. People are terrified. One trans woman described the ruling as “profoundly dehumanising”, saying:

“It not only invalidates the lived realities of trans women like myself but sends a broader message that we are to be excluded—further fuelling discrimination, isolation, and abuse that many of us already face daily.”

Another trans mother of a young son spoke about how she now feels that she cannot even take her child to the toilet in public. She said:

“I haven’t been to a toilet outside of the house since because now I am scared, is this my future?”

She said that she does not want her three-year-old to be exposed to harassment because of who she is.

Those are not abstract fears; they are daily, lived realities. The ruling has emboldened those who wish to exclude, harass and intimidate. It has left people considering emigration, facing panic attacks and, heartbreakingly, openly discussing suicidal thoughts.

Let us be clear: the ruling does nothing to protect women. On the contrary, it places all women under greater scrutiny. As one cis woman explained,

“Since this ruling I find myself terrified”—

Will the member take an intervention on the use of the term “cis woman”?

I am using the words—

Ms Chapman, please resume your seat. I do not think that the member was taking an intervention.

No, I was not.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I personally object to being called a “cis woman”.

I thank Ms Hamilton for her point of order. We are a Parliament and we will debate issues—[Interruption.] I will finish. It is always the role of the chair to protect the rights of members to scrutinise and to debate and challenge each other robustly.

I have heard the language that the member used and I do not think that she was referring to any specific member by using that terminology. The member has obviously now heard that, for instance, Ms Hamilton would not regard that terminology vis-à-vis herself as being anything other than personally insulting, and I hope that the member in question would not use that terminology as far as Ms Hamilton is concerned. However, I think that the member’s use of the terminology was in a wider context; I do not think that it was directed at Ms Hamilton.

With that, I ask the member to resume.

As one cis woman explained:

“Since this ruling I find myself terrified before I dress to go out in public. I’m unwilling to be an unauthentic version of me, but I keep thinking ‘well maybe if I wear this? maybe I’m less likely to be misgendered ... and more likely to be left alone.’”

She continued:

“this ruling will make everyone a judge of whether you are ‘woman enough’”.

That is the reality. The ruling narrows and polices womanhood, reinforcing patriarchal control instead of dismantling it. We must resist the false choice between women’s rights and trans rights. When women are reduced to biology, we all lose. When trans people are denied dignity, we all lose. When rights are stripped away from any community, none of us are safe.

I stand with women, I stand with trans people and I stand with all who refuse to be pitted against one another. Together, we must reject attempts to roll back rights and instead build a Scotland where every person—cis, trans, and non-binary—can live free from fear, with dignity and with equal protection under the law.

17:46  

The subject of this debate has become divisive and controversial, and the legal proceedings that are under way impact what can be said in the chamber. Respectful debate among people with differing opinions should always be possible. Everyone should be able to speak freely, and I hope that differing views come from a good place. My colleague Michelle Thomson and I have always had differing views on this issue, but that does not mean that I respect her less, and I hope that the feeling is mutual. My view is that there is no hierarchy on equality and that discussion in the Parliament must be mindful of the rights of everyone, including the LGBT community.

The current debate, and the debate that has led up to it over many months, has been incredibly stressful and upsetting for trans people and their friends and family. No one deserves to have their personal lives made the subject of political debate, which inevitably leads to malicious social media interactions and publicity. I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like to be the parent of a trans child or the sibling of a trans man or woman in the current climate.

The Government has made it clear that it will comply with the recent Supreme Court judgment, because we must act within the law at all times. Work has begun to ensure that policies, practices, procedures and guidance are compatible with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

It is important to reiterate that the judgment is not a licence for division and hostility. The pursuit of equality for women, trans people and non-binary people remains our collective responsibility, and the judge confirmed that the outcome of the case must not be seen as a victory for those on either side of the debate. We are dealing with people’s lives, and the Scottish Government is fully committed to protecting everyone’s rights and building a fairer Scotland for all.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Scottish Government followed the guidance of the EHRC at all times. Indeed, we carried out work on guidance for gender representation on public boards in good faith by following the relevant EHRC guidance. Due process was followed and the Scottish Government won both cases in the inner and outer houses of the Court of Session. In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Scottish Government will maintain its respect for the courts and move forward with implementation. Renewed and updated guidance from the EHRC will be key in ensuring legislative compliance.

The trans and non-binary communities will always be a valued part of our society. Non-binary people and trans men and women are our friends, our neighbours, our work colleagues and members of our family. The very least that they deserve is our respect.

17:49  

I congratulate Pam Gosal on securing today’s debate, on the motion that she lodged and on her opening speech, which set the scene very well. She rightly recognised the women in the gallery and, in particular, For Women Scotland for everything that they have done on the issue and, sadly, for everything that they will have to continue to do, which I will get on to in a moment.

I have often been quite critical of the level of debate and the quality of contributions in the chamber—I would include myself in that at times. I have to say that, tonight, I feel that that view was cemented, having had to endure Maggie Chapman’s—to be quite frank—disgraceful speech.

However, if I see that as a negative, I see as a positive the fact that I have been in the chamber to listen to Michelle Thomson. I would challenge anyone to listen to her contribution, or to read it in the Official Report, and not hear the words of a woman who is very passionate about the issue for which she is fighting. What she said was very personal. We are privileged to hear her open up like that, but surely that sends a clear message to the minister: an impassioned plea from your own back benches, from your own party—

Always speak through the chair, please.

That message must be listened to, and it must be heard and accepted.

My question to the minister is: why are we here, five months after a Supreme Court ruling? This is a Government that can, at lightning speed, introduce legislation and get involved in any one of a host of issues. If Westminster says something that it does not like, the power of the civil service and SNP ministers comes tumbling down within minutes, or hours. If there is an issue around independence that needs to be politicised, the Government will do that immediately. However, when the rights of women and girls are reaffirmed by the highest court in the land, we get nothing.

I would like to hear from the minister exactly what the Government has done for five months. She said, in her response to Pam Gosal, that the Government is waiting for more guidance and that it will then update everyone, but what more is needed than the final word from the Supreme Court? That was as clear as day to those who had to take their Government to court and won that case, and they expected the judgment to be implemented immediately.

I am not sure that the Government really respects the ruling. If it did, it would have implemented it. It would have issued the guidance that is needed in our prisons and our schools, but that guidance is still not being delivered.

I recently had the privilege of being in the audience when Trina Budge was speaking about the case. I know that she is in the public gallery, so I hope that I can spare her blushes, but she had the audience captivated, although it was also immensely frustrated at what Trina and other campaigners in For Women Scotland have had to do.

When people look back at the history books, they will be amazed and appalled that women had to go to court against their own Government to simply get the definition that sex means biological sex in law. They will then flick over a few more pages and wonder why it took so long for this Government, which says that it respects the decision, to do anything about it.

Minister, I hope that, in some ways, you are uncomfortable with the contributions tonight, because the situation should not be comfortable for the Government. As Jackie Baillie said, you cannot, on the one hand, make the laws of the land and, on the other hand, refuse to implement legal judgments.

There is an onus on the Government to act, and act quickly, for the Parliament, for ���˿��� representing our constituents and for Scotland. We are watching for the Government finally, even at this late stage, to acknowledge, respect and therefore implement the ruling of the Supreme Court. That must be done, and it must be done now.

Before I call the next speaker, I advise members that, given the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Pam Gosal to move a motion without notice.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Pam Gosal]

Motion agreed to.

17:53  

I join other members in congratulating Pam Gosal on bringing this important debate to the chamber. Motions on this topic—including my own, back in April—recognise the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers, which was delivered on 16 April this year.

However, five months on, the Government and legal advisers are, oddly, trying to convince the people of Scotland that applying the clarity from the apex court is somehow complex. The ruling was clear and decisive, and it was historic. The Supreme Court affirmed beyond doubt that the words “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 mean biological woman and biological sex. The judgment was not only unanimous but necessary. It is necessary because the Scottish Government has, for far too long, pursued policies, guidance and legislation that have undermined the basic protections that are guaranteed to women under the 2010 act. The judgment was crucial because, without that clarity, women’s rights—hard won over generations—were being eroded in practice before our eyes.

I congratulate members of For Women Scotland, some of whom are here with us in the public gallery, on their courage, persistence and dedication. They did what they did against the odds, without the resources of the Government at their disposal, and they carried that fight all the way to the highest court. They did so not for recognition or power but for the fundamental principle that women’s rights matter and that those rights and protections need to be rooted in biological sex.

The First Minister, who, I hope, is watching this debate, must now honour the promise that he made to meet members of For Women Scotland, who have now been forced to take the Government back to the courts to make it comply with the law. That is shameful.

We are not talking about an abstract legal debate. The issue goes to the heart of women’s safety, dignity and equality. As we all know, it has implications for women’s prisons, hospital wards, women’s sports and every single-sex service that women and girls depend on. It has implications for the support services that are available to women who are recovering from prostitution, male violence and abuse, and for the principle of trust in the rule of law itself. If a unanimous judgment of the UK Supreme Court can be met with foot dragging and confusion, women in Scotland are entitled to ask whose side the Government is really on.

I say to the minister that acceptance of the Supreme Court’s ruling must result in action—without qualification, without caveat and without delay. With respect, that is not currently happening. All the policies and guidance that do not comply with the Equality Act 2010, as interpreted by the court, must be withdrawn.

Let this Parliament send a clear message today that women’s rights are not negotiable and that the meaning of “woman” is not up for reinterpretation. In Scotland, the law is not optional. For Women Scotland has done its part. The Supreme Court has done its part. It is now time for the Government to do its part by upholding the law, upholding its promises and upholding the rights of women and girls across Scotland.

17:57  

I apologise for being 40 seconds late for this important debate. Like others, I pay tribute to my colleague Pam Gosal for securing the parliamentary time for it.

We are five months on from the Supreme Court judgment, and it should shame the SNP Government that ���˿��� are still having to call for policies to be updated in line with the law. I am delighted that Jackie Baillie has spoken in the debate. I thank her for that, but I would have liked to see more of her Labour colleagues speaking in the debate.

To Maggie Chapman, I say that I find the term “cis woman” offensive, and I say to Rona Mackay that she must have drawn the short straw to have to come here tonight to be the Scottish Government’s spokesperson.

When Scottish ministers are determined to dodge scrutiny, we must use every available lever to demand answers. It is shocking that my colleague has to bring a members’ business debate in order to do that. Whether it is because of their arrogance or ignorance, we will not let SNP ministers get away with it.

Let me first congratulate the tenacious trio who are here today from For Women Scotland. Marion Calder, Susan Smith—I am sorry; I am getting emotional—and Trina Budge courageously fought for women’s sex-based rights from their kitchen tables to the highest court in the land. After meeting on Mumsnet, those three incredible women defended women’s rights while the SNP Government and its army of lawyers did their best to dismantle them. Sex Matters and Scottish Lesbians, as interveners in the case, should also be thanked.

The Supreme Court judgment was unanimous: under the Equality Act 2010, “woman” means a biological woman, and “sex” means biological sex. We cannot get clearer than that—no ifs, no buts.

The Scottish Parliament has acted to comply with the law. So, too, has the City of Edinburgh Council. Even the beleaguered Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has fallen into line. However, under the SNP Government, there are still men in women’s prisons; too many hospital wards are still mixed sex; women and girls are still having to get changed in gender-neutral changing rooms at their local leisure centres; and children went back to school in August with unlawful trans guidance still in place, which means that teenage girls still have to share school toilets with boys. It is absolutely shocking.

Shamefully, there has been no directive from John Swinney to Scotland’s public bodies to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, leaving them, as my colleague Jackie Baillie said, wide open to litigation. The foot dragging from Scotland’s First Minister is sending a clear message to women and girls across the country. As Michelle Thomson said, inaction is action. The captured SNP would rather keep our rights in limbo than confront biological reality.

The SNP is fixated on self-ID and is pandering to party activists rather than upholding the rule of law. It is not wishful thinking; it is wilful ignorance. Now, Scottish ministers are throwing away even more taxpayers’ money to defend themselves again in court. I do not know the exact figure that is being spent—it was quoted as being £250,000, but my understanding is that, this week, the figure has risen to £600,000, and, as Jackie Baillie said, could go up to £1 million. That is shocking. NHS Fife is paying only a small part of that; the large part is being paid by the Scottish Government.

There are fears that the can could be kicked well into 2026. I would like to ask the minister to address that point in closing the debate. Is the Scottish Government going to kick the issue into 2026, or is it going to follow the law this year? If it is kicked down the road into next year, that beggars belief.

I say to the SNP Government that the game is up. As Jackie Baillie and my colleagues have said several times in the chamber, nobody is above the law. The Supreme Court has provided clarity, and now the SNP Government must restore its tattered credibility.

In closing, I echo the words of women and girls up and down the country who cannot speak for themselves: just get on with it—women will not be ignored, and we will not wait.

I call Rachael Hamilton.

18:03  

How long do I have, Presiding Officer?

You have up to four minutes.

First, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing this important debate to the chamber and allowing us to demand that the Scottish Government be held to account for its pathetic response to a decision that was made five months ago by the Supreme Court, which, as many people have said today, confirmed the definition of “women” in the Equality Act 2010: “women” means biological women.

I also take this opportunity to thank For Women Scotland and the campaigners Trina Budge, Marion Calder and Susan Smith, as well as Sandie Peggie and Leigh Hurley. I would also like to thank Murray Blackburn Mackenzie—Dr Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and their whole team—and other women who are with us today in the public gallery, because those women have given people such as me the confidence to speak with clarity on these issues.

In the past, I may have been undermined and intimidated by the comments that people such as my colleague Maggie Chapman MSP make. I want to challenge Maggie Chapman today. What kind of democracy are we living in when those who support sex-based definitions and oppose the views of certain individuals in the chamber who believe that eight-year-olds can socially transition are accused of perpetuating prejudice and being transphobic? The chamber is not the place to be making those statements.

Furthermore, it is important that we do not undermine the rule of law. That is the most important aspect of why we are challenging the Government and holding it to account for not delivering the Supreme Court decision. For example, one individual—it may have been the same individual—accused the Supreme Court of “bigotry, prejudice and hatred.”

I will move on to other comments that have been made in the chamber. Sharon Dowey, who always stands up for victims, did not mention by name the self-ID rapist, Isla Bryson, who was housed in HMP Cornton Vale, but men are still being housed in women’s facilities in Scotland.

We have also heard about trans guidance in schools. Teachers are being accused of transphobia. The guidance is not clear, and it is the Government’s job to deliver that guidance.

Michelle Thomson is not in the chamber now—she apologised for having to leave early—but I agree with my colleague Douglas Ross that hers was a very brave speech. Like many other women—for example, women in prisons, who are being retraumatised—she talked very bravely about her trauma and about how she feels when she is in some spaces with men. Those of us who have not experienced what Michelle Thomson has experienced in her life will ever feel that. I say well done to her. The minister, Kaukab Stewart, should take that point fully on board and 100 per cent listen to one of her back benchers, who delivered one of the most powerful speeches in Pam Gosal’s debate today. She should get on and deliver the change and the guidance, and make sure that people, particularly women and girls, are protected.

We really deserve better. Women in Scotland deserve better. We deserve leaders who are not going to sacrifice our safety and our privacy for reasons of political ideology. We deserve clarity, not confusion. We deserve fairness, not fairyland.

18:08  

I have listened very carefully to all the contributors in the debate. I will not be able to refer to everybody individually, but I will try to address as many of the points that were raised as I can.

The Scottish Government has consistently made it clear that it accepts the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers in relation to the definition of the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010.

Since April, we have been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the ruling. That work is on-going, and it is being co-ordinated by a senior-level, cross-Government working group that is convened by the permanent secretary.

Our approach is—

I am sure that the minister has asked this question, since it has gone right to the top with the permanent secretary. What timescale have civil servants given the minister for when that work will be completed?

I cannot give a timescale for that. There are so many different areas that the judgment may or may not cover, and the work has to be done in a methodical way.

I was going on to address the point that our approach is focused on co-ordinating Government action in the context of legal complexity, ensuring accuracy and clarity.

I would also like to make it clear that the decision of the Supreme Court does not remove trans people’s protections from discrimination. That point was made explicitly by the Supreme Court in its judgment. We have been clear since the Supreme Court ruling that we accept that. We are taking forward the work that is necessary as a consequence of it. Every key area of Government that is or may be affected by the judgment is carrying out those assessments.

I am slightly confused. If the minister is getting the guidance out and is going to act on the decision made by the Supreme Court, why is the Scottish Government challenging For Women Scotland, in its challenge against the Government in relation to the decision?

The Presiding Officer will be well aware that I will not comment on any live litigation cases.

I will give some examples of the work that we have already done: we have updated the guidance on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 and we have amended the recruitment process for appointments to public bodies subject to the 2018 act. Through joint working with Police Scotland, we will publicly consult on the stop-and-search code of practice before the end of the year. The guidance on supporting transgender young people in schools is being reviewed, recognising that the EHRC is also reviewing the technical guidance for schools.

As I said, our approach is focused on ensuring accuracy and clarity, and avoiding unnecessary complexity or confusion at a time of heightened public debate.

I referred to a report by the Ethical Standards Commissioner, who, I think we can agree, is not known for being outrageous. He says that policy is getting ahead of the law. You have a direct role in that. It does not require thinking through; it requires the Government to say to its public bodies, “Don’t get ahead of the law. Follow the law.” Why can you not do that?

Always speak through the chair.

We have, in fact, done that. I reminded myself of the fact that, in May, we published a note that was sent to all public bodies, and which made it very clear that public bodies should satisfy themselves that they are compliant with the law and that they are reviewing all the necessary guidance and policies. Other people also raised that point and implied that we had not offered that instruction, but we had.

I take the opportunity to remind the Parliament that equality for women and girls is a priority for this Government. I have heard very powerful testimonies this afternoon about why that is so important. I also remind Parliament that it is at the heart of our vision for a fair and prosperous Scotland for everybody.

As a Government, we are determined to deliver for women and girls and to address those inequalities where they arise.

Jackie Baillie ���Dz���—

Rachael Hamilton ���Dz���—

Can I just make a little bit of progress? I realise that I am running out of time—I have taken interventions.

That was an outline of some of the work that we are doing. I also want to re-emphasise that the on-going work on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment is not about pitting the rights of two groups of people against each other, but rather is about ensuring equality, dignity and the rights of all. I want to make it clear that trans men and women are valued in society. They exist—they always have done—and they must enjoy the same human rights as all in society, as well as protections under the Equality Act 2010.

I sincerely believe that the vast majority of people in Scotland want to live in a country that is respectful, compassionate and caring and that protects the rights of all. It is not a competition. Our work to support trans people in Scotland is absolutely not at the expense of our vital support for women and girls. Strategic work is taking place on that, informed by the First Minister’s National Advisory Council on Women and Girls and the voices and views of a diverse range of women and girls, including those on the empowering women panel.

Violence against women and girls was mentioned. I highlight the equally safe strategy, which is world leading. Through it, we have strengthened the laws that enable us to respond robustly to perpetrators and protect women and girls—for instance, through the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. We make sure that we take trauma-informed approaches, especially for women who have experienced sexual violence, and we have changed the law so that victims of rape and sexual assault can get healthcare without first having to report the assault to the police—[Interruption.] Forgive me, but I will make progress. I am grateful for the leeway, Presiding Officer—I know that I have gone over my time.

We have taken forward a great deal of work to ensure that those who work in the public sector are equipped with the resources and knowledge to confidently and sensitively work with those who are affected by violence against women and girls.

I will briefly mention health. We published the first women’s health plan in the UK, and we are currently working on the second phase of that process. The achievements that that has led to include the appointment of Scotland’s first women’s health champion, Professor Anna Glasier.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I cannot for the life of me believe that the minister is talking to the motion. It is very frustrating. We are trying to hold the Government to account on not delivering the Supreme Court decision, and the minister is talking about health plans and domestic violence.

I thank Ms Hamilton for her point of order.

I have listened carefully to the minister’s response thus far. She has specifically addressed issues that are raised in the motion. In the past minute or so, she has been reflecting on wider actions that the Government is taking. However, as time is now pressing, perhaps the minister would bring her remarks to a close, focusing on the issues in the motion.

I will bring my remarks to a close. I hope that I have given reassurance that the Government absolutely accepts the Supreme Court judgment. I have given clear examples of the actions that we are taking. I point out that the EHRC has only recently—on 5 September—submitted to the UK Government its revised code of practice, which we have not yet seen. That is another sign that it is vital to take time to fully consider the impact of the judgment and its consequences—which is what we are doing.

That concludes the debate.

Meeting closed at 18:18.