 The next item of business is a debate on motion 12639 in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on gender representation on public boards amendment Scotland bill at stage 1. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons and I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and to move the motion up to five minutes please cabinet secretary. Thank you very much and I move the motion in my name. The gender representation on public boards amendment Scotland bill seeks to remove the section 2 definition of women from the original 2018 act. This follows decisions of the inner house of the court of session, which were effective from the 19th of April 2022. The court decided that the section 2 definition was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and was not law and accordingly had no legal effect. At that time our council told the court that we would remove the redundant definition from the 2018 act. This bill, if passed, will provide clarity by removing the redundant definition from the statute book to ensure that no one is misled. I appreciate that bringing forward such a small bill is very unusual. We did look at all other planned legislation but did not find a suitable vehicle to take this forward. Further the necessary change could not be made through secondary legislation. Given the importance of fulfilling our obligations that were made to the court, the bill is therefore the intention to do just that. The bill is simply to clear up that statute book to make sure that it is not misleading. Removing the definition from the statute book will eliminate the possibility of any confusion for readers of the 2018 act who are unaware of the court's orders in 2022. I was pleased to read the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee's stage 1 report on the bill. It was satisfied that the bill provides a small technical fix to clear up the statute book. It was content to recommend that the Parliament agrees the general principles of the bill and I thank them for their considerations. The committee also noted that the majority of those who responded to the call for reviews also agreed with the general principles of the bill. The bill does not change the policy intention of the 2018 act. We do still need to ensure that the boards of Scotland's public bodies do better reflect the population of our country. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Karen Adam to speak on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee up to four minutes. As noted at the end of our stage 1 report, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is satisfied that the gender representation on public boards amendment Scotland bill is a single issue bill that provides a technical fix to tidy up the statute book following rulings of the court of session on 18 February and 22 March 2022. As such, we are content to recommend that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill. Whilst the Scottish Government did not consult on the bill due to its single issue nature, the committee agreed that it would be helpful to issue a short call for views to allow interested parties to share their views. The call for views ran from the eighth to the 29th of January and received 56 responses, all of which were published, a breakdown of the responses is set out in paragraph 20 of our stage 1 report, and we are grateful to all those who have provided their views. The 25 respondents supported and understood the bill, recognising that it is in line with the court ruling but adding extra commentary. For example, for women's Scotland questioned what discussion there could be on the minister's legal obligation to comply with the court order, while others, including close the gap and the young women's movement, noted that the court ruling was based on legislative competence rather than on whether the definition itself was wrong. Others agreed with the bill but were disappointed with the court ruling. It is also worth noting that 21 of the responses misunderstood the purpose of the bill. It might be worth giving consideration to the level of messaging around what on the face of it is a fixed update the statute book but focusing on the fact that it is technical and helps people to better understand its purpose. In oral evidence that we explored with the cabinet secretary why it had taken the best part of two years between the court judgment and the bill being introduced, she explained in line with the policy memorandum that this time had been taken to explore whether there was another legislative vehicle through which to make the change. This, for example, included whether it could be incorporated within another bill but that was not possible. In its written submission, the Scottish Trans Alliance and Equality Network had queried whether the update to the statute book could have been done through subordinate legislation but that too was not viable. As the only regulation making powers in the 2018 act are in sections 8 and 9, whereas the court ruling related to the definition of women has set out in section 2 of the act. SPICE advised us that it was not aware of a provision under any other act that would allow for the 2018 act to be amended. There was general acknowledgement that the process for exploring options and then drafting and introducing a bill plus subsequent scrutiny for what is a technical fix to update the statute book can be time consuming. A couple of areas where there can be learnings for both the Government and the Parliament is to consider the level of messaging to help people to understand the purpose of bills, particularly where they are technical, and to explore whether there are or could be less time consuming processes by which such technical fixes can be addressed. I now call on Megan Gallacher on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Ms Gallacher is joining us remotely, hopefully. Please go ahead, Ms Gallacher. Up to four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today's stage one debate will be relatively brief. The Cabinet Secretary and the convener have both said that this is a technical amendment, but the one question that many women across Scotland will have is this. How did we end up here in the first place? The Gender Representation on Public Board Scotland Act 2018 set out the objective for public boards to ensure that at least half of their non-executive members were women. That included the definition of the word women to include transwomen. For women, Scotland brought a judicial review on the gender representation on this act and the Court of Session in our House ruled on 18 February 2022 that it was outwith its legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament as it amended the definitions of the protected characteristics on the equality act of 2010. The Court of Session declared that incorporating some of those with the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, whether they hold a gender recognition certificate or not, into the definition of women unlawfully conflates and confuses to separate and distinct protected characteristics. An exception in the equality act allowing provision for women excludes biological males. The SNP Government have therefore brought an amendment forward to align with this ruling. Women have fought for hundreds of years to achieve equality and to ensure their rights are protected, but those rights have been eroded by a Government who has held bent on bringing in laws and legislation that puts women's rights at risk. From attempting to bring in legislation that allows 16-year-olds to change their gender without a medical diagnosis, moving the posts on who can obtain a gender recognition certificate that, if the gender recognition reform bill was enshrined into law, it would have allowed predatory men to take advantage of the system to allow a convicted rapist to be sent to a women's prison. I think that it is clear that women's groups have had enough of laws that create a hierarchy of protected characteristics. It is divisive and it creates more division in our society. Women's groups will continue to challenge this Government when they attempt to bring in legislation that will have a detrimental impact on women, their rights and safeguarding. The Scottish Conservatives will support the amendment of the bill today, however, as the Scottish Government begins to work with women's groups and not against them. I now call on Paul O'Kane on behalf of Scottish Labour up to four minutes, please, Mr O'Kane. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open on behalf of Scottish Labour in this debate. Scottish Labour supported the gender representation on public boards act and continues to support the principle of the bill. It is an important step towards achieving gender parity and increasing representation of women through a robust level to promote equality. However, we fully acknowledge that the amendment of the bill is necessary and therefore we welcome the stage 1 debate and process. Indeed, we want to recognise what previous speakers have said about the technical nature of this piece of legislation and bringing the bill in order to tidy up the statute book. Indeed, I think that recognising that fact and considering all of the judgments that were passed down is why the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, of which I am a member, produced perhaps one of the smallest reports that I have seen for stage 1 of a bill. However, I think that it is an accurate reflection of the purpose of the bill. I do not intend today to try and re-litigate the debates that we had during the bill's initial passing, and I would not know that I was not a member of this Parliament at that time. However, I think that today is about acknowledging the judgments of the court and ensuring that we do our job to tidy up the statute book to reflect any potential future confusion. It is important to reflect that today's bill does not change what is currently operating on the ground because the definition in the 2018 act became defunct since Lady Dorian's initial judgment. The Scottish Government's revised guidance has obviously been in effect since its introduction. It is important to reflect on that part, that we are not changing anything today, rather that we are tidying up the statute book. In the spirit of constructive criticism, both for the Scottish Government and for Parliament as a whole, I think that, as the convener and others reflected, there are opportunities for reflection in terms of some of the issues that the process has raised. Very often, we need to reflect on whether or not the confusion in legal cases could be avoided in the first place. Nobody wants to see legislation ending up in the courts, particularly in areas where it is deemed to be outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. I think that we need to reflect on that more broadly across a number of pieces of legislation and think about how we deal with those issues, particularly in the drafting process. Secondly—we have heard that already—is whether or not the change in the statute book could have been achieved sooner. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has said again today, but also in committee, about waiting to see if there were alternative vehicles to bring the amendment rather than in the standalone bill. Obviously, the Government has come to the conclusion that there was not an opportunity to do that before this process. However, I would reflect that it is not the first time that we have had to wait quite a while to tidy up legislation or to react to rulings of the court thinking about the process around UNCRC incorporation. Therefore, it is worth thinking about what we can do procedurally to speed up changes to ensure that issues do not set unresolved perhaps longer than needed. Similarly to the brevity of the bill and its accompanying stage 1 report, I will leave my opening remarks there. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and hope that we can move forward at pace to update the legislation. Thank you very much. I thank the committee clerks for their assistance with the production of our stage 1 report. The committee received very helpful evidence from a range of expert witnesses and found that extremely helpful in reaching the conclusions. Balanced representation, particularly in positions of influence, is extremely important. Gender representation on our boards ensures that we harness the experience, perspectives and talents that everyone has to offer. That helps to guarantee that any decisions made are representative and will benefit the wider group. During stage 1 consideration through the support of the Scottish Trans Alliance Equality Network an amendment to the ballot stage 2 on the definition of women was put forward to include trans women. The amendment was welcomed by the Scottish Government and was agreed unanimously by the committee. However, following rulings of the court of session in 2022 it was determined that this definition, as added by the stage 2 amendment, was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and was not lawful. As such, the definition will be removed and this bill provides a technical fix in order to tidy up the statute book following the rulings. This is something that the Scottish Government believed that it required to do in light of the court's ruling, but the change does not impact how the 2018 act has worked since the court's rulings. This is a short single-issue bill and its sole purpose is to amend the statute book in light of the court's ruling. The court ruling was a disappointment to the Scottish Trans Alliance Equality Network myself and I am sure many others. Although the terms of approaches were considered with some put forward by the Scottish Trans Alliance Equality Network, unfortunately it was determined that those would not be possible. It is good that those groups agree with the bill generally but, as understandable, they are disappointed in the court ruling. Their court in the report sums this up. The trans community may perceive the bill to have a negative impact on their community as they could mistakenly view it as a step backwards from their work to achieve equality or a sign that the Scottish Government is changing its position on support for trans rights. However, any substantive impact on the operation of the law is, as a result of the court's decisions, not the bill, which simply clears up confusing wording. I am glad that officials are engaging with the LGBTI stakeholders to reassure them of the Scottish Government's on-going commitment to achieve greater equality. Overall, the committee is satisfied that this bill provides a technical fix in order to tidy up the statute book, following the rulings of the court session on 18 February 2022 and 22 March 2022. Accordingly, the committee is content to recommend that Parliament agrees the general principles of the bill. It is so vital that women's voices are heard, especially by public bodies that deliver services in their everyday lives. Fundamentally, the Scottish National Party Government is committed to ensuring greater gender equality and fairness for all, and it is vital for our future that all voices are heard and that all have a seat at the table. As mentioned by my colleague Paul O'Kane, we accept the committee recommendations in full and agree that this is a necessary piece of legislation to effectively tidy up the statute book, as I have said. As we have heard, this is a technical piece of legislation that brings the bill in line with the court of session ruling and does so in a manner that ensures that definitions outlined in the 2010 Equality Act are protected. I note in the committee's report that the cabinet secretary was pressed on why it took the Government as much time as it did to come forward with the legislation in the aftermath of the court of session ruling, but I do recognise that the cabinet secretary was keen to pursue other legislative routes to achieve those aims set out within the bill. Clearly, this was not possible and primary legislation has been required in this case. As noted in her evidence, I agree with the cabinet secretary that this achieves the requisite removal of any confusion that may be caused. I am glad that reassurance has been provided, stating that that this is in effect a single-purpose bill and does not impact the intentions of the original bill passed by the Scottish Parliament. Achieving stronger gender representation in public boards remains of utmost importance and it is critical that we continue to do all we can to ensure that women across Scotland are provided with opportunities to sit on the boards of public authorities and the long-standing barriers to their doings so are removed. The legislation is important and it is right that the bill that we debate today does not deter its good intentions. As we know, at the last progress report that was published in August last year, it was confirmed that progress has been made with gender balance being achieved in two-thirds of public authorities listed in the original legislation. However, that also confirms that there is still a further third that requires to make this key target. Our efforts must be redouble to ensure that the next progress report shows even greater developments in this area. The contribution that women make to public life across Scotland ought to be recognised, but it is without doubt that barriers have been in place for far too long when it comes to holding the most senior positions and having a seat at that boardroom table. We must be absolutely clear that nothing will stand in the way of the Parliament breaking down those barriers and I am content that this bill will have no detrimental impact on that effort. In concluding, Presiding Officer, I once again thank the committee for the report and support my colleague Paul O'Kane in his remarks. As a very new member of the committee, I am very pleased to speak in this debate today. As the convener has said, this bill is essentially a single-issue bill and it is an exercise in tidying up. It is adjusting the statute book to reflect something that has been the case since 2022 and it will remove a redundant definition to provide clarity. On a wider issue, the committee raised the point about whether there needs to be consideration of the way in which technical fixes can be addressed, which did not require primary legislation, and this is something that the Government may want to reflect on. I agree with the convener's comments in that regard. From my perspective, I want to take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of legislating for more diversity in leadership, as that benefits everyone, and we should ensure that barriers to participation continue to be reduced. Quotas can be and have been or have a very powerful impact. Statistics shared by UN Women highlight that women's representation is 5 per cent higher in parliaments where there is a legislated candidate quota, and in local governments it is 7 per cent higher. Having women represented it in positions of power allows the needs of women to be reflected in decision making. In their 2023 report, Sex and Power, in gender say, women are not able to participate fully in public life or to exercise equal citizenship with men when they do not have the same access to opportunities and power. Research from Engender suggests that the justice sector is one of the least representative spheres of public life in Scotland. Domestic abuse and sexual crimes are unfortunately all too common, yet those crimes see some of the lowest conviction rates. Having women from a wide range of backgrounds well represented in positions of power is an important step in ensuring that those highly gendered issues are understood and tackled. Women's participation can help to advance gender equality. It also has an impact on both the range of policy issues that are considered and, more importantly, the solutions that are proposed. That is not enough on its own. Leadership from everyone in positions of power is vital. We need to ensure that the barriers to participation that women experience are tackled at every level. In my view, it is a positive step, and certainly in line with the SNP's consistent commitment in Government to ensuring that representation of women and girls is increased in both the wider public sector and in politics. It is amazing to see that, since 2014, Scottish Government cabinets have been one of only a few in the world that were gender balanced, and the current SNP-led cabinet is the first to be made up of a majority of women. I think that we should all agree that this is a huge achievement. In conclusion, it will be important that messaging is strong on this bill, so that people understand the purpose of the bill and its technical nature. It will also be important for the Government to reflect on how technical fixes to legislation can be achieved in a less time-consuming manner. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has described today's amendment as simply a small technical fix to the statute book, but I completely disagree with that analysis. That amendment bill is the Scottish Government's very public acceptance, however grudgingly given that its policy that trans women are women has been thoroughly defeated in Scotland's highest court. Through a late change in the wording of the law and without any equality impact assessment, the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act defined women entirely based on self-id. That was, we were assured, a one-time only redefinition that would have no meaning outside of the act. However, as predicted by women's rights campaigners, that new definition was soon used as proof that self-id was now the law in Scotland and could not be argued against. Four women Scotland, some of whom are in the gallery with us today, brought a judicial review on the new definition of women and the inner house of the court of session ruled on 18 February 2022 that it was unlawful. Today's short bill removes this definition from the face of the legislation. Whether the new definition will have to be changed again in support of Four Women Scotland's belief and mine, that for the purposes of the equality act, women should be defined entirely on the basis of biological sex. That question will now be decided at the Supreme Court. However, what is already clear today is that the Scottish Government's policy that all men who identify as women should be treated as women is in fact unlawful and in fact self-id has no legal standing. Transwomen are not women under Scots law, so it is wholly wrong for any organisation or MSP to still rely on a definition that has now been ruled unlawful and, as can be seen today, has been accepted as such by the Scottish Government. At the very least, the Scottish Government should make sure that it does not fund organisations that are advising it incorrectly and that all processes and policies are being updated to ensure that that does not happen again. I would welcome a statement from the Government on that, especially as the Government is currently saying that it will bring forward a bill on conversion therapy this year. I am also wondering, as others in the chamber might be, when will the Scottish Government advise its MSPs what the law is saying in that regard? That debacle, after all, was the start of a whole suite of legislation, together with the Hate Crime Bill and the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, based, as far as I can see, on the demands of lobby groups that the Government is funding. It is entirely symptomatic of the failings of a Government pursuing legislation costing hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money that do not reflect the view of the public and money that I am sure would be much better spent elsewhere. All of that has undermined trust fatally in the Scottish Government, but most disturbingly, as an independent supporter, it has undermined trust in the Scottish Parliament as an institution. We now move to closing speeches. I call on Paul O'Kane to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. Up to four minutes, please, Mr O'Kane. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do not intend to tame the chamber for too much longer of having to listen to me, given that I opened for the Labour Party at the beginning of the debate, but I think simply to perhaps reflect on some of the contributions that have been made and, once again, our view on the bill, its requirement in terms of the statute book and, indeed, the lessons perhaps to be learned going forward. I think that I would just want to put on record my thanks to the legislation team who prepared the bill and who briefed the committee, the legal officers of the Government who gave evidence to the committee and indeed those who responded to the call for views and gave their opinion of the bill and, of course, perhaps the issues more widely, which I am keen not to re-litigate today, as I have already said. Carol Mockin spoke very powerfully, as did Evelyn Tweed and others, about the broader bill, which was debated in the last Parliament and the importance of pursuing that further equality in terms of our public bodies and ensuring that they are more representative of the country and ensuring that there are mechanisms in place in order to support that. I would recognise the contributions that were made in terms of what the bill does and what it does not do in terms of the statute book as well. I would reiterate that Labour previously supported the bill and continued to support, as I have said in my outline, the fundamental principles of the bill, but I am acutely aware of the need to respect the decision of the court and to ensure that the statute book reflects that decision given that it is now in practice the way that the law has to be conducted. In opening, I asked the cabinet secretary a number of points in terms of clarity of what the lessons learned can be from this process. I think that that is important for both the Government and the Parliament, not least in terms of how we might avoid those situations but also how we might learn from the opportunities that are to clarify and tidy up the statute book before having to come to the process of a standalone bill. I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on those questions that I have asked in good faith in her summing up and that we ensure that all of our processes in this Parliament are well scrutinised and reflected upon to ensure that we do not have to revisit legislation in that way. I think that I will leave my comments there, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am very grateful for your indulgence this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Cain. I now call on Annie Wells to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives up to four minutes, please, Ms Wells. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too—I am going to keep my remarks quite short this evening because as part of the Equalities Committee as well, I think that we have heard from most members of it now and we are all going to say the same thing with regard to some of the stuff that we have been listening to. However, just for clarity, the ruling, as a result of the judicial review brought forward by For Women Scotland and in response to what the Scottish Government has today, brought this stage 1 amendment bill forward. We did have a bit of disappointment at the length of time it took to bring the legislation forward, but we listened to the comments of the cabinet secretary in the committee and we understand. Like Paul Cain said, we maybe need to look at how legislation can change and maybe it can move forward so that we do not have to bring a stand-alone bill just for, as everyone said, a small technical fix to the legislation that is there already. The gender representation on public boards bill that this will change is something that we have to look at carefully and make sure that, when we talk about gender, we are careful and we listen to judicial reviews as well and we listen to what the courts say. Do you see if there is anything that I have got that no one else has said? However, when we talk about gender, there are impassioned views from across the political spectrum and we will have to be sure to listen to all sides of the argument. However, on this occasion, just to confirm that Scottish Conservatives will be voting for this amendment today. I now call on cabinet secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville to close on behalf of the Scottish Government up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank all the members who have contributed to this afternoon's debate. As I said in my opening remarks, it is very unusual for the Parliament to debate such a small bill, but I am very grateful for the time here today to engage in this process, share our views and I am very grateful to the committee for the process that they have undergone. Both the committee convener, Paul O'Kane, Annie Wells and others, have mentioned the need for Government and Parliament to reflect on how we can better deal with small bills such as those that are technical fixes. That is not just a matter of course simply for Government but particularly for Parliament. It is an important part that we can all learn on as this institution is still relatively young, Presiding Officer, to see what more we can do to make this process easier. Paul O'Kane also mentioned the challenge that we all have when we are discussing areas that are also to do with legislative competence, particularly for aspects that are not just when a bill is introduced through what the Government does, but also as we debate and vote on amendments at stage 2 and stage 3. Again, I would suggest not just for Government to reflect on but also for Parliament as well. Conscious as I am that we are today doing this technical fix because of an amendment that was brought through at stage 2 was a Labour amendment that was strongly supported by the Scottish Government at that time. That is an important aspect that we need to reflect on as we go through the parliamentary process. I hope that that is something that we can come back to as a Parliament. I am particularly conscious of that, given the fact that we have the human rights bill coming through Parliament in due course. I am sure that we will be pressed by many people quite rightly to go as far as possible but also to start having debates around legislative competence on that issue. We all need to be aware of how we can best do that as we go through that process. Would you also join me in recognising the work of four women Scotland who are in the gallery today, used to nasty and fundraising have removed the trans woman inclusive definition woman from the act, which impinged on reserve matters and was unlawful? As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Government does of course recognise the court decision. What I would say is that it is very important for Government to listen to all groups, whether it is all women's groups or all groups who have a variety of views on any subject. I would suggest to Megan Gallacher in her opening remarks when she discusses women's groups that we also do a disservice to women to suggest that all groups who represent women share the same views. I am very cognisant of that as a Government minister that there are a variety of views on a variety of subjects and I give my commitment to also, on behalf of the Government, make sure that we consult with everyone regardless of their views on contentious issues. Paul O'Kane was quite right to point to the fact that this is not changing but tidying up, but it is also very important to recognise the points that Carole Mocken made about the purpose of the act itself. She spoke quite rightly about the barriers that still exist to women and the fact that we must all, as a Parliament, collectively work together to continue to break down those barriers. Despite this being a small bill, a bill that is a technical fix to the statute books, it is important that we also reflect on the need for the act itself within gender representation on public boards and recommit ourselves to those initial principles, as Carole Mocken has suggested that we do. On that note, I will draw my remarks to an end. That concludes the debate on gender representation on public boards. Amendment to Scotland is built at stage 1. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.