Latest news with #Harvie
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
John Swinney urged to intervene and scrap Flamingo Land plans
During a fiery First Minister's Questions (FMQs), in which ex-Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross was expelled, the SNP leader was questioned over the controversial Flamingo Land plans. In September 2024, Flamingo Land Ltd had its planning permission in principle for the multi-million-pound water park rejected by all 14 board members of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Planning Authority. But after the Scottish Government reporter's decision earlier this month, Flamingo Land will be allowed to proceed to the next stage of planning and scrutiny and reach an agreement with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. READ MORE: Labour officials 'fighting like rats in a sack' over Keir Starmer succession, MP says Ivan McKee, minister for public finance, has since said the Scottish Government has 'no intention' of stepping in. The Scottish Greens have long opposed the plans, with co-leader Patrick Harvie condemning the lack of action from ministers. 'Outside Parliament today, people gathered to express their anger at the Scottish Government's intention to approve a resort development by Flamingo Land on the shores of Loch Lomond,' Harvie (below) said. 'It's been opposed by the National Trust for Scotland, by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, by over 155,000 people, and it was rejected unanimously by the National Park.' He added: 'It's the most unpopular development in the history of the Scottish planning system. 'Now, I know the First Minister is about to tell us that he can't comment on a specific appeal. But his minister has already made a political decision. It took Ivan McKee just 2 working days to announce his refusal to act in the public interest and recall the appeal, so he and the First Minister have to be accountable for that now. 'There is still a chance we can save Loch Lomond. This decision isn't set in stone, so will the First Minister listen to all those who have been objecting for years and put the natural environment ahead of corporate profit and recall this decision? 'As Mr Harvie has indicated, as the appeal remains live, members have to understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the proposal. 'I am aware that the reporter has issued a notice of intention to allow the appeal and to grant planning permission in principle, subject to 49 planning conditions and the reaching of a legal agreement, including the Lomond Promise, with a commitment to community benefits and fair work. 'The reporter is required to make his decision on the planning merits of the case and to take full account of all submissions made by the parties involved in this case, including representations from members of the local community.' The First Minister was also scrutinised by Anas Sarwar (below) over NHS waiting lists. (Image: PA) The Scottish Labour leader was speaking days after figures showed the number of people waiting two years for outpatient treatment was at the highest level on record. Statistics released on Tuesday showed 5262 people were waiting for more than two years for a procedure at the end of March this year. They also showed 63,406 people were waiting more than 12 months. Responding to Sarwar when pressed on the issue, John Swinney said: 'I recognise the significant impact of long waits on individual patients, and I apologise to everybody who's affected by those long waits. 'It's why the tackling of long waits is central to the Government's plans to deliver the improvements in the National Health Service that are required.' But he also took aim at the UK Government's new approach to immigration. 'Anyone looking at the details of what's been set out by the UK Government and turning off the ability of us being able to attract international workers will realise that that's a very damaging blow to our health service,' he told MSPs. 'Because our health service, and I saw data from Scottish Care, for example, about social care, is heavily dependent on international workers. And if the UK Government decides to turn off the ability of the Scottish Health Service to attract international workers, it will make our challenge to address the waiting time ever more difficult as a consequence.'
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Have our MSPs got nothing better to talk about than toilets?
How long before we have an urgent question on the lack of paper clips in Mr Harvie's office? Jane Lax, Aberlour. • One may be forgiven for wondering why it's supposed to be "exclusionary", "transphobic" and a "breach of human rights" when employers or public organisations provide gender-neutral toilets on their premises. Of course it's not. Yet this idea lives in the minds of Scottish Greens MSP Patrick Harvie and 16 other MSPs (out of 129) who have signed a letter in protest of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body's decision to clarify that, in line with the recent Supreme Court judgement, men's and women's toilets at Holyrood are defined as single-sex spaces with additional gender-neutral facilities provided for the needs of everyone. On behalf of Patrick Harvie, elected representatives then had to spend precious debating time on this topic. While this may seem trivial compared to bread-and-butter issues such as the cost of living, health or education, it does matter. Loos have become the latest battleground in the pushback, driven by some trans activists, against the Supreme Court's clarification that "men", "women" and "sex" are defined by biology in the UK Equality Act 2010. For them, it seems, provision of gender-neutral facilities alongside female and male ones isn't enough and the ultimate prize appears to be the general abolition of single-sex spaces. By forcing his loo debate on Holyrood Patrick Harvie, a fierce champion of this idea, has made sure that the topic stays in the public eye. Regina Erich, Stonehaven. Read more letters UK must restore dignity Andrew Learmonth asks why public bodies are waiting for the new code of practice on equality law from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), before changing their policies on things like the use of toilets by trans people ("Why is government waiting for the EHRC after ruling?", The Herald, May 27). The answer is surely that both John Swinney and Keir Starmer were mistaken when they suggested that the recent Supreme Court judgement on this brought clarity. It has, so far, done nothing of the sort. On the one hand we have the EHRC suggesting that the judgement means that trans people will be barred from using facilities that match their gender identity. On the other hand, we have some very senior lawyers, including a former Supreme Court judge, disagreeing that that is what the judgement requires. And there is already legal action under way to challenge the EHRC's interpretation. If the EHRC's view is correct, however, two things are clear. Firstly, trans people's rights to privacy and safety will be seriously undermined – more so than in any other western European country. Cases about this will be taken through the courts, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Supreme Court will have completely reversed the clear intention of the UK Parliament in passing the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. The then government minister, David Lammy, and the opposition's Andrew Selous, explicitly agreed during the Commons debate on the bill that a gender recognition certificate would change a person's sex for the purposes of equality law (which includes the law governing the use of separate-sex services). The bill was passed on that basis. If the Supreme Court has decided the opposite, it has overturned the will of MPs, based on a detailed analysis of the wording of the legislation. That demonstrates that the law was, in the relevant parts, too loosely drafted to properly implement what was intended by government and Parliament. Equality law is reserved to Westminster, so the Scottish Parliament cannot fix this mess. If the EHRC is correct, the UK Government should act promptly to amend the legislation to restore the will of Parliament as agreed in 2004. Surely Keir Starmer's Government cannot intend that the UK's respect for equality and human rights should be so much poorer now than it was 21 years ago? Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh. Are the .04% more important? Following Nicola Sturgeon's recent statement in which she proposes the legalising of transgender rights to use ladies' toilets and changing facilities ("'Trans law may require a change,' says Sturgeon", The Herald, May 26), I wish to share the following facts and statistics. These are 2021figures: UK female population 35 million, an estimated 280,000 identify as transgender; 0.08% of female population. Scotland's female population of 2.9m, an estimated 19,900 identify as transgender; 0.07% of the female population. UK total population male and female 69m. These figures show the transgender population to be .04% of the UK – yet Ms Sturgeon and other politicians believe the transgender community has a status and influence, and therefore rights, higher than 99.96% of the UK population. Professor Tony Meehan, Glasgow. Farage not a true unionist Those of us who are "old lags" in Ukip Scotland remember the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Our slogan was "Sack the MSPs". We desired then, as now, the abolition of the Holyrood so-called parliament. Our national leader was a fellow called Nigel Farage and he enthusiastically embraced this message. Today of course Nigel has undergone a dramatic conversion and now presumably regards the so-called Scottish Government as a good thing. The Reform candidate in the forthcoming Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Scottish by-election claims that he would not be standing for a parliament he does not believe in. That is exactly what Nigel and Ukip did from 1999 to 2019 as we stood for the European Parliament from which we wished to be disentangled. Nigel may have walked away from his firm unionist credentials but his legacy lives on as the true unionists in this election seek to resurrect the place of Scotland as an integral part of the United Kingdom governed by the House of Commons – the only Parliament. Donald MacKay, Blackwood. Nigel Farage (Image: Newsquest) Frigates not a valid comparison Stan Grodynski (Letters, May 27) in his own attempt at "whitabootery", intends to distract from the Scottish ferry scandal by trying to compare Glens Sannox and Rosa to cost overruns on the Type 26 Frigate contract. He unfortunately makes the rather basic mistake of not checking his facts first. The award of the Type 26 contract to BAe Systems was valued at £4.2 billion and is for extremely complex ships of 8,000 tonnes and with high levels of intricate technology. There have been cost overruns acknowledged of £233 million – equating to around 5% – with a delay of 12 months. By contrast, the Ferguson Marine ferries contract was valued at £97m, and is for two straightforward car ferries. Cost overruns amount to £650m to date – being 670%. The first ferry was delayed seven years and the second's date of active duty is not yet known; both have had their capacity cut due to design flaws, and the one that is running was planned on a scale that means she cannot fit her usual home port. Steph Johnson, Glasgow. Why should Israel surrender? What would Eric Melvin (Letters, May 29) have Israel do to defend itself against the Islamists bent on destroying it? Surrender? Cut Israel in half, hoping to placate the terrorists? Did we surrender to Germany in the Second World? No. We fought until the Nazis had enough and quit. Then we cut Germany in four, tried and hung their leaders and occupied it until we felt they had expunged the evil from their society. Only after the war did we send in aid. Israel was savagely attacked on October 7, 2023. On October 8, the Jew-haters swung into action. 40,000 dormant social media sites spewed antisemitic propaganda. Posters and flags were delivered to campuses all over the world. Hezbollah, Iran and Houthis fired into Israel. Zionism means Jews fight back. Mr Melvin should work to save the hostages, not their aggressors. Len Bennett, Ottawa, Canada.
Scotsman
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Readers Letters: MSPs waste Parliamentary time with toilet talk
Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie felt a desperate need to discuss Holyrood toilets this week (Picture: Jeff) Is who can use which toilet really a matter for urgent debate at Holyrood, asks reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Scottish Parliament sunk to a new low on Tuesday when an Urgent Question was permitted by the Deputy Presiding Officer, Liam McArthur, regarding the toilet facilities within the parliamentary building at Holyrood. This came after the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body took steps to adhere to the law regarding single sex spaces under the Equality Act 2010. As it should be, only biological women may use the 'ladies' in the parliament building. Scottish Greens MSP Patrick Harvie and 16 others signed a letter urging it to ignore the ruling by the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court. Mr Harvie submitted this Urgent Question. At a time when we have 1 in 9 Scots having to deal with long waits for planned NHS treatment, Scots anxious about the economy, parents' fears of violence in school and increasing knife crime, this 'urgent' issue was debated by MSPs, wasting valuable time where the above issues could have been discussed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad How out of touch are these overpaid individuals who are meant to be representing their constituents on issues that matter to them, not on what toilet they have to use in Holyrood? How long before we have an urgent question on the lack of paperclips in Mr Harvie's office? Jane Lax, Aberlour, Moray No clarity Murdo Fraser asks why public bodies are not already changing their policies on the use of services by trans people (Perspective, 28 May). The answer is in part that the Supreme Court judgment on this has certainly not brought any clarity. On the one hand we have the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) suggesting that the judgment means that trans people should be barred from using facilities that match their gender identity. On the other hand, we have some very senior lawyers, including a former Supreme Court judge, disagreeing that that is what the judgment requires. And there is already legal action under way to challenge the EHRC's interpretation. If the EHRC's view prevails, two things are clear however. Firstly, trans people's privacy and safety will be seriously undermined – more so than in any other western European country. Cases about this will be taken through the courts, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Supreme Court will have completely reversed the clear intention of the UK Parliament in passing the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. The then government minister, David Lammy, and the opposition's Andrew Selous, explicitly agreed during the Commons debates on the bill that a gender recognition certificate would change a person's sex for the purposes of the law governing the use of separate-sex services. MPs passed the bill on that basis, by 355 votes to 46. If the court's judgment has the effect the EHRC says, the UK Government must act to amend the legislation to restore the will of Parliament as agreed in 2004. Surely Keir Starmer's government cannot intend that the UK's respect for equality and human rights should be so much poorer now than it was 21 years ago? Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh Lifeline to lifestyle Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad May I comment on Neil Anderson's letter (28 May) in which he fears for Scotland becoming stuck in a cycle of welfare dependency. I was born during the Second World War in an Edinburgh tenement. Afterwards in a one-parent family, money was tight, in fact almost non-existent on occasions, living in a two-room flat. In 1948 the government closed the workhouses, replacing them with a benefit known as National Assistance. My mother reached the point of applying for this benefit, where an official visited us to assess our situation, the end result being an award of £2 per week. This provided a lifeline but not a lifestyle. She was still expected to seek work. Ever since then, as I see the burgeoning social security bill increasing, I realise state support has gone from lifeline to lifestyle. Oh for someone to take this situation in hand and give it a good hard shake, and get back to basic principles of lifeline and not lifestyle. C Lowson, Fareham, Hants That's rich Ian Petrie almost had me falling out of my chair when I read his letter (28 May). He says Nigel Farage is a threat to democracy. Which party demanded a referendum and promised to abide by the result? The SNP. When the result wasn't to their liking, they demanded a re-run and are still asking today, and will go on asking until we give the 'right' answer. Democracy? Mr Petrie goes on to say Reform is a protest group. What was the SNP before they came to form the government, and to all intents and purposes that is still all they are. Finally, he says Nigel Farage is on an ego trip with the destination, Downing Street. Wasn't it the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon who was constantly banging on about wanting a seat at the top table in Europe – perhaps an even bigger ego than Farage? Bruce Proctor, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Bad idea Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Jill Stephenson is right to question the benefit of schooling children displaying violent behaviour in mainstream classrooms (Letters, 28 May). The classrooms, where pupils with severe behaviour problems belong, are those in schools staffed with suitably qualified teachers and multi-professional teams where these children can learn responsible behaviour in small groups, flanked by working with the respective parents and social services. If this sounds familiar, it's because it reflects what used to be common special education practice: providing the protected learning environment of a well-run special school for pupils with profound problems, whether violent behaviour or other issues. This type of school has all but vanished from the spectrum of educational provision thanks to the 'presumption of mainstreaming' which cynics may regard as an excuse for saving money. In reality inclusion only works for children with very moderate behavioural problems. Even then teachers will still need the support of specialised colleagues. In addition, the progress of these children and the learning of their classmates depend on the absence of disruptive factors such as an accumulation of pupils with similar issues within the same classroom. A sensible, effective education system provides the appropriate place for every child and that includes special schools for those kids who won't be able to cope with the environment in mainstream schools. From a professional point of view I have long been convinced that the presumption of mainstreaming is a mistake destined to fail a whole generation of children. Regina Erich, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire Wrong solution Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ben Colburn and Joseph Millum write about concerns regarding coercion in relation to assisted suicide, saying that an evidence-based approach helps resolve these concerns (Perspective, 26 May). Yet they present as 'evidence' selective testimony from extremists who radically favour extending assisted suicide to ever-increasing increasing categories of people. That is not evidence. Absence of evidence of coercion is not evidence of absence. Evidence was lacking when Harold Shipman killed an estimated 250 people, undetected, between 1971 and 1998. Coercion is not that easy to detect in elderly people who often 'don't want to make a fuss'. Moreover, subtle coercion occurs if you divide up the population between those whose suicides we tolerate and even assist and those whose suicides we strenuously try to prevent – as both the MacArthur Bill and the Leadbeater Bill do. That devalues some lives and places subtle pressure on those who take up many health-based resources to stop being a burden. This is why every disabled group opposes legalising assisted suicide. And we do have evidence about the harms of assisted suicide and euthanasia. First, being a burden has come above pain in reasons Oregonians opt for assisted suicide in every report since 1998. We know that in Canada a veteran was offered euthanasia when they asked for a wheelchair ramp. We also know that at least nine people suffering from nothing other than autism in the Netherlands have been euthanised because they were lonely and had difficulty making friends. We know that 60 women, mostly young, have had 'assisted dying! because they suffer from eating disorders. MPs north and south of the Border need to examine the evidence for themselves in relation to this complex and troubling issue. If they do, they will reject this simple, neat but wrong solution to the problems of life. (Prof) Kevin Yuill, CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Glasgow Run for your money Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Politicians really do talk nonsense at times to suit the situation. This week it was the turn of Bridget Phillipson, who said 'a Labour government would never have introduced the [two-child benefit] cap', Is she talking about the same Labour government that unhesitatingly removed the pensioner Winter Fuel Allowance? And while on the subject of the WFA, let's not forget that Leader of the House Lucy Powell said last September that this was necessarily withdrawn to 'save a run on the pound'. What was different then that Labour now see fit to re-introduce it? Surely nothing to do with voter reactions? Restoring the WFA will cost about £1.5 billion, the two-cap benefit about £3.4 billion. Can we now expect a run on the pound or was Lucy Powell talking nonsense? Ken Currie, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Former Manitoba justice minister's decision to order Nygard review was abuse of process: judge
A Manitoba judge has determined a serious abuse of process took place in 2022, when the province's then attorney general ordered a review of a decision to not charge former fashion mogul Peter Nygard with sexual assault. Provincial court Judge Mary Kate Harvie made the ruling Tuesday morning but did not grant a judicial stay of proceedings, which Nygard's lawyer had requested during arguments earlier this month. "I am satisfied that the actions of the attorney general amount to an abuse of process. I am not satisfied that this is one of the clearest cases where a judicial stay of proceedings is appropriate," Harvie said. She called the abuse of process "a serious one," saying the actions of then attorney general Kelvin Goertzen fell "well short of accepted standards." In her 37-page decision, Harvie wrote "this is not a conclusion I have reached lightly, recognizing that the authorities suggest that courts should be very cautious when analyzing allegations of this nature. It is one, however, that I am satisfied is supported by the evidence and the law." Harvie said she believed "the appropriate message has been sent" without needing to order a stay. "If any attorney general seeks to proceed in the way Mr. Goertzen did in this case, being motivated by partisan considerations, by proceeding without the guidance of a policy or otherwise articulated and transparent principles, and in publicly speaking about a case prior to its final adjudication, I cannot imagine that the remedy would be the same as in this matter." The Manitoba case against Nygard will proceed and is set to return to court in September for motions. Goertzen, currently the Opposition MLA for Steinbach, would not speak to Harvie's decision. "As this matter remains before the court, with a trial date set for later this year, it would be inappropriate to comment until the conclusion of the judicial proceedings," he said in a one-line email statement. At a hearing earlier this month, a Crown lawyer argued that Goertzen made the request in the public interest and out of concern for sexual assault victims. Nygard was first arrested in Winnipeg in December 2020 under the Extradition Act, after he was charged with nine counts in New York, including sex trafficking and racketeering. At the time, the Winnipeg Police Service had been investigating the former fashion mogul for months. The files of eight women who alleged they'd been assaulted by Nygard were sent to Manitoba Justice for review in December 2020, but Manitoba prosecutors decided in 2021 not to lay charges. No details were provided on how that decision was reached. In 2022, while he was attorney general and justice minister in the previous Progressive Conservative government, Goertzen announced that Manitoba was going to take a second look at the decision and seek the advice of Saskatchewan's public prosecution services. Saskatchewan's finding was that one of the eight matters referred for a second opinion did, in fact, meet the standard for criminal proceedings. Nygard was then charged in 2023 with sexual assault and forcible confinement, in connection with offences allegedly committed in Winnipeg in November 1993, involving a 20-year-old woman. Two days of arguments were presented to Harvie earlier this month as Gerri Wiebe, Nygard's lawyer, tried to get the proceedings stayed, claiming the review was ordered because of political pressure. Wiebe had filed an abuse of process motion, arguing public protests, intense media pressure and questions from other politicians in the Manitoba Legislature put pressure on Goertzen to act. She argued it undermined the integrity of the justice system. Harvie agreed the decision seemed to have been made abruptly and only after questioning in the legislature, despite Goertzen having been in possession of the Manitoba Prosecution Service opinion for about 16 months. "In this case, the timing of the attorney general's decision is very troubling," she wrote in her decision. "[It] leads to the conclusion that the course of action taken by the attorney general was a partisan decision which was made contrary to the rule of law." Charles Murray told Harvie the request for a second opinion may have been unusual but is within the power of the office of the attorney general. He said Goertzen was "honouring and representing the community's sense of justice." Harvie, though, wrote in her decision that "in order for the attorney general to respect and maintain the rule of law, he cannot be swayed by media criticism, petitions, public demonstrations, or partisan concerns. "At the end of the day every person, no matter how reviled, how notorious, how popular or unpopular, must receive equal treatment by the attorney general and by the justice system. As demonstrated by the evidence in this case, such respect for the rule of law was not extended to Nygard," Harvie wrote. Nygard seems to have been singled out because of the notoriety of his case, not because of any principled reasons, and the decision to seek a second opinion after public pressure was brought to bear was based on partisan concerns, she wrote. Harvie agreed with Murray's point that Wiebe has not taken issue with the Saskatchewan prosecution determining charges should proceed regarding one of the eight complainants. But the delays caused by Goertzen's choices potentially made things more difficult for the complainant, Harvie wrote. "It is accepted that victims of sexual violence have struggled with the court system. Unfortunately, having dealt with this prosecution in this manner, the attorney general has risked adding to those concerns rather than alleviating them." She also agreed with the Crown's argument that if there is a problem with a lack of "guardrails" to guide an attorney general who wants a second opinion, courts should find a remedy without resorting to a judicial stay of proceedings. She noted there is no policy in place in Manitoba to determine when a second opinion can or should be sought by the attorney general. 'Vitally important' decision: prof Brandon Trask, an associate professor of law at the University of Manitoba and former Crown prosecutor, said Harvie's decision was "remarkable" and "vitally important." "I think it's just very important for society to recognize Crown prosecutors have such an important role to play, and they cannot be interfered with by politicians," Trask said. The situation was "unprecedented" in Manitoba, but Harvie's ruling has now helped set a precedent, he said. "Having a better developed set of policies will help prevent something like this from happening in the future." In an email to CBC News, the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys said it would not comment on the case against Nygard. In response to Harvie's decision, the association called on the government to "refrain from outsourcing prosecutions to outside counsel … and instead ensure they are handled by the experienced and independent prosecutors within the Manitoba Department of Justice." Nygard has already been sentenced to 11 years in prison after being convicted in Toronto of four counts of sexual assault involving five women who said they were attacked between the late 1980s and the early 2000s. He is also facing charges in Quebec and the United States. He has denied all allegations against him.
The Herald Scotland
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Harvie: Holyrood trans toilet ban may breach human rights
READ MORE: Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex? MSPs express 'deep concern' over trans toilet ruling Holyrood adds gender-neutral toilets after sex ruling Mr Harvie is one of 17 MSPs to have signed an open letter criticising the recent change in policy. The letter—also signed by 30 staff members, most of whom work for MSPs—was organised by the Good Law Project. It described the new rules as 'transphobic', warning their implementation would be 'deeply invasive' and risk 'humiliation, harassment or worse'. During an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie cited former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who has said that organisations are permitted—but not obliged—to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces. Mr Harvie told MSPs: 'In making the decision to take this exclusive, exclusionary approach, I am concerned that the SPCB is risking taking us back to the breach of human rights which existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and a position that just as little as 10 years ago was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the US Republican Party. "It is not enough to use words like inclusive experience and welcoming environment." He asked whether the corporate body recognised the impact the changes had already had on 'those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities like toilets on the same basis as everyone else, and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace'. Holyrood adopted the policy following the Supreme Court ruling (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Responding on behalf of the SPCB, SNP MSP Christine Grahame said it was 'rather unfortunate' that Mr Harvie had used such language, and insisted the corporate body had acted 'in a tolerant and sensitive manner, in a very delicate and balanced manner'. 'The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect the founding principles and to be an open, accessible institution to promote participation and equal opportunities,' she said. 'We remain deeply committed to these principles and to provide—I know you do not like this word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary community, feel supported and welcome to work and visit.' The changes, which came into effect earlier this month, follow the Supreme Court ruling that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. An interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa. Under the new policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' at Holyrood are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament has increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating three public toilets and two private facilities used by MSPs and staff. Ms Grahame said Parliament would not 'police' toilet use, but a complaints process was available. 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities,' she said. 'This is not going to be policed by the corporate body.' Several MSPs, including the SNP's Emma Roddick, questioned whether the decision had been made prematurely and whether it risked creating a hostile working environment. Ms Roddick asked: 'Does [the SPCB] recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put [trans and non-binary staff] in an impossible situation and potentially a hostile working environment?' Ms Grahame replied: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anyone in this Parliament in a hostile environment. That is not the culture within this building.' READ MORE Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton asked that 'no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future'. Green MSP Lorna Slater asked how trans people would be expected to 'prove' their right to use a facility. 'Members in this chamber may be aware of the lively internet conspiracy that I myself am a trans woman,' she said. 'If a complaint is made about me using a woman's toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use this toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination?' Ms Grahame replied: 'No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything, and I fully intend to use the gender neutral toilets myself.' Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said the discussion was a 'farcical waste of time'. 'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children's education, getting a GP appointment, fixing the roads, keeping communities safe—yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.' His colleague Craig Hoy questioned whether the decision had been unanimous, which would suggest Green MSP Maggie Chapman had 'both supported these measures and also wrote a letter in opposition to them'. Ms Grahame responded: 'Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote—they are made by consent.' A full consultation by the SPCB is expected later this year, once a revised statutory code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been finalised and approved by ministers.
