Rachael Hamilton
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, declaring for me my entry in the register of members’ interests after her statement on non-domestic rates on Tuesday, I failed to do so myself.”
“I am very concerned about this bill. First, the UK Parliament expedited the bill—it was fast-tracked—yet it confers huge powers on UK Government ministers not only to intervene in a business and take operational control, but to make a business’s failure to comply a criminal offence. This is a serious piece of legislation.”
“Time is running out, and some of Scotland’s businesses are being worn to the bone by rising rates. High streets are also being hollowed out. Will the Scottish Government consider a pause on the collection of non-domestic rates while it sorts out the glitch in the software system? What is the definition of “rapid”?”
“Our commitment to the industry is clear through ministers’ ongoing involvement in the UK steel council, as well as our role in and input to the development and publication of the recent UK steel strategy. This has always been—and will continue to be— a Government that takes action.”
“Members will have seen in UK minister Chris McDonald’s recent written statement that the UK Government “is strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.” I suggest that thi…”
“I hope that the member understands that we have sought to act in good faith by keeping the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee informed and by ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to consider, at the very least, the matter of legislative consent through the debate that we are having this afternoon.”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Rachael Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“It was only after strong lobbying from the industry and the Scottish Conservatives that the SNP and the Greens were forced into a rapid U- turn on highly protected marine areas. The HPMAs would have shut off 50 per cent of our Scottish seas and decimated the industry. However, despite that U-turn and the strength of the voice from the industry, the SNP is now trying to bring in HPMAs through the back door. The SFF has also warned that the industry risks being crushed by the so-called spatial squeeze. That is having a massive impact on fishing, and the regulation of offshore wind projects and marine conservation measures are putting pressure on Scottish fleets. As my colleagues have highlighted, the polling is clear. Four in five Scots believe that the EU should not be granted continued access to UK fishing rights.”
“Labour has also removed ring-fenced Scottish funding for agriculture and fisheries. In typical fashion, the SNP showed its disdain for fishing communities by taking that as an opportunity to cut funding to the marine directorate budget in real terms between 2024-25 and 2025-26. It is not only the Labour Government that the fishing industry has to put up with. Mairi Gougeon: Perhaps Rachael Hamilton will welcome the increase to the marine directorate’s budget for the current financial year. Rachael Hamilton: Of course I welcome an increase to the marine directorate’s budget, but the damage has already been done, cabinet secretary. Those decisions were weak. You were at the cabinet table at the time and you should have stood up for the Scottish fishing industry. I could not have said that in any other way, Deputy Presiding Officer.”
“However, the Scottish Conservatives have not cosied up to the EU and we will not do that. We have no intention of going back into the CFP. We want autonomy for Scottish fishermen and we want to support them, because the sector is hugely important in Scotland. I fully support the UK’s ability to determine its own fisheries management arrangements in UK waters. Any deal that puts that principle at risk would represent a betrayal of our status as an independent coastal state. We must ensure that any negotiations regarding fishing rights or defence remain separate and that there is no linkage between fisheries and access to markets. I wonder whether Anas Sarwar needs to stand up to President Macron a bit more rather than sidling up to Keir Starmer, who clearly wants to butter up the EU.”
“Labour’s reported deal with the EU to hand away multiyear access to UK fishing waters will put further pressures on our Scottish fishing industry. In February, Elspeth Macdonald from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation stated: “The UK now has the opportunity to do fisheries management better than the EU—more practical and appropriate to the UK situation. Any concessions on this that would suck the UK back into even the outer reaches of the CFP’s orbit would be a significantly backward step.” Rhoda Grant: Does Rachael Hamilton not recognise that fish do not know boundaries? We must work with our neighbours to manage fishing stocks; we cannot simply go at it alone. Rachael Hamilton: I do realise that. I have Eyemouth in my constituency and I know how fish move.”
“I will not use any words such as “bum”, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not a good start, Ms Hamilton. Rachael Hamilton: Our fishing industry is caught between two Governments who consider it an afterthought or a chip to be bargained away to suit their political interests. Just like those of the SNP, Labour’s ambitions to do deals and cosy up with the EU put the future of our fishing industry at serious risk. The latest data shows that Scottish vessels landed £683 million-worth of sea fish and shellfish in 2023, which represents an increase of 16 per cent compared with 2019. However, the size of our fleet is currently in decline and employment on Scottish vessels has fallen by 13 per cent since 2014. Whose fault is that?”
“I remind members that we are debating a motion from a party that delivered a deeply damaging deal—one that was not in the Scottish national interest. In the words of one former MP, “the UK Government has delivered far less than I hoped or expected ... It would be easier to get someone to drink a pint of cold sick than to try to sell this as a success.” The UK Government has a lot of work to do if it wants to meaningfully address the inadequacies of the TCA. We call on it to engage with the Scottish Government as a matter of urgency, so that we can work with it to address these matters and deliver for Scotland’s fishing industry.”
“There are permanent and on-going barriers to trade that are significantly impairing the competitiveness of our seafood sector. Although the trade and co- operation agreement avoided the imposition of tariffs, trade in seafood products with the EU is now subject to costly certification and inspection requirements. There is also the on-going threat of retaliatory tariffs on exports if the UK Government fails to meet relevant TCA obligations. Securing an uplift in the TCA shares of fishing quotas is important and should always be based on zonal attachment—that is, where the fish mostly are. Of equal importance is the sustainable management of those shared and jointly managed stocks for the long-term future.”
“The UK Government has imposed a short-term, Barnettised settlement, which is the complete opposite of what was called for by devolved Governments across the UK. Baselining the marine funding allocation at the current 2014 figure of £14 million simply does not reflect the reality of funding requirements. If we compare that to our neighbours in the EU, we see that Denmark, for example, which has a population similar to Scotland’s but has a smaller sea area and marine sector, will receive the equivalent of £25 million through the EU’s current European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund. The post-Brexit power grab by the UK Government needs to be rectified as a matter of urgency. The fact remains that we face a range of challenges arising from exiting the EU.”
“I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s remarks. Has the Scottish Government reached out to the UK Labour Government to ask for a meeting to discuss Labour’s important plans to concede fishing rights to the EU? Mairi Gougeon: Unfortunately, the interministerial group meetings at which we would have hoped to discuss these issues over the past couple of months were cancelled at the last minute by my counterpart ministers in the UK Government. However, I hope to have an opportunity to catch up with the UK Government next week, and I will use that opportunity to discuss that point. We need an agreement that delivers improvements for our fishing communities. We also need the UK Government to provide Scotland with a fair share of funding for our marine economy and coastal communities.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: It is appropriate for Ms Hamilton to reflect on the exact terminology that the EHRC used. It has issued an update, and not guidance. Direct, relevant requirements are introduced when guidance is implemented. The EHRC’s publication is not guidance; it is an update. Having said all that, it is exceptionally important that, as well as accepting the Supreme Court’s judgment, we accept the rule of law in this case. That is exactly why the Scottish Government is continuing its work on the implementation of that judgment. I look forward to discussing the matter with the EHRC at its earliest convenience.”
“I welcome the EHRC’s interim guidance, which provides clarity on the Supreme Court’s judgment. The law is clear, and the SNP has no more excuses. Will the cabinet secretary challenge lobbying groups and organisations that fail to accurately implement the EHRC’s interim guidance? Can she provide assurance that no taxpayers’ money will go to such groups or organisations that do not follow that interim guidance? Patrick Harvie: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I note that the member is interested in accuracy. Is it in order for members to misrepresent that late-night interim update as guidance? “Guidance” has statutory meaning. The update is not guidance. That is an inaccurate statement. The Presiding Officer: As I said previously, I am chairing the meeting and I will intervene where I feel that it is required.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any implications for its work on tackling rural crime and preventing the theft and resale of machinery in Scotland, when it was first made aware of the proposals for the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which applies to England and Wales. (S6O-04552)”
“That is an important obligation on Scottish ministers. As I have said before, the Scottish Government carried out its work on the guidance on gender representation on public boards in good faith, using—as the Supreme Court said in its judgment—the EHRC guidance. That is what was followed as we developed our guidance. In saying that, we of course recognise and accept the judgment of the Supreme Court; that is exactly why we are now moving forward to the implementation of that judgment. The rule of law must be followed not just by the Scottish Government but by everyone who is impacted by the Supreme Court judgment.”
“The SNP has tied itself in knots trying to define what a woman is. John Swinney still does not know. Discussing women’s rights has been met in and outside this chamber with accusations of transphobia. Stating the obvious has led to women being called bigots, but, thanks to the Supreme Court, we all know where we now stand. Will the cabinet secretary now apologise to all women who have been vilified, lost their jobs or experienced sexual harassment, voyeurism, serious assault or intimidation, all because of her Government’s self-ID policy? Will the Scottish Government instruct all public sector authorities to settle any on-going legal cases or employment tribunals relating to the provision of single-sex spaces? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Presiding Officer, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on on-going legal cases.”
“As I have said, we are investing another £14 million in an innovation fund and, as has been demonstrated year after year, the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to being right beside the Scottish agriculture industry. Common Fisheries Policy 8.”
“Last night, many members attended the Food and Drink Federation Scotland reception in the Parliament. The agriculture sector is calling for certainty. The enactment of section 29 of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 to introduce a code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture is solely in the gift of Scottish ministers. To enable investment, innovation and confidence in the sector, will the minister confirm when section 29 will come into force and when the code will be published? Jim Fairlie: I think that Rachael Hamilton recognises the importance of proper engagement and consultation with the sector so that, when we deliver the code of practice, it has the full backing of the industry.”
“He told me that landlords are becoming reluctant to agree to new tenancies in fear of the provisions that the bill sets out. That could undoubtedly lead to fewer opportunities for tenant farmers, who play a vital role in Scotland’s farming industry. We have heard a lot of concerns about resumption. I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider a consultation on resumption and that she might comment on that. I also highlight concerns in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s report regarding the lack of parliamentary scrutiny and the limited engagement with stakeholders on policy development. Overall, fundamental changes are necessary to make the bill work. We will lodge sensible amendments to mitigate the bill’s damaging effects—as we always do—and we will ensure that the bill reflects the needs of rural Scotland. 16:48”
“Evidence from the Scottish Land Commission points to the issue of concentrated land ownership, rather than scale. I disagree with Ariane Burgess on lotting. The evidence that was given on lotting from across the land reform spectrum clearly provides a resounding and worrying signal to Parliament. Mercedes Villalba: On the point about scale, does the member really believe that there should be nothing—no questions asked and no intervention—and that anyone could own as much land as their bank balance would allow? Rachael Hamilton: I am not sure that I get the question, so I will carry on. Part 2 of the bill is already having a very worrying impact. A recent conversation with a tenant farmer in my constituency revealed the reality.”
“Additionally, there are serious concerns from rural stakeholders and legal experts that part 1 would interfere with property rights, which may yet prove another costly legal battle for the SNP. Fergus Ewing highlighted that a public interest test may be incompatible with the ECHR, as it could interfere with legitimate property rights, and there could be legal challenges. I do not agree with what Bob Doris said. He seemed to belittle the role of land managers. Land management plans are burdensome and costly, particularly for those who have smaller amounts of land. In reality, it is unlikely that an LMP could result in clear benefits. There could also be confidentiality and sensitivity problems around them. The size of an estate is not an indicator of concentrated land ownership.”
“Rachael Hamilton: No. There are some bad actors, as Fergus Ewing highlighted, but, in the main, it is not the landowners who are flawed but the bill itself. Turning to the detail of the bill, my colleagues have highlighted several problematic areas, which I will aim to cover in the time that I have. We are concerned about the complexity and bureaucracy of the land reform process, as is noted in the committee’s stage 1 report. Critics have said that land management plans increase the burden on landowners by introducing red tape and making it harder for people to manage their land more effectively. That will have severe consequences for food security, nature targets, investment and the wider rural economy.”
“My colleagues have highlighted some of those concerns; they have told us that the bill is unworkable and that it does not achieve the Government’s aims. When Doug Lumsden intervened on the cabinet secretary, he highlighted that just 8 per cent of respondents to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s call for views thought that the bill fulfils the Scottish Government’s objectives, which means that the majority of people believe that it does not. I genuinely hope that the cabinet secretary will engage across parties in good faith to shape a more pragmatic aim for the bill but, from what we have heard today, is it not the case that the SNP, Labour and the Greens are absolutely obsessed with who owns the land rather than how it is used? It is a sort of socialist attitude. Mercedes Villalba: Will the member take an intervention?”
“I thank the committee and the clerks for their work in preparing the stage 1 report. As it stands, the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill proposes several radical changes to land management. In its current form, the bill poses a threat to rural Scotland and will have unforeseen consequences for the wider rural economy. The bill goes against evidence-led policy making and fails to recognise the key drivers of rural Scotland. With Rachel Reeves’s spring statement today likely to affect the Scottish budget in the future, we have to consider that the rural economy is more important than ever. Throughout the bill process, stakeholders in the rural sector have raised endless concerns about the bill’s pitfalls.”
“I understand the frustrations of those who would like us to go further and faster, and I am listening and stand ready to work across the chamber to build and improve on the provisions in the bill.”
“Our proposals will mean that local communities are informed and have greater opportunity to make a community right-to-buy application. Moreover, the bill will, for the first time, give Scottish ministers the power to intervene in large land sales on the basis of the public interest. Where it would help to support local communities, ministers could require land to be sold in a way that allowed for a wider range of buyers. The bill will create the potential to spread opportunity, putting the wellbeing of our rural communities at the heart of decisions on how land of this scale is sold. Despite the new powers, I know that some people believe that we are not going far enough.”
“Land management plans will mean that owners of the largest landholdings will need to engage with local communities and publish a plan showing how they use their land and how that use supports community sustainability and priorities such as climate change. I know that some landowners already do that, but there are also communities that are in the dark about the plans, and even the identity, of the owners of the land on which they live and work. The bill will mean that transparency and community engagement will not depend on a community being lucky enough to have a good landowner. The bill will also require greater transparency of land sales, expanding options for community right to buy. Large landholdings often do not sell for long periods, meaning that communities can be unprepared or even unaware if the sale takes place off market.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Mairi Gougeon: I will give way to Rachael Hamilton, as I have already taken an intervention from Douglas Lumsden. Rachael Hamilton: Does the cabinet secretary believe that there could be a conflict of interest, given that Scottish ministers have to be answerable to decisions made on land owned by the Scottish Government, which amounts to 728,000 hectares or 10 per cent of the land overall? That issue was not addressed in stage 1. Mairi Gougeon: The member raises an important point. I recognise that the Scottish Government is a significant landowner in Scotland, but I do not believe that there is such a conflict of interest in the proposals that we have introduced. I want to set out how the proposals in the bill will deliver for communities, small landholders and tenant farmers across Scotland.”
“I appreciate that that does not address the member’s question in full, but it is not the corporate body’s role to take a view on the quality of bills that come to Parliament from the Scottish Government, as Rachael Hamilton suggests. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. Before we move on to the next item of business, there will be a very short pause to allow the front-bench teams to quickly change positions. Portfolio Question Time Education and Skills 14:31 School Safety (Highlands and Islands) 1.”
“Does the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body share my concerns about the quality of the bills that are being introduced by the Scottish Government, which is having an impact on parliamentary resources and the welfare of the staff here? Maggie Chapman: Although the corporate body acknowledges that, in the current session, a number of bills have been subject to delays during the scrutiny process for a variety of reasons, none of those relate to the resourcing of the legislation team. Legislation team officials work with their Scottish Government counterparts via established routes to ensure that business is prioritised and programmed appropriately and to avoid pinch points wherever possible.”
“Additional resources are being allocated to the legislation team in the forthcoming weeks to increase its staffing complement until the end of the session. Rachael Hamilton: I am pleased to hear that additional resources are being allocated to the legislation team in the next few weeks, but there has been a noticeable decline in the standard of bills that are presented by the Scottish Government. The legislation team plays a really important role in supporting members of the Scottish Parliament, but the poor standard of Scottish Government bills is resulting in an increased need for significant and complex amendments, which is causing delays in the parliamentary process.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what recent assessment it has made of the resources given to the legislation team. (S6O-04475) Maggie Chapman (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): A comprehensive review of the staffing resource required for session 6 was undertaken in 2021. As a result of that review, additional staff were brought on stream in 2022-23 across the clerking function, including within the legislation team. A flexible resourcing model is operated across the clerking teams, enabling the movement of staff across functions to support peaks in parliamentary business throughout the session. Senior leaders within the parliamentary business directorate continually assess and reprioritise staff resources to ensure the effective delivery of business.”
“I am sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—I pressed my button because I have a lodged question and you were looking at me. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you for the clarification, Ms Hamilton. I will try to avoid doing that too much in the future. [Laughter.] Catering Products (Companies Involved in Activities Related to Israeli Settlements) 2.”
“It is absolutely right that the minister and the Scottish Government will—I hope—take the report 100 per cent seriously, and it is right that a cabinet secretary and a minister should come to the chamber and answer, once and for all, the questions that all of us in the chamber tonight have been asking for weeks on end without a result. 18:07”
“We did not pass the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, but self-ID seems to have seeped into the minds of those in all public organisations, and into the guidance that is being produced. That is damaging and has led to sexual assaults and rapes in hospitals, which is absolutely disgraceful. We do not even have clear data on that, because Police Scotland—as Sharon Dowey said—is not collecting data on sex or age, and the hospitals are not collecting data, so nobody knows the true extent of the damage that self-ID is doing. I therefore ask the minister: how can we reduce inequalities? The situation is absolutely shameful. How can we protect women?”
“The public are losing patience and are, I am afraid to say, losing trust in the Scottish Government’s ability to protect women and girls. The report refers to the women’s health plan. We fly that high and are proud to talk about the work that is going on in respect of that plan. However, the SNP Government does the same in this respect as it does with some of the other targets that it has set. The Scottish Government says that the priority is to reduce inequalities in outcomes for women with regard to general health, but we know, from looking at the content of the WRN report, that the Scottish Government is adopting a policy of self-identification.”
“I will not take much time, Presiding Officer. I have just decided to say a few words, after listening to my colleagues today. I thank the Women’s Rights Network for its report. I was at the event that has been referred to, and I found the information to be quite shocking and stark. I am not sure whether the minister or the cabinet secretary were at the event, but I hope that they have read the report, which is incredibly shocking, as others have said. I do not think that the Government can continue to obfuscate on this particular issue with regard to protection of women and girls. It has quoted the Equality Act 2010 ad verbum, and we know that those protections are already set out in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, as Ash Regan said.”
“Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Applications (Determination Times) 4.”
“Earlier this month, I held a drop-in rural crime session, which was generously attended by many cross-party colleagues, the Association of British Insurers, NFU Scotland and the national rural crime unit. After what the minister has just said to Finlay Carson, which repeated verbatim what he just asked her, will she agree to hold a round-table discussion with those organisations and the victims of rural crime to discuss how serious the matter is? Siobhian Brown: I am happy to sit down and discuss the matter in the first instance with you, Ms Hamilton. I received your letter and I was not aware of the proposed bill that you mentioned in that letter. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Speak through the chair, minister. Siobhian Brown: I am happy to speak to the member in the first instance.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps Historic Environment Scotland is taking to ensure that women have access to a safe working environment. (S6O- 04443)”
“Follow that, Presiding Officer. There is lots of lovely alcohol in the Borders, but we are not reliant on it. Hooray for Scotland’s food and drink sector, which contributes £15 billion to our economy and supports 120,000 jobs. It is just fantastic. From Scotch whisky to Scottish beef, our agriculture and hospitality industries, and all those in the supply chain, are at the heart of our economy. Just last week, my colleague Finlay Carson and I had the pleasure of attending the Scottish Countryside Alliance awards, which are otherwise known as the rural Oscars.”
“This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone in Scotland has reliable and dignified access to safe, nutritious, affordable, enjoyable and sustainable food. We want to have a thriving food culture and a prosperous and innovative food and drink sector. As I hope that I have already outlined, there is so much to be proud of regarding Scottish food.”
“That includes the creation of food and drink trails and seafood festivals, small producers expanding their reach, local distilleries crafting unique events, online campaigns promoting soft fruits and Scottish tea, and food tourism opportunities that have brought people together over a shared love of food. Scotland has an amazing reputation for quality food and drink, which we want to capitalise on. With that in mind, last year saw the launch of the new “Naturally Scottish” branding, which is used both here at home and in export markets. It is a fantastic articulation of our industry and of the people, the places and the pride and passion that are involved in all that we do. Another key piece of work that I am proud that we are taking forward is making Scotland a good food nation.”
“That is why I am delighted to announce that, as of 1 April, we will provide another £100,000 as part of the Scotland Food & Drink partnership regional food fund. We already have a well-recognised and established sector, but the fund provides further support by encouraging small businesses to thrive and fostering collaboration among producers and food groups. Through remarkable initiatives such as that, we are providing small projects with the opportunity to promote and showcase their regional goods. As we consider the success in the past decade and prepare to launch the next round of the fund, we are reflecting on past rounds, where we have witnessed so much good work.”
“We are also focusing on the opportunities that are presented by the UK market. We are growing sales of Scottish products by holding meet-the- buyer events, linking up producers and suppliers, and placing experts in Scottish products with national retailers and wholesalers. For the first time, we have an in-market specialist based in London, who is already making a difference, with new relationships being formed and business won. Closer to home, the work in Scotland continues. We know that Scottish consumers want to be able to buy more Scottish products—indeed, I know that that is a keen area of interest for MSPs across the Parliament. The Scottish Government supports work in both the retail and out-of-home markets to achieve that.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention, and I wish her well for the future. On the point about being competitive in the European and global markets, does she think that it would be to the benefit of Scotland’s farmers to bring forward precision breeding technology so that they, too, can become competitive? Mairi Gougeon: I thank the member for her first point, but I assure her that I am not going anywhere yet. On her second point, we want to have a wide-ranging conversation around gene editing and the technology, which is why we have committed to holding a round-table discussion next week. It is about having a wider discussion with academics, our farming industry and wider civil society so that we can go through that. We do not want to rush it in the way that the UK Government did.”
“Rachael Hamilton: I will conclude, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government must issue a public sector directive instructing all schools, hospitals and other public institutions to uphold single-sex spaces for biological women and girls. 16:34”
“The SNP Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will not even commit to ensuring that single-sex spaces are upheld in our hospitals, despite workplace regulations, which have been in place since 1992, directing employers to provide separate male and female facilities. The situation in Scotland’s schools is just as appalling. In 2024, 13 out of 243 secondary schools in Scotland still provided single-sex toilets, and one in 20 schools had no single-sex facilities at all. The consequences of those failures are horrifying. In a Dundee secondary school, a male pupil was caught filming girls in the toilets and changing rooms. His phone contained hundreds of images of female pupils in various stages of undress. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Hamilton, you need to bring your remarks to a close.”
“Despite Hilary Cass, Reem Alsalem—the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls—and the EHRC saying that it is the wrong thing to do, would Mercedes Villalba vote for the bill now? Highlighting the seriousness of the situation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission had to remind NHS Fife of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and it even requested to see an assessment of its changing facilities policy. What has the Scottish Government done in response to concerns raised by my Conservative colleagues? Time and time again, it has done absolutely nothing.”
“Mercedes Villalba: Neither Rachael Hamilton nor Russell Findlay has been able to cite any evidence of transgender people in single-sex spaces putting women at risk. Will Rachael Hamilton at least acknowledge that there is evidence that harm is caused to trans people on the basis of their being trans when they are not granted access to single-sex spaces? Rachael Hamilton: Mercedes Villalba has a short memory. Anas Sarwar whipped Labour to vote for the SNP’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which would have allowed people to self-ID and get themselves access to single-sex spaces. Now, he says that he would not have voted for it if he had known what he knows now.”
“In 2024 alone, there were 23 reports of sexual assault within NHS Borders hospitals, almost all of which—19 incidents—occurred at the Borders general hospital. If, as NHS Borders reported, only three cases were recorded but 23 were reported, we must ask how many more cases have gone unrecorded, unreported and ignored. Let us not forget the case of Sandie Peggie, an NHS nurse for 30 years at the Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy who was suspended after objecting to sharing a changing room with a male-born person identifying as a woman. Both Dr Upton and NHS Fife petitioned for the tribunal to be held in private, unlike other employment tribunals, which are public. Just think: holding it behind closed doors would have been more convenient for the Scottish Government if we were not having this debate today.”
“Instead, public bodies across Scotland— including our schools and hospitals—are being pressured into adopting dangerous gender self-ID policies that put women and girls at risk. Women’s voices, in this case, have been ignored and victims’ experiences dismissed. When concerns are raised, SNP ministers—and other parties— refuse to engage. A couple of weeks ago, John Swinney said that he did not regret supporting the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Hospitals should be places of safety and healing. Instead, under the SNP, they have become places of fear for women. The Women’s Rights Network has compiled disturbing data from Police Scotland, which shows that, between 2019 and 2024, there were nearly 300 incidents of sexual assault and rape in Scottish hospitals.”