Scotland - Email MSPs about Gender Representation on Public Boards

[NonnyMouse1337]

Ongoing discussions on this topic are in this thread. -> www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3929533-Scottish-Government-redefines-woman-in-law

I decided to split this off into a separate thread so it is more visible and won't get lost within the pages of the one above.

For Women Scotland have published a template that you can use to email your MSPs. Please do so if you can.
The entire newsletter can be read at mailchi.mp/1c0d4ab1e1dd/onwards-from-the-grr-bill.

The relevant bit for the template is copied below.

--------

Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018

The vast majority of responses to the Government's consultation on statutory guidelines for the GRPBA objected to the definition of "woman" (see the article in the Scotsman). Despite this, the Government quickly pressed ahead with publication of guidelines which enforce the Act, and which leave the definition unchanged.

We have sought legal opinion on pursuing a judicial review to challenge this Act, and initial advice looks promising. We'll keep you updated as we progress, but in the meantime it would be helpful if everyone could contact all 8 of their MSPs to express concern and ask them to take further action.

A template is provided below but please amend it as you wish. To contact your constituent MSP and your 7 regional MSPs just put in your postcode here. www.theyworkforyou.com/scotland/

--------

Dear [Name of MSP],

I am writing to you regarding the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. An analysis of responses to the public consultation, published on 3rd April, found that "much of the feedback focused on concerns raised regarding terminology and definitions used in the Act. More specifically, the term "gender" and the definition of "woman" for the purposes of the Act."

www.gov.scot/publications/analysis-consultation-implementation-gender-representation-public-boards-scotland-act-2018/

The Government failed to take these concerns into account and have since published the Statutory Guidance for the Act, with the definition unchanged.

The test for "living as a woman" in the guidance is offensive and seems to exclude many women, as well as include many men into the category of women. In no way does this contribute to the stated aim of the Act, ie. to improve the representation of women on the boards of Scottish public authorities.

As we already have an established definition of "woman" in the Equality Act as being "a female of any age", I would ask you to write to Christina McKelvie, Minister for Equalities to request the Government urgently reconsiders the Statutory Guidance.

Could you also ask Ms McKelvie on what grounds the Government disregarded the majority of responses to the consultation, and what legal advice the Government received regarding its authority to undermine key definitions in reserved legislation?

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]

Finally got around to emailing my MSPs about this...will confess I missed out arch misogynist Patrick Harvie - don't think I can stomach what he might have to say about it...

Bump! Remember to email all of your MSPs.

Does anyone know how long I should give them to reply? If they don’t reply is a follow up email or snail mail better?

Thanks!

Hmm not sure. I've sometimes had replies weeks later. I think my Green MSPs might totally ignore me!

Yes some of my slowest replies in the past have been the most thoughtful but I’m keen to keep nudging the ones who would like to “lalala I cant hear you”

My MSP is normally very quick however he’s quite sensible on this (verbally at least ) AND a SNP company man so he’s going to find it a bit tricky...

Just received this email:

Dear terryleather

Thank you for your email.

These matters have been highlighted to Johann by other constituents and she has raised them with both Christina McKelvie and Shirley-Anne Somerville. We will get back to you, once responses have been received.

Kind regards,

Office of Johann Lamont MSP (Glasgow Region)

Good to know other women are on the case.

I've had an acknowledgement email from one other list MSP but that's all so far...

I've heard nothing back from my SNP and Green MSPs. 🙄
Neil Findlay from Labour said Sarah Boyack will reply, so waiting on that.

I think Johann is on our side anyway so I did think that out of all of them she would be the most likely to reply.

Aye, Johann has spoken up before to defend women's rights.

From Alison Harris (Conservative MSP)

The Scottish Conservatives voted against this Bill in 2018. While being committed to achieving equal representation of women in all spheres, we did not believe statutory quotas were the right way to improve gender representation in public life.

When the SNP government published the delayed consultation responses on its proposals for statutory guidance of the Bill, there were concerns around the definition of ‘women’ as it appeared in the guidance.

The definition was amended at Stage 2 of the legislative process with the intention of ensuring that the Bill was inclusive of trans women.

The statutory guidance stated that to be included, a trans woman without a UK Gender Recognition Certificate must meet the following three criteria: 1. have the characteristic of gender reassignment as defined in the Equality Act 2010. 2. be proposing to undergo, is undergoing or undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning their sex to female 3. be living as a woman (this would not require the person to dress, look or behave in any particular way. However, it would be expected that there would be evidence that the person was continuously living as a woman).
However, the guidance states that the Act does not require an appointing person to ask a candidate to prove that they meet the definition of woman in the Act.

Despite the concerns there was no separate government response to the consultation and it was published on 2 June. Due to this we will be writing to Minister for Older People & Equalities Christina McKelvie asking her to address these concerns.

I've started emailing. My MSP is Drew Hendry so I won't hold my breath on him.

Send it to all 8 MSPs ToriaPumpkin.
Seems like there's quite a number of emails being sent to MSPs about this, so we need to keep the pressure up. With the elections next year, they should be aware there will be tough questions being asked by voters.

I will do. At the moment I have two kids rattling about asking me what I'm doing every five seconds but I'll send it to the rest when they're somewhere else 😊

I sent to all 8 MSPs as soon as I got the email. I also personalised it.

I made the point that my DH would only have to add one letter to his name, change his pronouns and his council tax bill and he'd be a woman. Not that it would matter though...as no one is allowed to check!!!

I got the standard Conservative reply and no others really.

I've had four automated replies so far, all saying they're dealing with a high volume of emails due to covid. I shall update if I get anything further.

I emailed my MSP and got a letter back in the post with an attached copy of his letter to Christina McKelvie, stating several constituents had raised this issue. So get emailing people! It does make a difference.

That’s great Iam

I received this very late yesterday!

I have only received automated replies from my 2 Conservative msps and an email from the presiding officer stating that he has to remain impartial.

@334bu

I have only received automated replies from my 2 Conservative msps and an email from the presiding officer stating that he has to remain impartial.

That's a bit pish!

Jeremy Balfour has passed on the response from Christina McKelvie to me. Posting it here.

Your Reference: Fao: Christina McKelvie MSP, Minister for Older People and Equalities

08 July 2020

Dear Jeremy

Thank you for your email correspondence of 8 June 2020, on behalf of some of your constituents, regarding the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (the 2018 Act).

In your email you say that your constituents feel the government failed to take the concerns of the majority of consultation respondents into account when developing the reporting regulations and statutory guidance for the 2018 Act.

I can advise that the reason the views expressed in the responses relating to the term gender and definition of woman used in the 2018 Act were not reflected in the final regulations and guidance, is that they were not within the scope of the consultation.

These points relate directly to the 2018 Act itself, which received Royal Assent on 9 March 2018 and has been fully in force since the 29 May 2020.

I would like to take this opportunity to reassure your constituents that the purpose of the 2018 Act was and very much still is, to re-dress the historical underrepresentation of women on our public boards.

And it is working. Of the boards where appointments are made by Scottish Ministers, currently 51 % of the non-executive members are women. This compares with 41% in 2015.

Your constituents referenced their concerns regarding how “woman” is defined by the 2018 Act and the supporting information covering this in the 2018 Act’s Statutory Guidance.

I would like to clarify that currently the Public Appointments process does not require a birth or gender recognition certificate to be shared and that there were no additional protections for non-trans women prior to the 2018 Act coming into force that have now been removed.

Women’s rights and protections are as strong now as they were prior to this legislation coming into force. We will continue to address gender inequality and promote, protect and extend the hard won rights of women.

We also continue to strongly support the single sex exceptions in the 2010 Equality Act which allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I hope your constituents finds this response helpful.

Yours sincerely

CHRISTINA MCKELVIE

How bizzare, reassuring you that including men in the 51 per cent means it's working!

I am always agog attached women who are happy to have female representation space filled by men. It's pathetic.

Attached ! Just at.

We also continue to strongly support the single sex exceptions in the 2010 Equality Act which allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

If the purpose of the Act was to "re-dress the historical underrepresentation of women on our public boards", why was it not considered to be a legitimate aim to exclude trans people? They could have a separate Act to address trans representation, surely. What is the point in claiming to re-dress women's representation, while allowing any male to identify as a woman and not requiring them to show any proof that they have legally changed their sex to be classed as female?!

Do these politicians really think the general public are that stupid that we will blindly swallow their moronic cult logic?

And the bloody cheek to refer to women as 'non-trans women'. Fuck off, Christina. You might be happy to be treated as a third class citizen. I'm not.

We also continue to strongly support the single sex exceptions in the 2010 Equality Act which allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I'd be interested in what she thinks is a legitimate aim for this, given that she doesn't think women are a separate class of people.