EQUALITY monitoring serves a purpose. The data collected and analysis of it can identify inequalities, it can tell us who is being represented and who isn’t, and it can help to remove barriers and improve inclusive practices.
But for the Scottish Parliament, what has historically been a simple process has erupted into an almighty row.
The whole issue traces back to when MSPs' details were first published on the Scottish Parliament’s website after the Holyrood election and politicians being sworn in the following week.
It is the first time the Scottish Parliament has had to collect the data following the Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 relates to biological sex, not gender.
After several complaints from members of the public regarding how MSPs were listed on the website, the ability to search by gender was completely removed.
The Sunday National lodged a Freedom of Information request with the Scottish Parliament regarding this, and it did not deny that this is what influenced the decision, but we discovered that only 11 complaints had been made overall.
There were three enquiries about removing the sex function, three about Iris Duane being listed as female, three about the website not listing the “true sex of unnamed MSPs” and two about the appearance of non-binary as a category. They added that there were no complaints specifically about Q Manivannan, who identifies as trans non-binary.
The Scottish Parliament did not disclose the details of the complaints as it could discourage people from getting in touch in the future, it said.
A spokesperson said that following the election, “some diversity information was mistakenly made available online before it had been confirmed directly by individual MSPs”.
They admitted the information was “not sourced from, or verified by, current MSPs and was not collected in line with the terms of recommendations set out in our Gender Sensitive Audit (GSA) report of March 2023”.
After the data was removed, MSPs were asked by Lorna Hunter, the Parliament’s director of people, communications and inclusion, to disclose their sex and trans status as part of a diversity survey.
In an email to MSPs, Hunter said that the SPCB is “committed to ensuring that information published about the diversity of MSPs is handled with care and sensitivity, and presented as accurately and transparently as possible”.
But when the results of the survey were made public, it emerged that despite extending the deadline to respond by just over two weeks, 67 MSPs had not responded.
Of the 62 that did, one did not “consent to the publication of their personal data”, a secondary email from Hunter said.
She added that it was “clear there is no consensus from all MSPs” on how to fulfil the recommendations of the Gender Sensitive Audit and admitted it would make it difficult for the Scottish Parliament to publish “any further diversity data on other protected characteristics”.
“It makes tracking and addressing under-representation all the more difficult, despite the laudable recommendations of the Gender Sensitive Audit,” Hunter added.
It comes as the number of female MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, comparing the 2021 cohort with 2026, has seen much-feared regression.
And last month, a report from Engender found that nine in 10 women councillors in Scotland have experienced sexism, misogyny or gender-based violence in the course of their work.
It is part of a longer-term trend where women who put themselves in the public eye fear abuse and misogyny in their day-to-day lives as well as on social media.
When we look at the MSPs who did not take part in the Scottish Parliament survey, the issue is cross-party.
None of the Scottish Green MSPs took part, telling The Scotsman there was “no clear need” for the data to be published on the Parliament’s website, with a spokesperson adding: “It was also already clear that bad-faith actors would be weaponising this information against women and trans people.”
For Women Scotland accused the Greens of being “performative” and “petty” by not taking part.
Reform UK tried to weaponise the row with a graphic on Twitter/X, before realising that six of their own MSPs had not taken part, subsequently deleting it. There were also 34 SNP MSPs who didn’t disclose their sex and trans status, six Scottish Tory MSPs, four from the Scottish LibDems and three from Scottish Labour.
It should be noted that one of these 68 MSPs has taken part but did not want the data disclosed.
But why does this row about a survey and a search function on a website really matter?
A spokesperson for Elect Her, a group which supports women entering politics, pointed out that you can’t improve representation if you don’t understand who is and isn’t represented.
“Equality monitoring shouldn't be optional if we want a true picture of who our public institutions represent,” she added.
“That's why we've long supported the collection of anonymised equality data from candidates standing for election, as well as elected representatives.
“Good-quality data on characteristics such as sex, gender, disability and ethnicity helps us understand who is participating in public life, where barriers remain and whether we're making progress towards greater equality.
“This information should always be collected anonymously, providing the evidence needed to build a more representative democracy while giving people confidence that their personal information is protected.”
