Yesterday marked the last meeting of the Brexit select committee. Set up in the aftermath of the EU referendum to scrutinise the negotiations leading to the Withdrawal agreement, the Committee later moved on to scrutinise the negotiations on the future relationship with the EU. Our last piece of work will be a report on why we think the Future Relationship agreement continues to require detailed parliamentary scrutiny. The deal reached is only a starting position and there is a lot of work to be done to fill in the gaps and to address the problems it has created.  The committee’s unanimous plea to be allowed to continue its work fell on deaf ears and Jacob Rees Mogg has insisted that we cease to exist.  I suspect many readers of this column will wonder why they should shed a tear for any Westminster committee. So, let me try to explain. 

I make no apology for writing about the issue of free speech and equality law for a third week running. Yesterday saw a landmark court judgment which has the potential to change the tenor of the current debate. It is important to be clear what that judgment means and what it does not mean. One group, the gender critical, have had their rights reaffirmed. No group, particularly not trans people, have lost any rights. 

Tim Hopkins, Director of the Equality Network and my former comrade from the struggle for LGB rights, has asked me to spell out my objections to Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Scheme. I had hoped that my last two columns made clear that I share the concerns widely held by lawyers and other commentators, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the expert author of an independent report commissioned by the University of Essex, all of which have been the subject of numerous recent news reports. In summary these concerns are that misleading advice has been given as to the protected characteristics under the Equality Act, that the law on unlawful discrimination and free speech has been misrepresented and that this may have led to discrimination particularly against women, people with gender critical beliefs and same sex attracted lesbians. 

One of the most irritating things about the Tories at Westminster is their utter hypocrisy. While trumpeting the importance of human rights at home and abroad, their approach to protecting them is very selective. Often, they do the opposite of what they say. One distinguished professor of law has called it ‘constitutional gaslighting’. 

To take just one example, last week the Joint Committee on Human Rights heard alarming evidence from police, lawyers and the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller community about the likely impact of the Tories plans to criminalise unauthorised encampments and seize traveller’s property including their caravans. While purporting to defend the property rights of landowners the Tories are prepared to throw the travelling community’s way of life under the bus and have a very cavalier attitude to the travellers’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. These proposals are just one more objectional aspect of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which fortunately will not apply in Scotland where, witnesses told us, the attitude towards the travelling community is considerably more benign (Douglas Ross excepted). 

I want to start this column with a big thank you to all the National readers, columnists and journalists who sent me good wishes after I announced my intention to take time off to focus on my health.  I’m glad to have made a return to public duties. 

It seems not much has changed while I’ve been away.  It's business as usual at Holyrood with another pro-independence majority, albeit with an increase of 3 seats, and it's business as usual at Westminster. The Queen’s Speech reminded us that the UK Tory Government’s priorities are miles away from those of most Scots. Their new legislative programme is far removed from what is needed to tackle the inequalities exacerbated by the pandemic, or to ‘build back better’. As we saw on Kenmure street, their policies on immigration and refugees continue to appal and it all takes place against a background of dodgy lobbying, dodgy procurement and flagrant Ministerial conflicts of interest.