Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to probe that point. You talk about dignity and respect, and in one of your answers, you said that, as you are a woman of BAME background, like me, you know when an issue is affected by certain religious aspects.

Last week, I said that Governments and organisations were on the one hand giving rights to prayer rooms but, on the other hand, taking away a right to single-sex facilities. As a woman of colour and religion, you know that before a person goes into a prayer room, they have to visit the bathroom. If you are going to a single-sex space, that is fine, because you have respect and dignity, but when that space is up for question and becomes a unisex space—people out there, who are listening to this session, are very confused on this—what happens then? You will not need the prayer room because you cannot go in to the bathroom and do your wudu steps before prayer. What is the use of providing something but then taking away a right somewhere else?

You are right—it is not a competition—but there has to be a fair balance. Right now, I do not think that women of colour—even women and girls who are out there, in general—are finding that balance, because there is no respect and dignity in sharing a unisex toilet or facility with a biological male.

I have a few other questions. You touched on domestic abuse, minister. I have spoken to countless survivors of sexual assault and domestic abuse. Many of those women do not feel comfortable when surrounded by men and have stressed the importance of single-sex spaces. Do you believe that a woman who does not want to share a space with a trans-identified male should have to explain why, for example by disclosing a history of sexual assault or domestic abuse?

So you could not comment on whether the SPS is compliant.

Minister, I spoke to the EHRC earlier about the interpretation of the law. Without naming any specific cases, you will know that there are on-going issues with regard to the interpretation of the law, including the regulations. I would not say that people are confused, but they are all interpreting the law in their own way—every organisation is. You are right: not every organisation is going out to basically not have those facilities, or to have them. Again, though, the issue is out there, and the waters are pretty muddy. People do not know what they are doing, and the fact is that more and more legal cases are going to come forward, so that clarity can be provided.

Can you shed some light on this, minister? Are you aware that interpretation is not clear? I have talked about regulations, and I mentioned the Equality Act 2010 earlier. Are people complying with them? Do you see that the water out there is pretty muddy when it comes to how people—and organisations, especially—are interpreting the law?

You said that further work is needed on the drivers. Is that work being done?

I also want to touch on race, and the fact that people of colour—women, especially—are more disadvantaged in terms of the gender pay gap. Can you say anything about that? You said that work needs to be done in general, but is any work being done in that area?

Can I probe into that? If a lesbian group excludes trans women, would you say that it is not compliant with the Equality Act 2010?

Thank you. You talked about guidance. Is the law clear on that? I am considering what is happening out there—obviously without talking about a specific case. Is it clear that your guidance states what it states and that the people and organisations that provide services must comply with it, or are there grey areas on which people out there are not getting compliance right?

There are many organisations that make a lot of decisions on their own heads. Those are not collective decisions and they are not decisions that are based on policy or regulation—they are making their own decisions within their own organisations. How can a bit more clarity be provided? How can you give guidance so that people know exactly where they stand when no single-sex spaces or services are provided?

Minister, I have a few questions, so I ask you to bear with me.

I want to ask about a point that I have brought up with many witnesses. There are nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and characteristics such as religion and sex come into conflict with issues around gender identity. For example, as I brought up in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, many BAME and religious women do not feel comfortable having procedures such as smear tests and breast examinations performed by biological males, including trans women. Similarly, Sandie Peggie was suspended for refusing to share a changing room with a biological male who did not even have a gender recognition certificate. All too often, it looks as if women are thrown under the bus in favour of trans ideology. Will that be the case for every woman of religion or colour if they come forward and say they cannot undress in front of or be examined by a biological male? Do you think that it is okay for women and girls, including those of BAME and religious backgrounds, to be undressing in front of biological males?

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 state that changing rooms

“shall not be suitable unless they include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety”.

It is the Scottish Government’s duty to ensure that all public bodies comply with such regulations. However, we have seen female nurses and female police officers being forced to share changing facilities with biologically male colleagues. Why are the health boards and Police Scotland not complying with the regulations?

Thank you.