Official Report 1027KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16755, in the name of Russell Findlay, on protecting single-sex spaces in the public sector. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
14:49
On the cusp of Christmas 2022, Parliament sat into the early hours of the morning as MSPs debated the Scottish National Party’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Despite the valiant efforts of our party, the legislation passed, prompting shock and anger from women in the public gallery, and no wonder.
Does the member recognise that it was Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May who sought to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 because she wanted trans people to have an easier life and wanted to make sure that they did not have to suffer through medical interventions and discrimination?
That was a bold attempt, but this legislation was a completely different thing. The bill was about the removal of women’s rights.
It is no wonder that women were angry that evening. I remember it well. Parliament had passed a law that would allow anyone from the tender age of 16 to legally change their sex based on nothing more than self-declaration. In the eyes of the state, any man could be a woman, regardless of the inevitable impact on women’s rights. Not only that, but Parliament also rejected my commonsense amendments to prevent sex offenders from exploiting gender self-identification, as they inevitably would.
Not long after the law passed, a man called Adam Graham was convicted of rape. He said that he identified as female and wanted to be known as Isla Bryson. He was initially sent to a women’s prison, before a public backlash forced his removal. That episode ignited the public awareness in Scotland and beyond and, when Nicola Sturgeon was unable to answer whether Bryson was a man or a woman, the game was up. She could not concede that Bryson was a man, even though everyone else could see it as plain as day. However, nor could she say that Bryson was a woman, despite his self-declaration. The SNP’s belief in the purity of self-identification without condition collapsed under Nicola Sturgeon’s inability to answer that question.
It has since been reported that SNP MSPs were assured during those long and late sittings that the issue was a storm in a teacup and that, once the law passed, all the fuss would die down by the new year. How very wrong that was. We are still talking about it, because we need to be talking about it. That is why my party has decided to hold today’s vital debate.
The SNP has said that a rapist being in a women’s prison was nothing to do with its law. In fact, it is right about that, although that does not make it any better, because the Scottish Prison Service’s decision to put a rapist in a women’s prison was due to the SNP pushing gender ideology long before the bill passed. Trans lobbyists, funded by the SNP Government, saw voiceless and vulnerable women in prison as an easy first target. They succeeded in getting the Scottish Prison Service to adopt self-identification in 2014, eight years before the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was lodged.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I am sorry, but I am going to make some headway. I will come back to the member on that.
This insidious campaign has been waged for more than a decade, and the same lobbyists also targeted the police, the judiciary, the national health service and many other branches of state. The truth is that, by the time the bill passed in 2022, self-ID had already become entrenched in many of Scotland’s public bodies and state-funded agencies, including prisons, schools, hospitals, the police and sporting groups. Even though that dangerous legislation was, quite rightly, blocked by the then Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, it has since become even more deep rooted.
Mass adoption of self-ID is why we are witnessing an extraordinary employment tribunal in Fife, which will conclude in due course. A female nurse who spent decades treating NHS patients was told that a male-bodied colleague was allowed into the female-only changing room. When she raised concerns with her bosses, she was subject to disciplinary action. It is little wonder that the NHS’s taxpayer-funded lawyers wanted this case played out behind closed doors. The fear is that lawyers are now queuing up for even more public money in similar anticipated cases—money that should be spent on front-line services.
All of that is happening because self-styled political progressives on the left are, in fact, deeply regressive, sacrificing women’s rights on the altar of their beliefs. The imposition of gender ideology thinking in schools is the most insidious part of it.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not think that I have much time in hand.
There is not an awful lot, no.
I will come back to the member if there is time towards the end.
Children who are experiencing the normal challenges of growing up are being told by adults that they were born in the wrong body. The profound and often irreversible harm that that has caused, and continues to cause, is horrific. One day, there will be a reckoning for those responsible.
Then there is the destruction of girls’ privacy in schools. In 2021, the SNP issued trans guidance for schools, which stressed that there was no legal basis for excluding boys from girls’ toilets and that pupils should be free to join physical education classes with the gender of their choosing. It also included advice on increasing the number of gender-neutral toilets. There have been instances of sexual harassment and assault. I find it reprehensible that young female pupils are too scared to go into school toilets because of the presence of young men, even where there is no ill intent. As a parent, I would refuse to accept that. No pupils or their parents should be bullied into submission because schools have been told to accept and promote self-ID.
In 2022, Scottish Government civil servants were sent material that described biological sex as a
“binary system ... set by the medical establishment to reinforce white supremacy and gender oppression”.
I mean, for goodness’ sake—I only got a few highers and none of them were in science, but in what mind-bending parallel universe is it okay for civil servants to peddle basic biological falsehoods?
The same material labelled some women’s rights campaigners as TERFs, which stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminists”. Initially used as a smear by the gender lobby, the term has since been embraced by Scotland’s proud legion of TERFs. Trust me—you do not want to get on the wrong side of them. Today, I thank them for their heroic work. From the very beginning, the TERFs could see the problems with self-ID. At every level, from the top of the Government to our NHS, councils, policing and schools, women’s rights have been set on fire. Even today, after all this has played out in public, many state agencies just do not get it. Scotland’s TERFs have been bravely determined in their fight for justice, and that fight continues.
Just over two years ago, my party did everything that it could to try to prevent the SNP’s harmful gender self-ID law from being enacted. John Swinney, Anas Sarwar and Alex Cole-Hamilton all voted for it. Anas Sarwar has since claimed that he would not have done so if he had known then what he knows now. He is not here to explain himself, but I would be happy to give way to any of his colleagues if they can reveal exactly what it is that they did not know back then. None of them will, as expected. The reason was—
Oh, come on. That is so pathetic.
No—I know, and they know, that every single bit of information was right in front of them. [Interruption.] All the warnings were writ large, and all the warnings were ignored.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will if we have time. Presiding Officer, is there time in hand?
There is very little time in hand, but I can give you some of the time back.
Can the member point to any evidence of harm to others arising from granting transgender people access to single-sex spaces that align with their gender? Do you have any evidence?
Speak through the chair, please.
I have 11 minutes for this entire speech, but I could spend 11 minutes providing details of evidence. [Interruption.] I find it extraordinary that the member would be so oblivious to the reality of the harms that are being caused every single day.
Nicola Sturgeon was the architect of this bitterly divisive legislation and cheerleader for its dangerous ideology. She was the first female First Minister but she has caused untold damage to women’s rights. Today, she has announced that she will not seek re-election to Holyrood. I want to give Nicola Sturgeon an opportunity today to admit her mistakes and get on the right side of history. I ask her to vote for the motion. By doing so, she could send a signal to the women of Scotland that she got it wrong. Who knows? It might even be the first step in rehabilitating her record and her legacy.
I turn to her successor. John Swinney said that he has no regrets about backing self-ID, and there are concerns that he will resurrect it if he thinks that he can get away with it. He should not do so. What he should do is to issue a clear message today to all of Scotland’s public bodies and state-funded agencies. Here is that message: women and girls are legally entitled to single-sex spaces, and women and girls should never be punished for exercising their rights. That should be obvious to anyone who possesses an ounce of common sense and compassion.
I assume that Anas Sarwar’s epiphany means that Labour will support our motion. As for SNP members, I know that many of them share my party’s views. It is not too late for them to do the right thing, and I urge them to back Scotland’s women and girls. That might go some way towards repairing the damage that was done by the madness of self-ID.
I proudly move,
That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government has failed to give sufficient clarity to the public sector about ensuring the availability of single-sex spaces for women and girls, such as toilets and changing rooms; acknowledges that this failure has resulted in workers in the public sector and school pupils having to share single-sex spaces with individuals of the opposite sex, jeopardising their safety, dignity and privacy, and subjecting some to horrific incidents of sexual abuse and harassment, and calls on the Scottish Government to urgently issue a directive to all public sector organisations requiring that adequate single-sex spaces for biological women and girls are provided on their premises in line with legal obligations.
15:00
I will approach today’s debate with a clear statement of fact at the outset. As our amendment states, the Scottish Government stands firmly behind the Equality Act 2010.
I take the opportunity at the outset of the debate to say that we all have a duty and responsibility in relation to the language that we use and the conduct that we display today—and, indeed, on all days. Public discussions on equality issues can be polarised and can sometimes include misconceptions. We should be mindful of the negative impact that polarised and sometimes inaccurate public discussion can have on the groups and individuals who are impacted by what we will speak about today. As an example, in 2023, during a state visit to the United Kingdom, the United Nations-appointed independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity commented:
“Abusive rhetoric by politicians, the media and social commentators has trickled down to create a culture of increasingly abusive and hateful speech against LGBT persons in the United Kingdom.”
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The Scottish Government has always sought to debate this topic with sensitivity and compassion based on evidence and the rule of law. That is how ministers will respond today. I remind all members that there are on-going judicial proceedings that relate to the debate and that it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on those.
The Scottish Government is committed to and fully upholds the Equality Act 2010. We have been clear in our support for the separate and single-sex exceptions in the act, which can allow for people to be excluded when that is
“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
We recognise that it is legislation for everyone, as it covers age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It sets out the personal characteristics that are protected by the law and the behaviour that is unlawful. It protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fairer and more equal society.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the Equality Act 2010 came from a recognition that vast swathes of minorities in our communities were facing violations of their human rights and regular abuse, and that it was a necessary act that has functioned well?
Alex Cole-Hamilton is right to point to the basis of the legislation, the reasons why it was introduced and why it remains just as important now as it was at its introduction. I repeat the message that we have made before, which is that the Scottish Government strongly supports the separate and single-sex exemptions in the 2010 act.
Over the past few weeks, the Scottish Conservatives have asked multiple questions in the Parliament in relation to single-sex spaces. The Scottish Government has answered those questions in full and, each time that they have been raised, we have reminded the Conservatives that the 2010 act is largely reserved and that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is responsible for its enforcement. It is the responsibility of all public bodies in Scotland to interpret and comply with the 2010 act. That is the law.
We welcome the role of the EHRC in producing codes of practice and guidance for public bodies in Scotland to help them to navigate their statutory obligations under the 2010 act. That includes a guide for separate and single-sex service providers. The guidance also states that organisations might need to consider the impact of other legislation such as the legal requirements for health and safety in workplaces.
Some powers have been given to Scottish ministers under the 2010 act, such as the public sector duty regarding socioeconomic inequalities and specific duties enabling the better performance of the public sector equality duty. However, key provisions of the 2010 act on matters such as discrimination and on the various protected characteristics, such as sex and gender assignment, are reserved.
Public sector bodies in Scotland are responding to their obligations under the 2010 act. NHS Scotland provides guidance through the charter of patients’ rights and responsibilities. The charter was last updated in 2022 and is required to be updated every five years, with the next scheduled update taking place in 2027.
The Scottish Prison Service issued operational guidance in February 2024 to support implementation of the management of transgender people in custody policy, which was published in December 2023. That guidance is to ensure that the rights and needs of transgender people are protected, while ensuring a safe and inclusive environment for everyone in the care of the SPS and those who work for it.
Police Scotland is conducting a review of sex and gender, with an aim to improve the terminology, recording practices and use of sex and gender across the organisation. The review aims to achieve an outcome that is consistent with inclusivity, legal obligations and operational requirements, and that respects individuals’ rights and dignity. However, the chief constable is responsible for policing and is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority for that and not to Scottish ministers.
The EHRC’s technical guidance for schools sets out clear advice and guidance on the provisions of the 2010 act as they apply to schools in relation to the provision of education and access to benefits, facilities or services, both educational and non-educational. It provides authoritative, comprehensive and technical guidance to the detail of the law.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The supporting transgender young people in schools guidance for schools provides non-statutory legislative policy and practical guidance for schools on the matters that schools might wish to consider in responding to a young person’s personal decision to consider or change their gender identity. That includes a range of considerations, including the provision of toilets and changing rooms, but it goes well beyond those matters.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The behaviour in Scottish schools research for 2023 identified concerns among school staff about increasing experiences of misogyny in schools. That is why, in March last year, the Scottish Government introduced new guidance for schools on preventing and responding to gender-based violence. The guidance provides clear advice for schools on challenging misogyny and responding to any incidents that arise, which, thankfully, are rare.
I recognise that the points that have been raised on single-sex spaces concern the safety of women. We remain absolutely committed to protecting and asserting the safety of women and girls in our society. Violence against women and girls is a fundamental violation of human rights and has no place in our vision for a safe, strong and successful Scotland.
To achieve our vision, we are implementing the equally safe Scotland strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer.
A number of members have tried to intervene. I am seeking your clarification that it would be in order in a debate for the cabinet secretary to give way and allow a colleague to ask a question or to seek a clarification.
Mr Kerr, you will know by now that that is not a point of order and that it is entirely at the discretion of the person speaking whether they take an intervention.
I can give you back a little bit of time, cabinet secretary.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The delivery of the equally safe fund supports the work of the equally safe strategy, which underpins Scotland’s approach to preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls. It supports 119 projects from more than 100 organisations across every local authority in Scotland.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Scotland is committed to meeting the benchmark that is set by the international treaties and obligations, such as the Istanbul convention, which opposes violence against women and domestic violence.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The debate on single-sex spaces can focus on front-line services that are crucial in providing support and safety for the survivors of violence against women and girls. The needs of survivors of rape and sexual assault must be the utmost priority of support services, and that is why we strongly support the exemptions in the 2010 act and are clear that access to separate or single-sex provision for survivors is a legitimate and proportionate response when providing support to rape survivors.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Gender equality is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s vision for a fairer Scotland. We want women and girls to be empowered to exercise equal rights and opportunities, have equitable access to economic resources and decision making, and live their lives free of all forms of violence, abuse and harassment.
We continue to take forward work to protect, promote and improve gender equality, recognising that intersectional inequality exists in Scotland. That includes work to deliver and implement the ambitious recommendations from the First Minister’s National Advisory Council on Women and Girls, alongside the women’s health plan and the equally safe strategy.
Gender inequality is complex and harmful, and it affects everyone, not just women and girls. It affects us collectively as a country. Women are central to all Government priorities, and ensuring that the Government is more gender competent is a core ambition of the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls. The Government strongly supports that.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Our support for trans rights does not conflict with our continued strong commitment to uphold the rights and protections that women and girls have under the 2010 act.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
The Scottish Government is committed to increasing equality and improving the lives of trans people in Scotland.
What an embarrassment.
Trans and non-binary people are a small, marginalised group that represent 0.4 per cent of Scotland’s population. They are often misunderstood and misrepresented, and they receive disproportionate levels of attention. It is vital that we continue to work collaboratively to support one another.
Today’s debate is an important opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to the Equality Act 2010 and to welcome the role of the EHRC in enforcing the act and in providing codes of practice and guidance that support all public bodies to comply with the law in Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-16755.3, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“notes that the Scottish Government fully upholds the Equality Act 2010, and requires all public bodies to comply with the law, and welcomes the role of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in providing codes of practice and guidance.”
I have tolerated a degree of reaction, but I remind members that it is up to the member who is on their feet whether they take an intervention.
15:11
On one level, it is disappointing that we are having to have this debate. That is undoubtedly because the Scottish Government has failed to provide leadership. It has allowed the lack of clarity about the protection of single-sex spaces to continue. Although the Scottish Government’s amendment asserts that the Scottish Government follows the law, that contradicts people’s experience. There are examples in the public sector of where the SNP has allowed practice to get ahead of the law. Some people assert that that has been encouraged. So, let me be clear: single-sex spaces based on biological sex are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Women and girls have a right to feel safe in our public buildings, especially in schools and hospitals—places that they attend out of necessity and often at moments in their lives when they may feel vulnerable.
Schools should be warm and welcoming places where all young people can thrive, but they are also a microcosm of some of the behaviour that women experience more generally. A 2022 survey by the University of Glasgow found that almost two thirds of pupils at Scottish secondary schools have experienced sexual harassment at or on their way to school, with a third describing invasive behaviour such as sexual touching. For all young people, the high school years are a time of physical transformation that often comes hand in hand with a desire for privacy. Schools have a duty to protect their students and create a welcoming environment for all. That includes providing accessible and single-sex toilets so that girls of all ages feel that they have the privacy that they need.
In public workplaces such as hospitals, female staff should have the right to access single-sex changing rooms.
I am most grateful to Jackie Baillie for taking my intervention. Separate spaces are protected not only under the Equalities Act 2010 but specifically under regulation 24 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which says that changing facilities
“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”.
What greater example could there be of where propriety is required than where women have to take off their clothes—to disrobe—to put on hospital scrubs?
I ask that question of Jackie Baillie because the cabinet secretary, for whatever reason, chose not to take an intervention from me.
That was a long intervention, but Fergus Ewing is right, and I am surprised that the cabinet secretary did not reference those regulations.
If the SNP Government had kept to what it states in its amendment by respecting the Equality Act 2010 and those regulations, that would have been clear to public bodies and the recent dispute in NHS Fife would not have happened. How many other public bodies are not interpreting the law correctly? The SNP Government must undo the mess that it has created by swiftly giving clarity—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Sorry, but I have lost a lot of time already.
It must do that by swiftly giving clarity to public bodies about the need to ensure the availability of single-sex spaces for women and girls. We all know that NHS staff already go above and beyond the line of duty, so our hospitals should be places where staff do not have to worry about the facilities—their sole focus should be on the job.
The reality is that, even when the SNP now commits to a clear principle, it simply fails to deliver in practice. For 20 years now, first Scottish Labour and then SNP Administrations have required health boards to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation in hospitals. Yet in 2024, only two health boards, NHS Dumfries and Galloway and NHS Orkney, confirmed that they offered single-sex accommodation across all of their wards. The remaining 12 health boards offered mixed-sex accommodation in at least some of their wards—a far cry from the pledge that was made. The reality is that, too often, women are stuck not even in mixed-sex wards but in corridors.
Most members are aware of the recent harrowing report by the Royal College of Nursing, which described corridor care. One Scottish nurse described having to use privacy screens around patients so that they could use the bedpan. As the director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland said,
“This is completely unacceptable for patient safety and staff wellbeing.”
Will the member give way?
I do not have time. Sorry.
The chaos in hospitals is not just humiliating for individual patients; it provides a backdrop for an even darker turn of events. There were 276 recorded sexual assaults and 12 recorded rapes in Scottish hospitals in the past five years alone, according to freedom of information requests submitted by the Women’s Rights Network. Of the 288 sexual assaults and rapes that were recorded, more than half occurred on a hospital ward.
Were any of them by trans people?
I ask the member please not to interject from a sedentary position. I do not have time to take interventions.
The surroundings where those assaults took place included a children’s hospital, two maternity hospitals and a palliative care hospital. Shockingly, Police Scotland could give details for only 29 per cent of the cases, meaning that the real number of sexual assaults must be far higher.
Let me make a direct plea to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice. Will she commit to urgently working with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, NHS Scotland and Police Scotland to ensure that there is more accurate recording and reporting of sexual crimes in the NHS? Can she ensure that the SNP lives up to its long-standing pledge to end not only corridor care but mixed-sex wards? Finally, will the cabinet secretary bring clarity in the Government’s actions by ensuring that single-sex spaces based on biological sex are protected for women and girls, as is set out in the Equality Act 2010?
I move amendment S6M-16755.1, to leave out from “, such as toilets” to end and insert:
“; acknowledges concerns about dignity and privacy; notes recent research on safety in hospitals relating to rape and sexual assault; calls for more accurate recording and reporting in the NHS, including to the police, leading to better protections; further calls for an end to mixed sex wards; supports ensuring that schools are designed as accessible and welcoming environments for all, including accessible and single-sex toilets, and calls for the Scottish Government to outline how single-sex provision will be delivered in public buildings, such as schools and hospitals, and in line with legal obligations.”
15:18
It is with immense sadness and not just a little anger that I rise to speak this afternoon on behalf of the Scottish Greens. The tone and content of the motion are deeply damaging, intentionally or otherwise. They threaten the rights and wellbeing of all women, cis as well as trans; they obscure an accurate understanding of law and policy; they present a deterministic view that belies the lived reality of many; and they jeopardise serious and co-operative work to progress equality in Scotland. We have the opportunity this afternoon to minimise that damage.
There are, I believe, Conservative MSPs who must be secretly mortified at the motion that their leadership has chosen for debate. They know that its language, beneath the thin veneer of legal concern, is neither legal nor scientific but is associated with deliberate experiments in scapegoating and moral panic. They know that, unchallenged, it will endanger the health, the wellbeing, the rights and the very lives of our transgender neighbours, some of whom, in kinder times, might themselves have been Conservative voters. I remember Jamie Greene’s speech at stage 3 of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, not so very long ago. There were tears of respect and admiration at his courage, his compassion and his integrity. I wonder if we will hear something similar this afternoon.
Nothing has changed about our transgender friends, relatives, comrades, colleagues and neighbours. They are living as they always have: some campaigning, some writing or speaking of their experiences, most just getting on with their lives, working, studying, eating, sleeping, cooking, dancing, reading—and, yes, going to the toilet and getting changed. It is what human beings do.
Everything, it seems, has changed about the world we live in, though. The cruelty of Donald Trump, with his crude violence and naked power, has somehow excited and emboldened the transmisogynists elsewhere. Because he has forced his own fellow citizens out of their jobs, their sports and their social lives, his followers think that they can do the same. Do they think that humanity, human rights, simple decency and respect do not count any more?
They do still count, and we stand up to be counted. Whatever our differences in policies and priorities, the Scottish Parliament and all its members have been united before in recognising, protecting and advancing human rights. This afternoon should be no different.
The Tories are wrong. They are deeply, tragically and bitterly wrong, and the motion is wrong—morally, legally and practically. Do not take my word for it. Scottish Trans, part of the Equality Network, explains on its website—[Interruption.]
Members, please! We will hear with courtesy and respect the member who has the floor. That is Maggie Chapman. Please continue, Ms Chapman.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Scottish Trans explains:
“it is not a new idea to insist that trans people should be treated in line with our biological sex at birth by services, public bodies, and when we participate in public life. Historically, this is exactly how trans people were treated, and it meant that we could not go to work safely, use services that met our needs, or use public spaces freely. It meant that we experienced even higher levels of discrimination, harassment and abuse. Our lives were worse, and smaller, and we were hidden away from wider society.
It didn’t work. Trans people knew it didn’t work. Our families and friends knew it didn’t work. Service providers knew it didn’t work—ultimately lots of them did and do want to know how they can help and support us. And courts knew it didn’t work—not only that it didn’t work, but that it breached our human rights or meant that we faced discrimination. So many of the legal rights we have today come directly from court judgements—that say we have a right to live our lives and be recognised in line with our gender identity. That it is not ok to treat us as our biological sex at birth all the time, as to do so greatly reduces our quality of life, our right to privacy, and our right to simply be recognised for who we are.”
This motion, disguised as policy, represents collective punishment of trans women, of trans men, of non-binary people, of intersex people and of women who are too tall or too broad, who have the wrong voices or the wrong clothes, or who have hair in the wrong places or not enough of it—in short, anyone who does not slot into neat little boxes. It is, of course, aimed at trans and non-binary people—and it is as an utterly unapologetic trans ally that I speak this afternoon—but the collateral damage goes much further.
We, in the Scottish Greens, have not changed, and there are others here this afternoon who have not changed either. I know that there are members across the chamber who will stand, as I do, in solidarity with care, love and respect for our trans and non-binary siblings, our hearts aching at the pain that, once again and with such injustice, they are called upon to bear. So far as we can, we share that pain. Everyone deserves safety. Everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves protection of their human rights—that is what universal means.
I will close with the words of a cis woman who wrote in advance of today’s debate:
“women’s rights are endangered far more by following the US into an anti-trans crusade led by the evangelical right than they ever could be by a trans woman using the bathroom cubicle beside mine.”
I am proud to stand here this afternoon in solidarity with our trans and non-binary siblings.
I move amendment S6M-16755.2, to leave out from first “the Scottish Government” to end and insert:
“all women deserve protection from misogyny, including transmisogyny; condemns the rise in transphobic rhetoric and policy; believes that transgender and nonbinary people contribute immensely to the wellbeing of Scotland’s communities; reiterates its commitment to human rights for all, including freedom from discrimination and upholding the Equality Act 2010; requires all public bodies to comply with the law, and welcomes the role of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in providing codes of practice and guidance.”
15:24
In the time that I have, I will lay out the position of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in respect of the Scottish Conservative Party motion that is before Parliament today.
Let me say at the outset that my party is wholly committed to the safety of women and girls, and to tackling the violence and abuse that they still face all too often. However, we are not persuaded that the Conservative motion would deliver progress towards that.
Will the member take an intervention?
I must make some progress, I fear.
The area of policy that we are debating this afternoon is one in which my party has long-held commitments. Those commitments are rooted in evidence and stem from the same understanding and principles that gave rise to the original gender recognition act—the Gender Recognition Act 2004—and the relevant aspects of the Equality Act 2010. That understanding stems from the reality that, for the vast majority of people, biological sex at birth matches their gender through life: a person is born a boy and they grow up to live as a man, or they are born a girl and they grow up to live as a woman.
However, for a tiny proportion of the population, that is simply not true—they come to understand that their gender and their biological sex at birth are not the same and they feel as though they have been born into the wrong body. In times past, that would have brought feelings of self-loathing and massive stigma in a society that feared them or refused to believe that they existed at all.
Our role as parliamentarians is to legislate and to govern for all our constituents, especially those who are in any kind of distress or who are likely to be marginalised in any way. That is not an obsession—it is our duty and our job. Across our family of nations, we have taken big strides to recognise and protect the rights of our trans constituents.
Because the issue has been mentioned, I want to touch briefly on gender recognition. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 finally allowed trans people to have their gender recognised and recorded by the state in the legal architecture that underpins their lives. I am talking about things such as birth certificates and death certificates. I am talking about the dignity of having who you are acknowledged by the state in the documents that you are legally required to hold.
However, after 10 years of operation, it became apparent that the gender recognition regime was flawed, as it was overly intrusive and traumatic for those who went through the process. There was a time when the Parliament was united in understanding the need for that regime to be reformed. For Liberal Democrats, the question of how we can take a humane approach to gender recognition remains unanswered, but the heat and the division that have engulfed the issue mean that to press on would serve only to harm the people whom we are trying to help.
So, we are not looking to relitigate the issue. Realistically, change will be brought about only by going back to first principles, fostering consensus and working across the four nations of these islands to make sure that there are no cross-border barriers to mutual acceptance.
I turn to the substance of the motion. The debate about single-sex spaces and who can use them is not a new one. For most of history, trans and non-binary people were viewed by the state through the lens of the biological sex that had been assigned to them at birth. That meant that they could not use public services or public spaces freely, which the courts rightly regarded as a fundamental breach of their human rights. Not unreasonably, they concluded that trans people need to recover from operations in hospital, try on new clothes or go to the toilet when shopping in town. Therefore, provision was made for them in the articles of the Equality Act 2010.
Crucially, as we have heard, that legislation also allowed organisations and public bodies to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces, when to do so represents
“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
That legal phrasing was deliberately left open to allow flexibility in the application of the law in places in our society where the complexities around the provision of single-sex spaces require such flexibility, and the courts have backed that up.
I know that many people—some of whom will be watching today’s debate—have questions and even some concerns, but agreeing to the motion is not how we should go about giving them comfort. Indeed, the Conservative motion seeks to reverse the progress that we have made for our trans constituents in this area, and to take us back to a time when they were stigmatised and ostracised in our society. If we followed it through to its natural conclusion—that toilets and changing rooms should always be biological single-sex-only spaces—who would police that? How would someone ascertain the biological sex at birth of a trans person who was seeking to use a changing room in John Lewis or a toilet in a garden centre or a high school? There is no policy that the Parliament could enact that would satisfy the movers of the motion and would not, ultimately, be confusing or cause far greater upset.
I will conclude by challenging the suggestion that is falsely implied in the motion—that trans people want to use spaces such as toilets or changing rooms to abuse or harass women and girls. We know, and empirical evidence tells us, that, by any metric, by far the biggest threat to the safety of women and girls comes not from the trans community, but from predatory men.
I think that our parliamentary time this afternoon would have been far better spent addressing that urgent reality.
We move to the open debate and back-bench speeches of up to six minutes.
I call Pam Gosal, who will, in fact, have five minutes, as has been agreed with the party business manager.
15:30
I thought you were going to give me a minute more, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was really excited there.
As we just marked international women’s day on Saturday, this debate, which has been brought by the Scottish Conservatives, could not be more timely.
Since being elected to Parliament in 2021, I have made the protection of women and girls my number 1 priority. Shortly before Christmas, I hosted my own round table on the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. One of the speakers was a teacher who spoke about how boys had taken advantage of unisex toilets to slip their cameras under the stalls to film girls using them. Shortly after that, it emerged that a hidden camera, which contained hundreds of images of naked girls, had also been found in a unisex toilet in a Dundee high school. Some of those girls were so scared that they refused to go back to school. Imagine if that had happened to your daughter.
Unisex toilets pose a threat to female pupils and school staff alike, yet one in 20 schools in Scotland currently offers only unisex facilities, and no single-sex toilets at all. Many times, opponents of unisex toilets are branded as transphobic. However, as I have previously said in the chamber, raising concerns over unisex toilets is not transphobic—it is common sense. How much clearer does the evidence need to be? We need single-sex spaces in order to protect our women and girls. In other parties, those concerns fall on deaf ears. However, I will continue to fight for the rights of women and girls, with all my heart.
How did we get here? When Nicola Sturgeon became the first female First Minister in 2014, she was seen as a trailblazer for women. Unfortunately, under her Administration, women were thrown under the bus through the introduction of the terrible Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Now she has decided to stand down. Normally, we would wish any departing MSP well. However, women and girls will never forget the deep divisions in our country that she created, fostered and encouraged.
I remember, two years ago, sitting through long committee meetings at which my colleague Rachael Hamilton and I were the only members who opposed the general principles of that bill. Standing right here in the chamber during the stage 3 debate on the bill is a memory that I will never forget. The SNP pushed through legislation without thinking of the consequences, and certainly without thinking about keeping women and girls safe.
If the SNP had its way, men could simply declare that they are women without going through any medical interventions or diagnoses. SNP members even voted down amendments to prevent dangerous criminals such as rapists from obtaining gender recognition certificates. They said that dangerous men would never pretend to be women in order to gain access to women’s spaces. How wrong they were. About a month after the bill was passed came the case of Isla Bryson, in which, shamefully, a double rapist was placed in a women’s prison.
Thankfully, the previous Conservative UK Government vetoed that dangerous legislation. Instead of learning its lesson, however, the SNP has continued only to undermine women. Not only did it launch a costly legal challenge against the UK Government to defend the doomed legislation, but it is now arguing in court that men can become pregnant.
Women are still being punished for their sex-based rights. We all know about the case of Sandie Peggie, who was suspended from NHS Fife simply for saying that she felt uncomfortable changing in front of a trans-identified male.
The Scottish Conservatives are the only party that is standing up for the rights of women and girls. As our motion states, the Scottish Government must
“urgently issue a directive to all public sector organisations requiring that adequate single-sex spaces for biological women and girls are provided on their premises in line with legal obligations.”
As we have just celebrated international women’s day this past weekend, I hope that the Parliament will unite and back the Scottish Conservative motion in the name of my colleague Russell Findlay, to support single-sex spaces and services.
15:36
Before I get into the substance of my contribution, I commend everyone who works hard to improve the rights and freedoms of women and girls in Scotland. Later this afternoon, I will lead a members’ business debate to mark international women’s day. I look forward to celebrating the progress and advances that have been made to promote and create a truly gender-equal world. I was disappointed not to be able to attend the international women’s day event in the Scottish Parliament last weekend but, from previous years, I know the breadth and depth of the conversations, the topics discussed and the many challenges that have been identified. There is much to celebrate but much to do.
I have spent my entire working life in the public sector, striving to improve the lives of women, girls and those who are most vulnerable in society, many of whom have protected characteristics. In my policing career, that was uppermost in my work across operational and specialist policing, as it was in higher education teaching in the interprofessional learning space and supporting embedding the equally safe strategy across the university—and, now, in my work as a parliamentarian.
Further on in my contribution, I will touch on my involvement, during my policing career, in embedding the public sector equality duty, which exists to protect people from discrimination and is based on the nine protected characteristics.
I am particularly proud of my track record in leading the Criminal Justice Committee, to which Russell Findlay made a significant contribution, through a range of work that has had at its heart the safety, dignity and wellbeing of women and girls. I fully intend to continue that work for the rest of the parliamentary session.
At the heart of the debate sits a much wider issue of ensuring and supporting public sector compliance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, as set out in the public sector equality duty. While I am in a reminiscing mood, I will reflect on my experience of embedding the PSED in policing. However, I acknowledge that that was a number of years ago, and things have moved on considerably since then. I was grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice for updating the Parliament on the breadth of work that is being undertaken by Police Scotland in that space.
It is no secret that, historically, the attitudes, values and behaviour of police officers—most of whom were men—fell well short by today’s standards, courtesy of deeply entrenched cultural attitudes, misogyny and sexism. Embedding the new duty was therefore a significant and costly piece of work to shift the dial on organisational practice and procedures, make significant infrastructure changes, roll out a comprehensive programme of training and shift deeply entrenched attitudes and behaviours. In any organisation in which staff have power and control over the wellbeing of the public, both in the service that they deliver and the environment in which they work, compliance with any duty is absolutely crucial in securing the trust and confidence of the workforce and service users.
I commend the many public sector organisations that work hard to embed good equality duty compliance. As we have seen of late, there is no point in requiring compliance with any duty unless we can assess that compliance. In the case of the tenets of the equality duty, that means eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations across everything that an organisation does.
I have been following the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the PSED in Scotland, and I have noted the evidence of stakeholders on a wide range of issues, such as the need for clearer understanding of the tenets of the duty and the importance of data that informs compliance.
I was interested to hear about the collaborative approach in Aberdeenshire, which involves members and officers working together to consider the challenges that have arisen from a mixed school estate in which facilities in the older part of the estate are less able to comply with some aspects of the duty than facilities in other parts of the estate. That is a great example of the on-going need to assess and monitor compliance and of working together to find solutions. I welcome the scrutiny, and although I hope that it informs on-going work to address the inevitable gaps and shortcomings with regard to the operation of the Equality Act 2010, I believe that there must be an acknowledgement of the complexities of some aspects of embedding equalities in compliance, but those should not be insurmountable.
I commend the huge level of commitment that is already evident across public services. I acknowledge that this is a continuous and often complex process, and I will certainly do all that I can to support that work.
15:41
I am delighted to follow Audrey Nicoll, who has done a fantastic job as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I endorse all that she said about our joint work on violence against women and girls.
“Scottish public authorities are at risk of costly court battles because of the ‘unregulated introduction of gender self-identification as a basis for policy’”.
That is from The Herald last week.
To be fair, some of those policies have existed in public life for a while—in fact, probably since about 2014—but, for long enough, they went unnoticed and were not publicly discussed.
Jackie Baillie was right to say, as it says in the Labour amendment, that the Government has failed to produce any serious guidance on how public bodies should manage policies to protect women’s rights to single-sex spaces but also to protect trans people.
The UK Supreme Court is considering whether having a gender recognition certificate changes a person’s sex for all purposes under the Equality Act 2010, so we will need to wait and hear that decision. However, it is at least clear that it is not a requirement for public bodies to base their policies on self-identification. Public bodies are required to base their policies on the provision of single-sex private spaces.
Public Health Scotland, the Scottish Prison Service, the NHS and universities have all gone beyond the law on the provision of single-sex facilities. They have failed to meet their legal obligations in relation to women and girls.
In the case of Fife health board, there was no impact assessment on allowing the medic to use a single-sex changing room. That is despite—and this is important—there being a legal duty to conduct such an assessment. You cannot cut corners, even if you agree with the policy.
It is relevant that the 1992 employment regulations are clear that communal sanitary washing or changing facilities will not be sufficient or suitable if they are not provided separately for men and women, as Fergus Ewing said. That was endorsed by Jackie Baillie.
Dr Michael Foran said that
“There is no plausible legal argument that the 1992 Regulations must permit access on a self-ID basis. Indeed, doing so would be a clear breach of the regulations, and guidance that suggests otherwise is incomplete, misleading or false.”
The central questions are, why do public bodies risk being on the wrong side of the law and where do those policies come from? The Government has to take responsibility in that regard. The Equality and Human Rights Commission pointed out that, in the case of Fife health board, no assessment was done.
Police Scotland’s guidance says that all members of staff are entitled to use toilet and changing facilities that are appropriate to their sex, but, again, the current policy ignores the 1992 regulations. I believe that that is under review, but I am unclear on what the current policy is.
We need leadership on the issue. Women’s spaces are about their right to dignity and privacy as much as they are about safety. Women should be central in the design of those policies, because levels of violence against women and girls have never been higher. None of those examples illustrates that women have been central to the design of those policies.
It was the case of Isla Bryson that probably altered the public understanding of the self-identification policy. It was while Isla Bryson was waiting to stand trial and was placed on remand in a women’s prison that the transition began. The Government seemed to realise that the policy was problematic only when it became public, and the Scottish Prison Service made the decision to divert Isla Bryson to Cornton Vale prison rather than Stirling prison or the planned destination at HMP Barlinnie. However, only after public outcry was there redirection of the destination of the prisoner. Having allowed that to happen was a prime example of where the Government’s policy is contradictory.
We agree with the Scottish Government that special policies should be applied to women offenders, because most women in prison are vulnerable. I do not need to tell the minister that 70 per cent of them have experienced domestic abuse and a third of them have had head injuries because of male violence. To force them to share a space in a female prison with someone who is charged with a sex offence is completely unacceptable to most people, and certainly to the people I represent. The judge found in that case that the offender had a high risk of reoffending, which only serves to highlight the risk that was posed to women.
We do not have clarity over whether female prison officers have to search a male-bodied trans woman. This is the point that I want to make—we cannot make unilateral changes to policy without involving those who are expected to enact that policy. I hope that the Government would at least agree with us on that point.
We have policy capture that is widespread in public bodies, and the Government’s smoke-and-mirrors amendment tells us nothing really about whether it takes any responsibility for that. We will work with the Government to protect women and girls and their right to single-sex spaces, and we will work with it to make that policy work for all people, but I say to it, please take some responsibility for the shambles that we have to endure right now.
15:47
I stand with Sandie Peggie, and so should every member in the chamber. Her case has shone a light on the issue of single-sex spaces across Scotland’s public sector, and we should be grateful to her for the stand that she has taken.
It would not be appropriate for me to go into all the details of that case in today’s debate. A very experienced judge is considering the tribunal evidence that has been heard so far, but we know that NHS Fife appears to have been operating a policy that is simply unlawful. In order to defend that policy, it has been spending what must now be hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal fees, literally defending the indefensible.
As an MSP representing Fife, I have had flood of concerns raised with me by constituents. They are infuriated that public funds are being spent in that way, when NHS Fife has a financial black hole in the tens of millions of pounds and constituents of mine are stuck on waiting lists for vital treatments that they are being told there are not the resources to provide. To make matters worse, NHS Fife will not even tell us how much the case is costing it. I pay tribute to The Courier newspaper for its campaigning efforts to try to get answers on what is clearly a legitimate matter of public interest, and I hope that the Scottish Information Commissioner will, in due course, obtain that information for us.
It is not just in NHS Fife where we have a problem. Right across the public sector—across NHS boards, in schools, in the police and in universities—a de facto policy of gender self-identification has been introduced when it comes to accessing washing, changing and toileting facilities.
Just this week, we learned that the University of Edinburgh has introduced a new policy that says that those who were born biologically male can use women’s toilets if it aligns with their gender identity. The decision has caused outrage among staff and students and is clearly contrary to the legal protections that exist. The legal position here is entirely clear: both the Equality Act 2010 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, to which Fergus Ewing referred earlier, provide for single-sex facilities for sanitation, washing and changing in all public buildings.
What that means, in simple terms, is that hospitals and schools, and all public sector workplaces, must have single-sex facilities where women and girls can wash and change without males present. To fail to provide that is unlawful. Better lawyers than me have made the case that the protection of the characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010 does not supersede the 1992 regulations, nor does the 2010 act provide a hierarchy of rights. The rights of an individual with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment do not, in law, outweigh the rights of another individual with the protected characteristic of sex.
Despite that—despite the clear statement of the law—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Not just now.
Despite that clear statement of the law, we continue to see the public sector producing guidance to the contrary. Last week, we learned that NHS Scotland is developing new guidance that mandates that transgender health staff must be allowed to use their preferred facilities unless there is a particular reason to the contrary, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
As we have already heard from Russell Findlay, schools are now providing gender-neutral toilets without specific single-sex spaces for girls, which is leading to reports of girls being harassed or even assaulted. Some are now saying that they are actually scared—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Not just now.
Some are now saying that they are actually scared to use school toilets, instead having to leave the premises to use facilities in nearby cafes or supermarkets.
There must be a real concern here that that use and promotion of unlawful policies lays those public bodies open to legal claims by women and girls who have been forced, against their will, to share facilities with men and boys or even trans women.
I can easily foresee civil claims firms or specialist litigation lawyers signing up clients in class actions to seek compensation. The financial consequences for the public sector could well be severe.
We should accept that there are trans individuals who have rights, too, and whose welfare must be considered. The answer would therefore seem to be obvious: the provision of single-sex spaces in all public buildings for both males and females, and the provision of a third category of toileting and changing facilities that would be open to all and non-gender specific, and would be available to trans men and trans women.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
The member is about to conclude.
Such a policy, introduced across the public sector, would both address the legal issues that have arisen and respect the dignity of all involved.
It is clear that we must have single-sex spaces for women, and it remains a mystery as to why SNP ministers have allowed the situation to develop under their watch. They seem to have been so in thrall to the trans activist lobby that they have not properly considered the consequences of allowing public agencies to go down that route. That is why they must now intervene and provide clear guidance on the issue in line with the Scottish Conservatives’ motion today.
15:53
I will speak to Shirley-Anne Somerville’s amendment, which makes it crystal clear that the Scottish Government takes seriously its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. It is absolutely a requirement that we meet those responsibilities, including the specific provisions on separate and single-sex exceptions. This Government, and, in fairness, the previous Labour-Lib Dem Executives, have been absolutely clear in their determination to make sure that women and girls of the future are born into a society that is fairer than the environment in which their mothers and grandmothers lived.
One of the strengths of this Parliament is that we have consistently heard more from the voices of women in this place—from the very top down, since the Parliament’s first days—than we expect to hear in Westminster.
Does that mean that we do not have a wheen of work to do? Of course not, but the commitment to equality and the mainstreaming of feminism in our nation’s work is at the core of the Scottish Government’s approach. I hope that, at decision time, the Parliament will support it, rather than the grandstanding party opposite.
Total spending on equality, inclusion and human rights has increased by 32 per cent over the past two years, including the £42 million that directly supports our equality and human rights infrastructure and the organisations that promote it. That is not enough if we, and society as a whole, treat the status that women continue to occupy in society as a women’s issue, rather than an issue for everyone. Women’s rights are human rights. That is why international standards such as the European Convention on Human Rights under the Council of Europe, which is a body that the Conservative Party seems to object to, are so important. They hold our and every other country to higher standards and, in turn, make progress in protecting and extending the rights of everyone in our society, not least women.
That is also why the Scottish Government is working hard to ensure that the incorporation of four separate international treaties into domestic law works the way that it is intended to. It is disappointing to everyone that the constraints of the Scotland Act 1998 mean that the introduction of the proposed human rights bill, as originally intended, has had to be paused. I know that the cabinet secretary and her colleagues continue to work to find a way forward that embeds the principles of those treaties in our public services and civil society.
Will the member take an intervention?
Give me a wee second.
I will say a word or two about those members who are standing behind the motion and what their policies when they occupied number 10 said about their attitude to, in their own words, the “safety, dignity, and privacy” of women.
Is Emma Harper content that Scotland’s public sector and public bodies are following the law on single-sex spaces correctly?
I am coming to that. I know that the legislation is clear that single-sex spaces need to be offered in a “legitimate” and “proportionate” manner, which I will come to in a wee bit more detail.
When those in number 10 were forcing women to declare that they had been victims of rape and sexual assault so that they could access social security benefits for their children, we did not hear much about dignity from members on the Conservative benches then. When they were driving mothers to food banks to feed their weans after slashing universal credit, we didnae hear much about dignity from the members on the Opposition benches then. When they imposed austerity on steroids over 14 miserable years, which had a greater impact on women than men, we did not hear much about dignity from the Conservative and Unionist Party then. The party’s current leader, a former Minister for Equalities, is cosying up to the US President, whose view of women starts and stops with how they can be controlled and how they can gratify him. Yet here we are: with their simple sword of truth and trusty shield of British fair play, they tell us that they are on the side of women in Scotland in order to try to distract people from their record on equality for women and girls in our country. Women who are watching the debate outside the chamber arenae daft: they have been at the sharp end of Tory policy for years and years, over and over, despite an unparalleled track record of electoral failure, failure in Scotland, and failure in the Parliament.
Where and when single-sex spaces are provided legally under the Equality Act 2010 is a complex area of law and precedent. As I said a minute ago, the language that is used is “legitimate” and “proportionate”. As with most public policy, there are no easy answers or actions that will fit into a soundbite, but that is exactly the approach that the Tories have taken with their motion, and it is to be deplored. I support the amendment in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice.
15:59
As I have done in previous debates on such topics, I will focus on what we know to be the case, the legal position, and the implications for the safety of women and girls. I will not deny that the debate is difficult. For those of us who recognise the rights of everyone to be accepted for who they are and recognise that everyone has the backing of the law to protect them from harassment and stigmatisation, there are sensitivities and tensions, and people’s rights have to be balanced. That is often the case with the application of rights, and the law is there to guide us.
I will start with what I think are the issues of broader agreement. We should have single-sex wards in hospitals and there should be access to single-sex toilets and changing rooms in public facilities, including schools. There is an impression that there has been a steady move away from that provision, and a figure of one in 20 schools providing only unisex toilets has been suggested. The intention behind introducing gender-neutral toilets might have been to reduce bullying and vandalism and increase equality and inclusion. However, there are isolated reports of voyeurism and sexist behaviour towards girls, and those are just the incidents that are reported.
Such incidents have been due to the poor behaviour of boys, not of trans women—is that not correct?
The next line in my speech is that evidence from the reports shows that the offensive behaviour is carried out by boys. That is why I am arguing that we need to have single-sex toilets and that girls should have a space where boys are not allowed. All young people should feel safe at school and be entitled to privacy and dignity. Single-sex toilets and changing rooms are part of achieving that, and the Government should provide clear direction to support that provision.
It is hard to see what progress has been made on the policy of single-sex wards in hospitals. When the SNP was in opposition, it criticised the Scottish Executive for a lack of progress on single-sex wards, yet it is now difficult to determine the extent of the use of mixed-sex wards. It appears that NHS Dumfries and Galloway is the only board to have solely single-sex wards.
Our amendment highlights research from the Women’s Rights Network about safety in hospitals. Through freedom of information requests, it identified the number of rapes and sexual assaults taking place in hospitals, and the figures are shocking. Around 250 sexual assaults and 15 rapes have taken place in Scottish hospitals over the past five years, and 163 of those rapes and sexual assaults happened on hospital wards, although we do not know whether those were single-sex or mixed-sex wards. However, the data, which comes from Police Scotland, covers only 57 of 198 hospitals in Scotland, and the period that is covered includes the pandemic years, when the hospital population was reduced and heavily restricted. Furthermore, the figures are likely to reflect underreporting, as we know that those offences are often underreported across society. The figures therefore highlight what we do not know as much as what we do, and they shine a light on those horrendous crimes.
A patient in a hospital is vulnerable, frail and dependent on others for meeting their needs. At times, they will be unconscious or disoriented. They are often in a state of undress. A recent report from the Royal College of Nursing describes a collapse in care standards across Scottish hospitals, with increasing reports of corridor care leaving people vulnerable and in undignified settings. All those conditions could lead to opportunistic assaults.
The limited nature of the information that is available means that we cannot identify whether assaults were carried out by other patients or staff or whether they were carried out on patients or staff, although the high number of incidents on hospital wards suggests that patients are often the victims.
The research also found that assaults were not routinely recorded or reported. It appears that they are sometimes underplayed or minimised, as if the setting excuses some behaviours. Offences are not recorded as taking place in a hospital setting. There is no recorded data for 133 hospitals. There is no interrogation of those figures. There is little understanding of why Stobhill hospital, the Edinburgh Royal infirmary and the Cygnet Wallace private hospital have the highest rates.
There is little evidence that the figures have been taken seriously as a collective issue by the NHS or the Government. There is little reflection on why this is happening in hospitals and what steps must be taken to prevent further rapes and assaults. That leads to an inadequacy in safeguarding policies and guidance for NHS boards. There is a clear responsibility to record all instances and for reports to be made to the police. The report from the Women’s Rights Network makes a number of recommendations, and I urge the Scottish Government to take them forward.
In the examples of single-sex wards, toilets and changing rooms, I argue that discrimination on the basis of sex applies and that, in most cases, the single-sex exemption in the Equality Act 2010 would apply. That states that, where there is
“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”,
exclusions would include not only members of the opposite sex but also people who hold a gender recognition certificate.
However, although the 2010 act underpins the guidance from the EHRC, there can be reluctance to apply it. That may be a result of the debate that preceded the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill or the debate that raged alongside it, which led to policy decisions preceding the legislation and the mainstreaming of gender self-ID policies, which are at times counter to the 2010 act. Alternatively, it might be because public authorities are not confident that an exclusion meets the threshold of the 2010 act or they do not believe that something merits exclusion and they have assessed any risk to be low—
Will the member take an intervention?
The member will be concluding.
I am sorry—I think that I am short of time.
It could be that the exemption has not been applied because the authority does not believe that exclusion is merited and they have assessed any risk to be low, or they believe that it promotes inclusion. It is important that guidance exists and is clear, that public authorities know that they will be supported when they make decisions, that they are able to explain and justify the decisions that they make, and that everyone in society is treated with respect, has their rights protected and has safe and dignified spaces across public services.
16:05
The Scottish Conservative motion is about protecting single-sex spaces in the public sector. That should not be a contentious issue. There is legislation that protects that in Scottish law, including the 2010 act, workplace regulations and school premises regulations. It should be a very simple topic, with clear and explicit guidance from the Scottish Government to the public sector on how to ensure that all the current legal regulations are accommodated, met and even enforced. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Although the motion highlights that there is an issue with the reduction, if not removal, of single-sex facilities across the public sector, I will limit my remarks to the concerns around school provision. We are looking at schools all over Scotland having removed access to single-sex facilities based on Scottish Government guidance, which could have local authorities inadvertently breaking the law.
SNP guidance to schools does not protect single-sex toilets. The guidance says:
“There is no law in Scotland which states that only people assigned male at birth can use men’s toilets and changing rooms, or that only people assigned female can use women’s toilets and changing rooms. This is instead done by social convention.”
I question that. Are we saying that, if a biological man enters a ladies’ changing facility, undresses and exposes himself, he would be arrested for indecent exposure because it is against a societal norm? No—it is against the law. However, we now have a situation in which, if a biological man who says that he is a woman enters a changing facility and exposes himself, it is the women who could be arrested. The debate is not about social convention or how progressive Scotland is; it is about protection for women and girls and providing single-sex spaces for them in schools, as that is the law.
The EHRC’s guidance for schools highlights that the law in Scotland
“requires schools to provide toilet facilities for boys and for girls.”
In 2024, only 13 of 243 secondary schools in Scotland provided single-sex toilets. That is a shocking statistic, considering that schools premises regulations from 1967 state that there must be provision for single-sex spaces, and those regulations still stand. It was also found that one in 20 schools offered exclusively gender-neutral facilities, as we have heard, so there was no single-sex provision at all.
Trina Budge, the director of For Women Scotland, said:
“Rather than take steps to fix this mess and require schools to comply with the current law, it seems that the Scottish government may be looking to change the law to permit mixed-sex toilets and thus retrospectively justify the breaches they have allowed to happen.”
I can only agree with that, because that is how it seems.
The Scottish Government is planning to amend the regulations, it states, to ensure that they meet the needs of pupils in schools in Scotland today, yet those self-same changes have come about only because of the actions of the Scottish Government in the first place.
There is a lot in this debate and we have listened closely to what people are saying, but I have one final point to make. I have heard that it is important that people feel comfortable in the facilities that are provided for them. Personally, I have—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am coming to the end of my speech, but I will give way.
I hear the concern that the member puts across about men accessing women’s spaces and causing harm, but I seek some clarity from members on the Conservative benches. We heard from Murdo Fraser the idea that trans people should have a third, separate space rather than using the single-sex space that aligns with their gender. He seems to be suggesting that that should apply even if the person has a gender recognition certificate. Can I get some clarity from Roz McCall on whether she supports trans people accessing single-sex spaces?
As I was going on to say, I want to make sure that everybody feels comfortable. If women are uncomfortable in a situation, their rights should not be reduced just because there is a gender recognition certificate for a man who is coming into that space. I want to ensure that people feel comfortable in the facilities that are provided. I do not have a problem with that, but all rights need to be protected. It is not transphobic to stand up for women. It is not pitting one group against another.
I am constantly disappointed by the childish argument that, if someone disagrees with a single point, they are not only wrong—as has been said—but also afraid and evil. It is akin to kids saying, “If you don’t play my game, you’re wrong and I hate you.” Most people stopped saying that in primary school. That argument is not only infantile; it also shows a distinct lack of rationale and nuance and it should be condemned.
It is not beyond the powers of the Government to ensure that we have the right facilities in our schools so that everyone feels comfortable, and that includes single-sex spaces.
16:10
I speak in this debate as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.
The Scottish Government is enhancing the equality of outcomes for people and communities across Scotland. Only days ago, we marked international women’s day, and I was pleased to hear directly from the First Minister that the Scottish Government is working to ensure that women and girls have equal rights and opportunities, and equitable access to resources. That work includes delivering the women’s health plan; investing to tackle domestic violence against women, girls and survivors of abuse; supporting women to access fair work; and helping to reduce the gender pay gap.
Violence against women and girls in any form has no place in our country. I have long campaigned on that, going back to my days as a councillor in West Dunbartonshire, when I chaired the West Dunbartonshire violence against women partnership. I direct members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I support the commitment of all who are involved in the area, including the fantastic Clydebank Women’s Aid, which provides support, information and refuge for women in their time of need.
I support policies such as the equally safe strategy, which sets out a vision of
“a strong and flourishing Scotland where all individuals are equally safe and protected”.
The equally safe strategy prioritises taking a public health approach to ending violence against women and girls, and challenges the notion that violence against women and girls is acceptable. It also takes account of the specific needs of minority ethnic women, and takes an intersectional approach to preventing and responding to the inequalities that some women or young people might experience as a result of their ethnicity, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity and/or immigration status.
The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination that happens because of their protected characteristics, including age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation. It allows for provision of single-sex spaces and separate-sex services. It is the Scottish Government’s duty to uphold the Equality Act 2010 at all times, and the Government stands firmly behind the exemptions that were provided in that act. It is expected that public bodies will conduct their policies and procedures in line with the legislation that is in place.
Further, the Equality Act 2010 includes the public sector equality duty, and there are specific regulations that apply in Scotland to help listed public authorities to meet the public sector equality duty. Its purpose is to make sure that public authorities and organisations that carry out public functions think about how they can improve society and promote equality in every aspect of their day-to-day business. It is unlawful for service providers—public or private—to discriminate against someone based on their protected characteristics. The Scottish Government is also committed to working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The 2025-26 Scottish budget will protect and support on-going efforts to tackle inequality, fulfil human rights and allow everyone in Scotland to live free from discrimination. To achieve that, equality, inclusion and human rights spending is set to increase by £6 million to £58.9 million in 2025-26. That includes more than £42 million to support Scotland’s equality and human rights infrastructure and it will fund organisations.
The Scottish Government has also launched a new fairer funding pilot to provide additional multiyear funding to organisations across Scotland, which will be worth £61.7 million in 2025-26 and £63.2 million in 2026-27. The 2025-26 spending plans are set to enhance the quality of outcomes for people and communities across Scotland.
It is vital that we protect women’s rights. The Scottish Government understands that and is taking action on that. Equality should not be a culture war battleground, but a shared goal for us all. The horrible irony of Opposition members trying to shout down women in this debate is clearly lost on them.
My colleagues and I in the SNP will always stand up for fairness and dignity, and for a Scotland where everyone has the right to live peacefully and safely.
16:15
My first observation is that the Scottish Government should have brought this debate in Government time. The lack of time that the Parliament has had to ask questions and to debate the issues is beginning to make the Parliament look less relevant to the public. We really should be striving to avoid that.
This is an important debate, and there have been some very thoughtful speeches from across the chamber—in particular, those from Murdo Fraser, Claire Baker and Pauline McNeill.
Last week, I asked the First Minister a question about the state-sanctioned human rights abuses that women are facing across Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will come back to the member in a moment.
Some people thought that that was hyperbole, and the First Minister said that he did not accept the charge. Whether he does or does not accept it, that is the reality of what is happening across Scotland. Either he does not know what is happening, and my characterisation is correct and he is out of touch, or he does know and he is being disingenuous.
My question was based on a letter that had, the previous day, been sent to the First Minister by Claire O’Brien, who is a member of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. It sets out clearly human rights breaches and the corresponding international obligations that apply in those cases.
Ash Regan referred to a number of today’s speeches that she said were good—one of which was Murdo Fraser’s. Murdo Fraser proposed that transgender people be asked to use a new alternative third space, rather than using the single-sex space that aligns to their gender. Does she support that proposal?
I do—I support the notion of third spaces. Some members do not understand that single-sex spaces are not single-sex spaces if anyone can self-identify into them.
Women’s human rights are protected under international law through, for example, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Istanbul convention. Dr O’Brien states in her letter that there is
“no legal basis for the view that CEDAW extends in the scope of its protection to biological males. If it did, CEDAW would be deprived of its central purpose”.
There are a number of areas across Scotland where women’s rights are not being upheld. I will go through a couple of them. Prisons are an obvious example. Prisoners must be held on a single-sex basis, which is primarily to prevent psychological harm—that is an important point—and physical harm to women. That is an international minimum standard. I had an exchange with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on that a few months ago.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, just now.
I really must state that the Government must reverse the policy that it has just announced of not providing the data on where trans prisoners are being held. Simply taking that approach because something is not politically easy is not a good enough reason to withhold that data from the Parliament and the public.
I will move on to the issue of toilets in schools. There is, of course, a law that requires school toilets to be single sex—for obvious reasons. However, the Scottish Government is consulting on removing the statutory requirement for equal provision of separate male and female toilets. I come back to the exchange that I had with the First Minister last week. The Government cannot get to its feet, as it has done again today, and say that it is committed to women’s human rights when it is pursuing such policies, which are a breach of women’s human rights.
Interestingly, a school in the Highlands that I visited the other day does not have toilets for both sexes. There is a single set of toilets, and it is up to the children to police the toilets to keep the sexes separate, which they were doing quite effectively. The female pupils do not want males in their part and the males do not want females in their part, so they have divided the toilets up among themselves and police them themselves. Do you think that that is the right way forward?
I admire their spirit in trying to come up with a compromise that works for everyone, but they should not have to do that themselves. Leadership should be exercised in those areas.
On single-sex changing spaces, women have an internationally protected right to privacy, bodily integrity and protection against sexual violence. The position that has been taken by the Scottish Government and local authorities in relation to single-sex changing spaces runs counter to the protections that are outlined under international law.
The Scottish Government is responsible for human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, even though it likes to pretend that it is not. The Scottish Parliament retains competence with regard to observing and implementing international human rights obligations. Again, I do not think that the Parliament is taking that up in the way that it should. In my opinion, both the Government and the Parliament are failing to uphold women’s human rights in Scotland.
That brings me neatly on to the Scottish Human Rights Commission. When I questioned the chair of the commission two weeks ago, she was unable to answer any of my simple questions to my satisfaction or—I think—to the public’s satisfaction. So, the commission is also failing: it is failing to adhere to the remit that is set out in its enabling legislation. It did not provide a comprehensive analysis of women and girls as vulnerable rights holders during the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is a serious failure. It continues to fail to make interventions on upholding women’s human rights. The Parliament must now act, either to remove the commissioner, to censure the commission or to end its funding. I look forward to speaking to other members about what they think of that suggestion.
Ms Regan, you need to bring your remarks to a close.
Single-sex spaces are not a “nice to have”. A person cannot self-identify their sex. The Government should not be removing safeguarding—it should be enforcing it. The women and girls of Scotland, quite frankly, deserve nothing less.
16:22
Inequality harms us all. It curtails the ambition and potential of those on its receiving end and it also harms society more widely. The Scottish Government recognises the nature of inequalities and strives to address their symptoms as well as their root causes. In this speech, I will focus on gender-based violence, which is both a symptom and a cause of gender inequality.
We have so many amazing organisations working across Scotland that bring passion, dedication, care and expertise to their work in helping their service users. I applaud the work of those in my constituency, such as the Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre, Stirling and District Women’s Aid and HSTAR Scotland, the latter of which specialises in helping women whose first language is not English. In this year’s budget, more than 100 organisations across Scotland that work to tackle violence against women and girls will share in a funding uplift of £2.4 million. That will bring the annual total of funding provided to them to £21.6 million. The delivering equally safe fund, which funds such front-line projects, has supported nearly 60,000 adults, children and young people since 2021.
It is key that survivors feel supported and are able to understand their options, and Government measures such as the victim-centred approach fund play a key role in supporting that work. The fund provided £18.5 million for advocacy support for survivors of gender-based violence. Changes to legislation such as the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Act 2021 also give some agency to survivors of gender-based violence. The act places a statutory duty on health boards to provide forensic medical services for survivors of sexual offences. It sets out the legal framework for consistent access to self-referral, which allows a person to request a forensic medical examination without first having to report the incident to the police. Survivors are able to take the process of reporting at their own pace without missing out on essential medical care.
No one is immune from the risk of gender-based violence, but we do not all share the same level of risk. Factors can increase risk and can also be a barrier to seeking help. Women of colour and disabled people face a heightened risk, as do lesbian and bisexual women. Nearly half of transgender and non-binary people will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. Worryingly, hate crime is at its highest level since 2011.
Will Evelyn Tweed take an intervention?
No, I will not at this point.
In 2022, only 22 per cent of survivors of rape reported it to the police. Some communities face greater barriers to reporting. Gender-based violence in black and ethnic minority communities, as well as in LGBTQ+ communities, is likely to be hugely underreported. Unlike for other crimes, victims are often—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, I will.
On that important point about tackling violence against women, does the member agree that, although it is vital that we take action to tackle gender-based violence, scapegoating the trans community, as the Tories are seeking to do in their motion, does nothing to achieve that?
Yes, I agree with that point. I will come on to that shortly.
Unlike for other crimes, victims are often held responsible for sexual violence. Successive Scottish social attitudes surveys have found evidence that many people in Scotland still believe in rape myths. Those are false beliefs about the behaviour of a victim—whether they have been drinking, how they dressed or how they acted afterwards—that attribute a level of blame. One of the most widely held beliefs is that attackers are strangers. However, the vast majority of survivors of rape and sexual assault know their attacker.
As I said, gender-based violence is both a symptom and a cause of gender inequality. It will not be eradicated without tackling underlying attitudes, so the Scottish Government funds the mentors in violence prevention programme in secondary schools, which encourages the development of healthy relationships. It gives young people a chance to understand how they can safely support each other and challenge attitudes that underpin gender-based violence.
There are no quick fixes here. The work being done by the Scottish Government is taking us in the right direction. Narrow conceptions of what gender-based violence looks like, and thus what measures are needed to prevent it, harm us all. There is no room for scapegoating or for laying the blame at the door of already marginalised communities. We must stay focused on the root cause and remember that none of us is equal until we are all equal. For that reason, I will support the Scottish Government’s amendment.
16:28
In 2021, in response to a question on gender reform, Nicola Sturgeon shocked those watching by saying that women’s concerns were “not valid”. Those irresponsible comments sparked fury, and here we are again, being questioned about protecting more than 50 per cent of the population and about the fundamental importance of the protection of single-sex spaces for women and girls in our public sector.
Under the SNP Government—
Will the member take an intervention?
I have not said anything yet, but yes.
You have, in fact, because you have asserted—
Always speak through the chair, please.
Sorry. The member has associated protecting single-sex spaces—as in excluding trans people from single-sex spaces—with reducing harm to women and girls. How does excluding trans women from women’s spaces keep women and girls safe?
Lorna Slater’s views on single-sex spaces and protecting women are as poorly thought-out as her deposit return scheme. They are confusing and aggressive.
Under the SNP Government, we have seen a reckless disregard for the safety, dignity and privacy of women in Scotland’s hospitals, schools and other public settings. Let us be clear: single-sex spaces are legal. The Equality Act 2010 explicitly allows for the provision of single-sex services where it is necessary and proportionate. John Swinney himself has admitted that and that the law is on the side of women. The problem is that the SNP Government refuses to enforce it.
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. 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.
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?
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. 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. 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.
Ms Hamilton, you need to bring your remarks to a close.
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
Women experience and navigate public space differently from men, and that has long been the case. Pre-existing gender inequalities have dictated women’s patterns of movement and participation outside the home for decades, if not centuries. There are the dynamics of paid and unpaid work and women’s participation in the public and domestic spheres, their use of or exclusion from different public buildings and services, and issues around safety and security.
Gender inequality is an enduring issue because structures have perpetuated it. The Scottish and UK Governments, the public and third sectors and businesses all have a role to play in restructuring our systems. All of us in Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that women and girls are supported to participate fully in decisions that affect their lives in relation to all personal, educational and professional opportunities.
Of course, there are some important areas of law that are relevant to today’s debate that are currently reserved, such as the Equality Act 2010. The law around single-sex spaces has been the same across Britain since that act was passed by the UK Parliament more than a decade ago.
The law functions in two ways. A policy that does not allow trans people to access single-sex spaces in line with their lived sex will be unlawful if it is not
“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
However, the legislation allows spaces to be operated on a separate-sex basis without that being unlawful sex discrimination.
To reiterate points that colleagues have already made, public bodies in Scotland are expected to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, and it is the responsibility of service providers to interpret and comply with that UK act. The legislation is clear that single-sex spaces to enable and enhance the protection of women and girls are permissible.
To establish a separate single-sex service, service providers must show that they meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions, and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is
“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
For example, according to guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the UK body that is responsible for enforcing the legislation, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy or decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. The service provider must be able to show that their action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
The Scottish Government has been crystal clear in its support of the 2010 act’s provision of separate and single-sex exemptions. As a modern progressive nation, it is incumbent on us to demonstrate our leadership on human rights. The Scottish Government is taking practical steps to secure the progressive implementation of all human rights by seeking to embed equality, dignity and respect in our services. At Government level, that involves building the public sector’s capacity and capability to embed a human rights-based approach in everything that it does.
I am aware of the comments that were made last week by Aberdeenshire Council’s principal solicitor in his evidence to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on reforms to the public sector equality duty. He acknowledged that, although there are pending judicial rulings and outcomes, Aberdeenshire Council’s focus as a public body is clear. It endeavours to ensure that equality duties are considered in everything that it does and that a consistent approach is applied to planning and resourcing the provision of safe spaces for everyone where services are delivered.
Just last week, I had the privilege of speaking to and answering questions from two sets of school pupils in my constituency. One topic of discussion was the incorporation into Scots law of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was a landmark moment in the Parliament’s history, and one of which we should be very proud. It is always with some amazement and a few open mouths that young people respond to hearing tales from my school days and how things have changed for the better.
The serious point is that the public sector has absolutely risen to the challenge of doing the right thing by our children and young people, and we are seeing much progress in that area. The Scottish Government is now in the process of developing robust proposals to incorporate into Scots law international treaties concerning women, disabled people and people who have experienced racism.
Our public services are just that—they are public and accessible to everyone, and they must balance the needs of all users. Sometimes that will not be an easy task, and decisions will require to be made on a case-by-case basis, using a commonsense, practical and empathetic approach that is cognisant of particular local circumstances. All of us in our leadership roles must reinforce the need to treat everyone with compassion, dignity and respect.
I think that we are all in agreement that women and girls in Scotland must be empowered to exercise equal rights and opportunities, have equitable access to economic resources and decision making, and live their lives free from all forms of violence, abuse and harassment. The Scottish Government is continually taking forward work to protect, promote and improve equality for women and girls in Scotland.
We move to the winding up speeches.
16:40
The Conservative motion for this debate deliberately blurs and distorts four different things, and I assert that it does so deliberately as part of the party’s campaign against the acceptance and safety of trans people. I will unpick them.
The first is the matter of women’s rights. The fight for women’s rights is a fight for equality—the right to fully participate in life, which is part of a larger struggle for every human to have their rights respected. There are no special rights associated with one sex.
Secondly, the Conservatives confuse a question of architecture with one of ideology. I am very confident that every Conservative member in the chamber has in their own home toilets that are used by both men and women. [Interruption.] There is no fundamental problem with that. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Ms Slater.
It is possible—[Interruption.]
Let us be courteous, members. Let us hear Ms Slater.
It is possible to design toilets that are functional and offer privacy, and which can be used by people of different sexes and genders. If a room is badly designed, the correct solution is to redesign the room, not ban people from it.
Thirdly, the Conservative motion specifically uses the words “biological woman”, which signposts us to the party’s real incentive here, which is its discomfort around the existence of trans people. Well, I have bad news for the Conservatives: trans people exist.
Just to assert my position, I think that rights are available to everybody, and we believe that everybody should be able to live their own lives. However, does Lorna Slater not accept that there are circumstances where biology matters, such as in healthcare and sport? For example, what does she think about the Olympics, where we saw biological males punching women in the face? Is that where we are?
Brian Whittle will, I am sure, have read very carefully the Equality Act 2010 before he made an intervention of that kind. Therefore, he will know that, under the act, there exist places where exemptions are allowed—for example, in sporting, medical care and prison environments. However, outwith the exceptions that exist, we do not allow discrimination against people where there is not a really good reason. I am sure that he has read the Equality Act 2010, and so he will know that those exemptions exist, and I support the provisions in the act.
Trans people using our facilities is not a new thing. Trans people have existed all along, and they have been using our toilets all along. The Equality Act 2010 does not allow us to discriminate against people just because we do not like them. A trans person correctly using public facilities is causing no one any harm.
Fourthly, and finally, the most pernicious words in the Conservative motion are those that refer to
“jeopardising”
the
“safety, dignity and privacy”
of women and girls and to
“horrific incidents of sexual abuse and harassment”.
The Tories, although they could not give a single example, want to get us all to associate in our minds the existence of trans people with dangerous crimes—crimes that have been committed by men, not by trans people.
I have been asked to give an example, so let me give one specific example from the area that I represent. Back in 2018, Katie Dolatowski, a trans woman, was caught and convicted of filming children in the Asda toilets in Kirkcaldy; she also assaulted a 10-year-old girl in the female toilets of the Morrisons in Kirkcaldy. That is just one example of many.
That is a horrendous example. Murdo Fraser was right to highlight it. I will highlight an example from my own life. My sister was assaulted in a women’s toilet by a man who had just walked right in. We do not stop people from going into toilets.
Jackie Baillie, for example, listed a lot of sexual and horrific crimes, but she did not even pretend to claim that those were committed by trans people; she just listed them, to make us worried.
Will Lorna Slater take an intervention?
I need to make progress.
Pam Gosal gave evidence of boys behaving badly as a reason to discriminate against trans people. We cannot discriminate against a whole class of people because boys behave badly in school.
Rachael Hamilton, too, listed a whole bunch of horrific crimes, none of which would have been prevented by stopping trans people using the toilet. It is hateful to associate crimes with a whole group of people who have not committed them.
Trans people are not associated anywhere or in any way with increased risks or dangers to women and girls. There is no evidence anywhere in the world, including in places where self-ID laws exist, that policies that allow trans people to access single-sex spaces and services in line with their lived sex increase harm to others. There is none at all—not a shred.
It is quite the opposite. There is evidence that not allowing trans people to access such spaces increases the harm that they face. I would not subject a young trans woman to having to change in a men’s locker room. That would simply not be safe for her. It is more likely that trans people would end up being unable to participate in normal activities—exercise, socialising and all the things that every human needs in order to thrive.
It is not okay to discriminate against people who have done no harm.
You must conclude, Ms Slater.
I am so sorry, not only that the Conservatives have been mansplaining women’s rights to us, but—[Interruption.]
Conclude, Ms Slater.
They want—
Thank you, Ms Slater. You must conclude.
Before I call Paul O’Kane, I remind all members that, if they have taken part in a debate, it is a matter of courtesy that they be in the chamber for the closing speeches.
16:47
On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I rise to sum up the debate. I will begin, as my colleague Claire Baker did, by stating that it has been important to focus on facts—on what we know to be the case—and the legal position. That has been outlined in many speeches this afternoon, including the opening speech by my colleague Jackie Baillie, which set in context the legal position that we recognise today.
We have also heard much, from across the chamber, about acknowledgement of the need to balance the rights and protections that exist in the Equality Act 2010.
We heard about the importance of acknowledging the validity of perspectives that have been raised by women and girls who are concerned about their safety, and the range of issues that sit within that, which have been covered in many speeches this afternoon.
We also heard about the importance of affording dignity and respect to trans people and to everyone who uses and relies on our public services in Scotland daily, for a variety of needs. I have always tried to say that we must have respect in our debates, and that applying general pejorative terms to whole groups of people is wrong and does a disservice to many of our debates—the one this afternoon and others over a longer period. This afternoon, important contributions were made recognising some of the polarising language that we often hear and the challenges therein. We heard about that from the cabinet secretary.
From contributions on this side of the chamber and elsewhere, we have heard about the importance of following the law that is currently in place and about practice perhaps moving ahead of the law. Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about trying to find four-nations consensus on gender recognition reform. That is important.
Audrey Nicoll, the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, spoke about broader work on violence against women and girls. That was supported by Pauline McNeill. There have been a number of important contributions this afternoon.
I will turn to the practical actions that our amendment seeks to develop. Mixed-sex wards were raised in Jackie Baillie’s contribution and in speeches from others on this side of the chamber. There are significant challenges with the policy. Scottish Labour’s 2021 manifesto committed to taking further action to end the common use of mixed-sex wards across the NHS. That is a long-held position. When the Scottish National Party was in Opposition, it made that case, and it has been raised on several occasions in the Parliament over the years. It is concerning that we are still relying on mixed-sex wards in some healthcare settings. It has been put on record that Dumfries and Galloway is now the only board to have only single-sex wards. There are issues about dignity and respect for everyone who uses the NHS and about ensuring the broader need for dignity, privacy and safety.
This afternoon’s debate has allowed us to examine some very serious issues and concerns that have been raised regarding hospitals and healthcare settings. The reason for making the point about the reports and FOI requests about serious sexual assault and rape in our hospitals is that we must ensure that we have a debate about how we get more data and information on the horrendous crimes that are being perpetrated in our hospitals. Everyone who has used a hospital would acknowledge that people are often at their most vulnerable there, and that they are in the care of others very directly. If anyone is being subjected to those horrendous crimes, we need to know exactly what is happening, who is perpetrating the crimes, how they are being perpetrated and what reporting to police has been carried out. That is all vital, as was highlighted in the speeches by Claire Baker and others. It should be of concern to us all that we do not know enough about what is happening in our hospitals. We need to build a picture and to understand what better protections might be required.
Our amendment also speaks about provision of toilets in schools and other public spaces. We have heard quite a lot about school settings this afternoon. I note the speeches that were made by Pam Gosal, Roz McCall and others about the challenges in schools. Pam Gosal described some examples of horrendous acts that have been carried out by boys and young men. I recognise the need for separate facilities alongside wider access to provision in our schools, on which our amendment reflects.
A lot of the concerns that we have heard this afternoon about girls, and which have been raised by staff and parents, mean that we need better provision and better guidance to tackle violence in schools, and we need far better education of boys and young men so that they recognise that it is often our behaviours and attitudes that are the problem. There is a range of issues of which the Government needs to take cognisance.
This afternoon, we have heard a call for better guidance from the Scottish Government on the public sector and single-sex provisions. We need guidance that is clear and which means that public authorities know that they can be supported in the decisions that they take, and are able to justify their decisions and ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect and that their rights are protected. The guidance and leadership are important.
That is what has come through in the debate this afternoon. We will continue to have such debates in a grown-up and measured way that ensures that we can balance the rights and protections of everyone who lives in Scotland.
16:53
In response to the debate this afternoon, I will take the opportunity to reiterate the facts once again. The Equality Act 2010 is largely on reserved matters, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the body that is responsible for enforcing that act. The Scottish Government strongly supports the separate-sex and single-sex exceptions in the 2010 act, and we expect all relevant organisations to comply with the requirements of the 2010 act and any other legislation in their role as employers.
The commission has produced specific guidance to support organisations in their compliance, including the statutory codes of practice and guides, including those for service providers that are looking to establish and operate a separate-sex or single-sex service. The Scottish Government requires all public bodies to comply with the law.
Will the minister give way?
We welcome the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in supporting public bodies with their legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
Will the minister give way on that point?
Much has been said in the debate about protection of women. I reiterate the actions that we are taking to support and empower women in Scotland. Gender equality is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s vision for a fairer Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
We want women and girls to be empowered to exercise equal rights and opportunities, to have equitable access to economic resources and decision making and to live their lives free from all forms of violence, abuse and harassment. We continue to take forward work to protect, promote and improve gender equality, while recognising intersectional inequality, in Scotland. To achieve that, we are working to deliver and implement the ambitious recommendations from the First Minister’s National Advisory Council on Women and Girls, alongside the women’s health plan and the equally safe strategy.
Will the minister give way?
Through collaborative work on the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021, access to free period products is enshrined in law for anyone who needs them, which has built on Scotland’s world-leading work in that area.
Violence against women is a fundamental violation of human rights, which is why we are implementing the equally safe strategy to prevent and eradicate all forms of violence against women and girls and to tackle the underlying attitudes that perpetuate it.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
Let us hear the minister.
I had the honour of visiting women who are demonstrating their excellent work with young women between 16 and 24 who are experiencing violence and are at risk of suicide.
We are taking forward activity to tackle the drivers of the gender pay gap, which are set out in our refreshed “Fair Work action plan: becoming a leading Fair Work nation by 2025”, which was published in 2022.
Diabolical!
We recognise that fair work is vital in tackling the cost of living crisis, in-work poverty and child poverty, all of which have a disproportionate effect and impact on women.
Will the minister take an intervention?
We have committed to further embedding equality and human rights in all stages of the budget process. The next steps are included in our response to the recommendations of the equality and human rights budget advisory group. [Interruption.]
Let us hear the minister.
A key part of our work is the “Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement 2025-26”, which was published alongside the Scottish budget. As the cabinet secretary highlighted in her opening remarks, we need to remain mindful of the negative impact that polarised and sometimes inaccurate public discussion can have on minority groups.
The Scottish Government is committed—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. Is it not customary and does it not reflect extremely good practice for the minister who is summing up to engage with the substance of the debate? [Applause.]
Thank you, Ms Regan. I will repeat what the Deputy Presiding Officer said earlier, which is that it is up to the member who is speaking whether to accept an intervention.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will continue. The Scottish Government is committed to increasing equality and improving the lives of trans people in Scotland. Trans people continue to suffer poorer outcomes relative to outcomes among the wider population—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise—you might have misunderstood my point. I was not referring to whether a member or minister takes an intervention. I was asking whether it is customary practice for the member who is summing up—whether for the Government or the Opposition—to answer the points that were raised in the debate and to reflect the debate that took place.
Thank you, Ms Regan. It is the case that members’ contributions are not a matter for the chair, but for the member who is speaking.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
As I was saying, trans people continue to suffer poorer outcomes relative to outcomes among the wider population, and that needs to change. Our “Evidence Review: Non-Binary People’s Experiences in Scotland” highlighted that existing research suggests that non-binary and trans people face discrimination in multiple sectors of society—
Will the minister take an intervention?
—such as education, health, communities, work, benefits and issues around homelessness.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Trans and non-binary people are a small marginalised group, at 0.44 per cent of Scotland’s population—
This is shameful.
That group is often misunderstood and misrepresented, and it receives disproportionate levels of attention.
We will continue to support LGBTQI+ stakeholders in Scotland and to advance equality for the community, as well as more widely for minority groups including older people, disability organisations—
Come on! Give way!
—and race equality organisations that we fund via the equality and human rights fund.
I conclude by restating our position—
Very briefly, minister.
The Scottish Government expects all organisations to comply with the law, including health and safety regulations that apply in workplaces. Furthermore—
You must conclude, minister.
—the Scottish Government also expects all organisations to comply with the full range of legislation—
Thank you, minister. You must conclude.
—regarding health and safety—
Thank you.
—and we will continue to—
Thank you, minister.
We have had enough!
Resign!
Thank you, minister.
Let us treat one another with courtesy.
I call Tess White to wind up the debate.
17:01
John Swinney thinks that the legal position on single-sex spaces is “crystal clear”, but the SNP’s position is as clear as mud. Week after week, the Scottish Conservatives have been trying to get answers out of the SNP on what on earth is happening with women-only spaces in Scotland’s public bodies. Our requests for ministerial statements were knocked back. Our questions were swerved—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will.
Does the member agree that for a minister to stand up and give a speech and not interact with 13 attempts at interventions is a disgraceful show of how irrelevant they are in this Parliament? I am truly shocked; I wonder whether the member agrees with me.
I completely agree—that is not engaging in the debate, and it just shows what has happened in the seat of so-called Scottish democracy, which is absolutely shameful.
Presiding Officer, our questions were swerved; sub judice was seized upon; and SNP scripts—as we have seen today—were woodenly read out. Twice now, the SNP Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee convener, Karen Adam, has shut me down when I have been asking questions on these issues.
The public—we see people in the public gallery today—is rightly wondering what the Scottish Parliament is for, if the most salient issues of the day are all but ignored by the party that is in power.
It has fallen to the Scottish Conservatives to bring the debate to the chamber today. We will not let the SNP get away with it. It is through our public services, our schools, the NHS and leisure centres that women and girls most frequently interact with the state. In those settings, they are often at their most vulnerable. They must always be kept safe, and their dignity and privacy must be respected.
However, as Roz McCall and Rachael Hamilton mentioned—
Will the member take an intervention?
If I have time, I will take an intervention at the end.
As Roz McCall and Rachael Hamilton mentioned, research from For Women Scotland shows that, in 2024, only 13 of the 243 secondary schools in Scotland provided single-sex toilets.
What have we seen today? It is absolutely no surprise that neither of the Government ministers took any interventions from either Labour or the Scottish Conservatives—or, in fact, from their own back benchers, which is telling. They refused. This is a Government that will not tolerate scrutiny unless it is on the Government’s own terms.
I say to Lorna Slater that there is no way that she can equate someone’s bathroom at home with a toilet facility in the NHS—that is absolutely absurd.
Lorna Slater was the only person to use the word “hate”. I am glad that Paul O’Kane brought the debate back. He talked about the need for facts, the balance of rights and the importance of dignity and respect in debate. Maggie Chapman was true to form, with emotion trumping logic and fact. Once again, she used the term “cis”, which so many women, including me, find offensive. Why does the word “woman” need to be qualified?
I also noticed that, until now, the Labour benches were almost empty. I know that members are looking at me and looking down, but it is unsurprising given Labour’s botched U-turn on women’s rights. Mercedes Villalba, you did a brilliant job for your colleagues who were absent by making all your interventions—
Speak through the chair, please.
I say to Audrey Nicoll and Evelyn Tweed that language matters. Gender is a construct; sex is down to biology.
It is no wonder that trust in the Scottish Government has been so badly corroded. The SNP has made an absolute mess of this. Its amendment to the motion says:
“the Scottish Government fully upholds the Equality Act 2010”.
Senior SNP politicians have made similar statements, but the sleekit SNP is at it again. John Swinney is trying and failing to ride two horses on sex and self-ID.
Is it not concerning that neither the minister nor the cabinet secretary has made any reference to the workforce regulations, which unambiguously confer the right to females to have separate changing rooms in hospitals? Ignoring the law does not mean that it will go away. It is profoundly disturbing that the minister and the cabinet secretary have not referred to the law, which they must surely obey and ensure is enforced.
If I had been allowed to intervene on the cabinet secretary or the minister, I would have asked them about the millions of pounds that the Scottish Government has given to activist groups that are providing guidance, which is being interpreted as law. That is extremely worrying. As we have heard in the debate, the minister can read out a speech, but she probably does not engage with the substance, as Mr Ewing has pointed out.
As Rachael Hamilton said, John Swinney recognises that the law is on the side of women, but the problem is that his SNP Government refuses to enforce it. Lest we forget it, the SNP Government has been arguing in the UK’s highest court that men can get pregnant and become lesbians; John Swinney confirmed at the end of February that he accepts that trans women are women; and he does not regret supporting the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was—thankfully—blocked by the previous Conservative UK Government.
We cannot have a women-only space and let biological men have access to that space. That is common sense. The SNP does not believe that women are adult human females, and it has taken a sledgehammer to the rights and spaces that are afforded to biological women and girls as a result.
In kowtowing to activist organisations such as Stonewall, the SNP Government has allowed self-ID to creep into Scotland’s public sector for years. As I mentioned, the law is being skewed by lobby groups that are being funded by the SNP Government. Faulty guidance is becoming policy, with disastrous consequences, as a result of Nicola Sturgeon’s self-ID obsession. She leaves a dangerous and divisive legacy when she stands down in 2026. As Russell Findlay said, women will not forget that she trashed their rights. The NHS, schools, councils, the Prison Service and the police all jumped on the so-called inclusion bandwagon at the behest of Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP Government. Labour did nothing.
Equality, diversity and inclusion policies in our public bodies have become exclusionary for women. That is why we need leadership and clarity from the SNP Government, and it is why the Scottish Conservatives are calling on John Swinney to issue a directive requiring public sector bodies to provide single-sex spaces for biological women and girls, in line with their legal obligations. It is high time that, after eroding our rights and relegating our needs for years, the SNP put women and girls first.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The SNP cabinet secretary who opened today’s debate on behalf of the Government and the SNP minister who closed the debate on behalf of the Government earn a combined salary of £232,637 of taxpayers’ money. With their positions in the Government come responsibility and accountability. However, throughout today’s debate, they did not take a single intervention.
By our calculations, there were 20 or more attempts to intervene on the cabinet secretary and the minister, all of which were refused. Given that we now have an electronic way to register an interest in making an intervention, if a request is made to Parliament for the accurate number of interventions that were sought from and refused by the SNP ministers in today’s debate, will that be made available?
The point that you have made is now on the record, Mr Ross. The question of information that has been collated is not a point of order for me to rule on from the chair. Perhaps we can discuss that outwith the chamber.
That concludes the debate on protecting single-sex spaces in the public sector.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Urgent Question