Scottish Parliament, 12 March 2025

336 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. I remind members who wish to ask supplementary questions to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions, so I will require brevity in both questions and responses.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to propose scheduling time for a parliamentary debate on the fishing industry. (S6O-04410)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government cares deeply about ensuring a prosperous future for fishing communities. It is important to take stock and reflect on our fishing industry, which is one of Scotland’s most important assets, as well as on the people and communities who make a living from it and their contribution to the Scottish economy. In the members’ business debate on 18 February, which was brought forward by Beatrice Wishart, I committed to scheduling Government time for a debate on fisheries. I am happy to reaffirm that commitment.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will appreciate that it has been two years since the Scottish Government brought forward such a debate. There are so many issues that need to be debated, including those around fishing deals, the end of the United Kingdom’s trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, inshore fisheries and the national maritime plan, and other views need to be heard. When will the Government schedule a debate? Will it be before the Easter recess or not?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I appreciate the points that Jeremy Balfour has raised. He has raised a number of important matters that we discussed during the members’ business debate to which I referred. That is why I committed to holding a debate.

That is not to say that there has been no discussion or engagement on those issues. We have been engaging closely with the sector on all those issues—that goes for both me, with the rural affairs portfolio, and for the cabinet secretary, with the climate change and net zero portfolio. As I have said, we are committed to holding that debate, and I look forward to discussing those matters with members from across the chamber.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The cabinet secretary might be aware that I have been concerned about the massive growth in the number of pots that are being used in the Forth and the impact that that is having on the stock of lobsters and crabs. Will the cabinet secretary update the chamber on when controls will be considered for introduction in order to make sure that that number does not grow any further?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am sure that Willie Rennie will be aware of some of the interim measures that we have in place in relation to important inshore stocks. It is important that we review the measures that are under way. We are also undertaking a programme of work to look at our inshore fisheries management more widely. I am more than happy to follow up with Willie Rennie on any specific issues that he has in relation to that. An awful lot of work is under way, and I am happy to contact him to update him on it.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What the cabinet secretary missed in her earlier answer was an actual date. That is what we need, because it matters.

There is so much to talk about. Last week, for example, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation rightly spoke of its fury at the revelation that John Swinney had been advised not to use the phrase “spatial squeeze” when on a trip to Shetland. That seems very disrespectful towards the views of the industry, which is very concerned about that issue. Therefore, I ask the Scottish Government to set out what its plans are to support and compensate fishing businesses that will suffer financial losses due to the construction and operation of offshore wind farms.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I have to be clear on one point. Tim Eagle will be aware of how the scheduling of parliamentary business works in this chamber. It is not for me to set a date as to when that debate is going to happen, but I have made that commitment and I have reiterated it today.

There are a number of pressures that we know are affecting the fishing industry in particular. They include pressures on our marine space, whether due to the environmental measures that are being proposed or to the expansion of offshore renewables. Some of those matters relate to my portfolio, as I outlined to Jeremy Balfour in my initial response to him, but they also involve the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gillian Martin. We are engaging with the industry more widely to look at those matters in the round. As I have committed to doing, we will bring forward a debate and I look forward to discussing those matters in more detail.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how the new deal for agriculture and its agricultural support schemes will aim to support the dairy sector. (S6O-04411)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government remains committed to maintaining direct payments, which provide vital stability to agriculture, and we will continue to co-develop new support to improve the sustainability of farming.

This year we have provided £135,000 to the dairy growth board and the Scottish dairy hub. Additionally, the recently announced flexible capital grants will provide at least £14 million in the first year to support the sector for investments in a range of areas. We are also allocating capital to food processing and marketing support to benefit the sector.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The recent announcement from Arla Foods about a potential £90 million investment for a centre of excellence at Lockerbie could be the beginning of an exciting new chapter for dairy farming in the south of Scotland. The dairy sector is providing produce of peerless quality and is synonymous with my South Scotland region. Can the minister outline how the Government intends to help ensure the future prosperity of this vital industry for years to come?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I absolutely share Emma Harper’s views, and I welcome the recent news of Arla’s investment in Lockerbie. It is a real vote of confidence in Scotland’s dairy sector. This is an exciting time for dairy in the region, with the Scottish Government also investing £4 million into the Borderlands inclusive growth deal dairy nexus project, which will drive transformational research and innovation to decarbonise the dairy sector. The rise to the top 2030 strategy outlines the ambitions for growth for dairy in Scotland to ensure future prosperity.

We continue to support the dairy growth board in seeking further opportunities for producers, including new routes for exports, product listings, domestic retail and investment in processing in Scotland. That work is producing results, including a 140 per cent increase in cheese exports since 2021.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The minister will agree that a fit-for-purpose information technology system is critical to the delivery of agricultural support schemes. Today at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, we heard concerns from a range of agricultural stakeholders that the current IT system puts future schemes at risk. Can the minister tell Parliament how much is spent annually on IT developers, programmers and maintenance for the rural sector?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The member will be well aware that we will deliver the schemes within the current capabilities. If he has specific questions, he can write to me, and we will give him specific numbers back.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether seagulls should continue to be protected in law. (S6O-04412)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Like all wild birds in Scotland, the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe, gulls are protected by law and should remain so. I appreciate that gulls can be a serious nuisance in urban areas. The answer is not to allow free rein to kill those birds, especially when the overall numbers of gulls, taking natural and urban populations together, are in decline.

To help tackle the problems, local authorities and property owners could do more to deter gulls from nesting on their properties. NatureScot can and does provide licences for lethal control where there are issues of public health and safety.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That response is completely tone deaf to the problems that we are seeing up and down the country. For example, Moray Council has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on the issue, to no effect. The Elgin common good fund has spent more than £50,000 in the past two years, yet the problem persists.

Elgin councillor Pete Bloomfield told me about a case of an elderly resident who left her bungalow, was attacked by a gull, fell over and broke her leg. Her carer then came outside and was also attacked by the gull. When the elderly resident returned home from hospital she was attacked again, and she was then fearful of leaving her home at all.

Does the minister accept that the problem is a growing one in communities such as Moray and across the country? What can be done about it? Will he meet concerned MSPs from across all the parties to discuss the issue in more detail?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As I said in my initial answer, I am well aware that urban gulls can cause problems, but there is absolutely no doubt that the number of gulls is dropping. Businesses and people can do more to protect their own properties by not leaving bags of rubbish and by not allowing feeding in towns and cities. To make sure that we preserve—[ Interruption .]

Douglas Ross is sitting shaking his head. I will give the member some numbers. The number of lesser black-backed gulls has fallen by 48 per cent in their natural environment, yet it has gone up in the urban environment. [ Interruption .] There is a responsibility on all of us. I am not dismissing the point that Douglas Ross makes. I absolutely get the fact that urban gulls are a problem, but killing them and giving out licences willy-nilly is not the answer. There has to be a way for us to cohabit with the gulls in one way or another, either by reducing their nesting or by creating difficulty for their nesting. Killing them, which is what I am being constantly asked to do, is not the answer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I would encourage members to ask their questions and then not seek to ask more or make comments from a sedentary position.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is clear that the Tories are now declaring a war on wildlife. It is seagulls this week; it will be white-tailed eagles next week and beavers the week after that.

I am pleased that the minister recognises that herring gulls in particular have declined in population by almost half in the past 40 years, and that a lot of issues that have been described are a result of poor waste management issues in many of our towns. Will he listen to science-based organisations, including RSPB Scotland, and support the wider recovery of sea birds and the habitats that they need to thrive?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I did not answer Douglas Ross’s question—I apologise. I am absolutely prepared to meet with anyone to try to find solutions to the problems that we have. I accept that there are problems. However, we cannot refuse the fact that gull numbers are decreasing in their natural habitats. We must do something to get them back to their natural habitats and to reduce the tension between the gulls and the people living in communities.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Douglas Ross is right. In Eyemouth, aggressive gulls have attacked young children and they are a blight on businesses that are trying to trade in difficult conditions.

The issue is that the licensing scheme is impractical. Can the minister look at the licensing scheme itself? How can he support communities that are looking for a strategic approach to controlling gulls through management plans, improved signage and gull-proof bins?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As I have already said in response to Douglas Ross and Mark Ruskell, I am more than happy to look at what we can do collectively in order to find a solution to the issue. However, directly issuing licences to kill gulls is not the only answer.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what assessment it has made of the potential impact on agriculture in Scotland, including in the West of Scotland region, of the United Kingdom Government decision to change the inheritance tax system for family farms. (S6O-04413)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As I have said previously, the issue has been raised with the UK Government on a number of occasions, most recently on 6 February with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We will continue to engage with the UK Government on the issue.

The changes to the agricultural property relief will hit farming families across Scotland, so it is disappointing that there was no prior indication of the change or engagement with the Scottish Government on it. Scottish Government officials are working alongside their counterparts in His Majesty’s Treasury and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that Scotland’s tenant farmers are protected from the UK Government’s poorly designed changes and do not become liable for inheritance tax.

Our position remains unchanged: the changes to inheritance tax should be paused and an immediate review carried out. The UK Government must also urgently commit to undertaking and publishing full impact assessments of the impact that the changes will have in Scotland.

This issue demonstrates why it would be better for all tax powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that a suitably tailored position can be created for Scotland.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

With international instability increasing, food security has never been more important. Placing more burdens on farmers only increases the cost of food production, so many farmers leave the industry.

I have been contacted by constituents from East Dunbartonshire and West Dunbartonshire, and from Argyll and Bute, who have expressed concern about the dangerous UK Labour Government’s family farm tax. What is the Scottish Government doing, for its part, to ensure that the farming industry does not disappear because of too-harsh taxes?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As Pam Gosal is aware, those tax decisions are made by Westminster. I very much want them to be made here in Scotland so that we can create suitable—[ Interruption .]

Finlay Carson is shaking his head. The Conservatives ask us these questions and when we give them the answers, they shake their heads. The point that I am making is that if they want to have tax decision-making powers in the Scottish Parliament, they have only to vote for that and we will manage to make it happen.

On the substantive part of Pam Gosal’s question, the Scottish Government is doing everything in its power to make sure that we create an industry that is resilient in the long term for the people of Scotland, to provide food security and to help to maintain our environment and our biosecurity. A range of measures are in place to do so.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There are a number of supplementaries. I will try to get in as many as I can, but they will need to be brief.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

The APR proposals from Labour are the latest in a long line of attacks on Scottish agriculture by successive UK Governments. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the cumulative impact of Westminster policies in recent years, including the APR proposals, on Scottish agriculture?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We share Willie Coffey’s concerns about the negative impacts that are being caused by the failure of the UK Government. It is clear that decisions that are made by the UK Government have significant impacts on Scotland—as we have seen in agriculture with the inheritance tax changes and the Barnettisation of the agricultural budget allocation.

We remain committed to maintaining direct payments, thereby providing vital stability to agriculture and contributing to the delivery of the vision for agriculture. We will continue to reach out to the UK Government: it is imperative that it works with the devolved nations in a joined-up manner to deliver policy that benefits the people of Scotland.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister recognise that the UK Government has said that around 520 agricultural estates will be affected, that that has been confirmed by a “BBC Verify” report and that up to three quarters of farmers will pay nothing as a result of the changes? What will that mean for farming in Scotland?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am sorry, but I simply do not accept Claire Baker’s assessment. We have been told by the industry that far more people will be affected by the family farm tax. [ Interruption .] The UK Government did not even recognise the issue around tenant farmers. [ Interruption .] I am sorry, but anything that members want to present to the chamber on behalf of the UK Government needs to be fully informed, because it is clear that it is not. [ Interruption .] The UK Government did not know what it was doing, it did not know that its changes would be the death knell for family farms, and it will continue to go down that road and to alienate the people who feed this country.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Smyth, I would be grateful if you did not provide a running commentary while the minister is responding.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Last Friday, my colleague Willie Coffey and I met NFU Scotland members from North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire. Labour’s tax grab on family farms eclipses all other concerns that farmers have, and it is impossible to overstate their anxiety. Given that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that it is “highly uncertain” that the measures will raise even the small sums that are forecast, what response has the minister had to the representations about scrapping the tax that he mentioned having made?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Responses have been tone deaf or we have been met with silence. Our position remains that the changes to inheritance tax should be paused and that an immediate review should be carried out. The UK Government must urgently commit to undertaking and publishing a full impact assessment of the impacts that the changes that it is making will have on farmers in Scotland.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect the value of provenance in the Scottish food and drink industry. (S6O-04414)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Scotland’s food and drink industry is a vitally important part of the economy. It is a £15-billion industry, which has more than 17,000 businesses that employ around 129,000 people, and it reaches into all parts of Scotland.

In order to protect and promote provenance in the sector, we have provided £10 million over the course of 2023 to 2025 to support the delivery of Scotland’s food and drink strategy, “Sustaining Scotland. Supplying the World.” Since 2014, we have provided more than £7 million to the Scotland food and drink export plan to help businesses to exploit the most significant opportunities for Scotland.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

We are fortunate that Scotland is home to products that are recognised around the world for their quality. Thankfully, the UK Government has U-turned on its damaging plans to water down the definition of “single malt”, which would have been detrimental to our whisky industry.

Will the cabinet secretary assure me and, more importantly, the industry that the Scottish Government will continue to support and promote Scottish food and drink producers and their products, unlike the Labour Party, which, once again, has failed to fulfil a pre-election promise—its promise to back Scottish producers to the hilt?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

On Clare Haughey’s first point, I make it clear that we have not yet had official confirmation of that U-turn in the UK Government’s position, although it has been outlined to the UK Parliament by Treasury ministers. That process is still very much under way at the moment.

I offer an absolute assurance to members across the chamber and to the wider industry that we will continue to support our food and drink sector and its incredible products, which we know are enjoyed at home and abroad. We do that in a number of ways. We support the “Go Local” programme, which is about encouraging promotion of local products. We provide funding to the Scottish Wholesale Association to help it to support our Scottish wholesalers and producers to increase the volume of local produce that is sold. As I outlined in my initial answer, more widely we also support Scotland’s food and drink strategy.

We will continue to do all that we can to support our incredible industry in Scotland.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what support can be provided to migrant workers in the agricultural sector in Scotland. (S6O-04415)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We fully recognise the valuable contribution that migrant workers make to supporting Scotland’s seasonal production and the economy.

The Scottish Government supports those workers by enforcing the pay and conditions that are stipulated in the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Order 2024; by funding the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution to provide practical, emotional and financial support; and by subsidising the Worker Support Centre, which it has done since 2022, to prevent labour exploitation and inform future policy.

Ms Gougeon met Mr McLennan last September and actioned Scottish Government officials to scope and develop a bespoke standard to uphold conditions for seasonal workers’ accommodation. That work is on-going and is engaging with relevant stakeholders.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I am glad to hear of that progress, because the issues that are facing migrant farm workers in Scotland are well documented. They include unsafe, poor quality and cramped accommodation, pay being withheld or not in line with the agricultural minimum wage, and travel not being supported or accounted for in hours. In the north-east, sadly, those experiences are common.

In advance of the forthcoming season, what more can the Scottish Government do, working with partners such as NFU Scotland and the Worker Support Centre, to ensure that the food that we put on our tables has not been produced in exploitative and punitive conditions?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As I said in my initial answer, the Scottish Government is providing funding through various support mechanisms. Ms Gougeon has met Mr McLennan, and there are various other measures in relation to making sure that agricultural rural workers are looked after properly.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Answers to parliamentary questions that were lodged by Richard Leonard on the unjust treatment and exploitation of migrant workers in agriculture revealed a significant rise in 2024 in the percentage of businesses underpaying migrant workers. Will the Scottish Government increase the number of control test inspections by the Scottish agricultural wages enforcement team to ensure that all workers receive their proper wages?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We passed the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which gives police and prosecutors greater powers to detect and bring to justice those who are responsible for those types of offences.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to reduce the level of wildlife crime. (S6O-04416)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government has taken numerous actions to tackle wildlife crime in recent years, including increased penalties for the most serious offences, licensing schemes for hunting with dogs, and increasing the powers of Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals inspectors.

We work with a number of partners to raise awareness of wildlife crime. I was pleased to open the Scottish wildlife crime conference last week and to witness the partnership in practice. I also highlight the recently published 2023 annual wildlife crime report, which reported a decrease of 23 per cent in recorded wildlife offences in comparison with the previous year’s report.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is encouraging that there have been some better statistics of late. However, there have also been some recent incidences of what the Scottish Gamekeepers Association has called “guerrilla rewilding”, in relation to the illegal releases of lynx and feral pigs. I therefore ask: what is the Scottish Government doing to tackle what is a very serious problem?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I absolutely agree with Liz Smith’s point. I reiterate that we strongly condemn the illegal release of any species in Scotland. The recent releases of lynx and wild boar in the Cairngorms were extremely reckless and caused legitimate concern for the public, as well as posing serious risks to the welfare of the animals that were released.

Police Scotland is currently investigating possible sightings of lynx in Galloway, and NatureScot has put trail cameras in the area.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The minister is aware of the unintended loophole in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 that allows some grouse moor owners to apply for a grouse shooting licence that covers only the small area of their estate that is directly used for grouse shooting rather than the whole estate, even though the whole estate is managed to enable operation of the grouse moor.

Does the minister recognise that, if that loophole is not closed, the 2024 act will not have its intended effect of ending the illegal killing of birds of prey that is associated with some grouse moors? If the offence takes place outside the small licence area, it cannot be considered in licensing decisions, which is reducing the impact of licensing as a deterrent to wildlife crime.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I do not have the exact numbers in relation to the number of licences that have been issued by NatureScot or that will be issued this coming year. However, NatureScot is working with landholders to make sure that licences are effective in exactly the way that the 2024 act requires, and I am confident that that is what will happen.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 8 was not lodged, so that concludes questions on rural affairs.

There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio, to allow members on the front benches to change.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is health and social care. Again, members who wish to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. There is quite a bit of interest in supplementary questions, so brevity in questions and responses would be appreciated.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of referrals to audiology services at NHS Grampian are seen within the 18-week target. (S6O-04418)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

NHS Grampian monitors referrals, and advises that the average waiting time between referral and assessment is between 12 and 18 months.

I recognise that that is not good enough, which is why our budget will provide a record £21.7 billion for health and social care, including almost £200 million to reduce waiting lists and support a reduction in delayed discharge. By March 2026, we expect no one to be waiting longer than 12 months for a new out-patient, in-patient or day-case treatment.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have heard from constituents who have had to wait for more than two years to get a hearing aid. A review of audiology services was carried out in 2022, but there seems to have been no improvement since then. How many of the 55 recommendations from the report of that review have been implemented?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Audiology is considered a clinical priority area, and the Scottish Government remains committed to its vision for an integrated and community-based hearing service in Scotland. While our response to the independent review on audiology in Scotland is implemented, we continue to work with the national health service, the community and voluntary sector and private providers to identify and cost an appropriate model for community care for any future service reform and ensure that the voices of those with lived experience inform that work. I would be more than happy to meet Mr Lumsden and his constituent to take that area forward.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will outline its funding strategy for health and social care partnerships in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-04419)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Although the Scottish Government has overall responsibility for social care policy in Scotland, it is for local authorities and health boards to ensure that health and social care partnerships are funded and can meet the needs of local people.

Our 2025-26 budget continues to prioritise additional investment in social care and includes almost £2.2 billion for the sector, which exceeds our commitment to increase funding by 25 per cent by almost £350 million. We have also provided significant additional resources to local authorities and expect social care to be prioritised by them.

Although budgets are the responsibility of local partners, we will continue to engage with the sector on the significant financial pressures that it is under.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I recently met Aberdeenshire responders for care at home in Huntly and Banchory. Seventy per cent of responders now face reduced hours, demotion to lower-paid and junior roles or—even worse—redundancy. Despite that, the responders’ concern was for the people for whom they care. Many had suggestions for savings but were never asked. Now, they are gagged from social media, and some are even forbidden from coming to see me, their MSP.

Every integration joint board in Scotland has told Neil Gray that it will not be possible to sustain existing levels of care across all services. Has the Government given up caring?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Absolutely not. I recognise the concern that has been outlined. I am extremely concerned by what Alexander Burnett narrated about the ability of members of staff to come up with solutions or seek a responsible response to the pressures that are felt. He is absolutely right. Those service providers have the interests of their patients first and foremost, of course. I would be interested in having a further discussion with Mr Burnett about the issues that he has raised, because the situation is extremely concerning.

To go back to funding, it is for local authorities and health boards to arrive at the appropriate funding of our health and social care partnerships.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

For 30 years, Home-Start schemes in Aberdeenshire have been supporting families with young children who experience any of a range of health and social difficulties. I am told that the devastating decision to terminate funding to Home-Start came after its board of trustees was assured by Aberdeenshire Council that not only would its funding contract continue, but it would receive an uplift.

Does the Scottish Government’s approach to health and social care take account of the benefits of early intervention to support struggling families, and how will it help families in Aberdeenshire who are looking for support in the light of those cuts to Home-Start?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I return to the fact that decisions are made based on local decision-making prioritisation. It is for local authorities and health boards to ensure that health and social care partnerships are appropriately funded to meet the needs of the local population.

On the second part of Mercedes Villalba’s question, which is about the Government’s prioritisation of preventative measures and whole-family support interventions, of course that is what we support; that is at the heart of our agenda. That is why we hope and expect that our health boards, local authorities and partnerships will be doing exactly that.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With the reminder that the question is about partnerships in the North East Scotland region, I call Bill Kidd for a supplementary question .

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I will cancel it. Thank you very much.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government what dialogue it has had with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde regarding a replacement for Port Glasgow health centre. (S6O-04420)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government meets regularly with colleagues from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and it is due to meet with the assistant director of infrastructure, planning and delivery on 13 March. A wide variety of issues will be discussed, including the board’s primary care priorities, which we know will include Port Glasgow health centre.

Following the United Kingdom spending review, the Scottish Government intends to update and publish a refreshed infrastructure investment plan, which will outline what capital projects will be taken forward.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Replacing Port Glasgow health centre is a key priority for my constituency. It would help to deliver better outcomes for patients and provide a better workplace for staff. We have only to look at the £21 million Greenock health centre replacement; that proves the point. Will the cabinet secretary accept an invitation, alongside NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s new chief executive, to visit Port Glasgow health centre to see the condition of the existing building and why a new facility is so urgently needed?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Stuart McMillan for his question and for highlighting the investment that the Scottish Government and the board have made in the new Greenock health centre and the obvious impact that that has had. I am more than happy to accept the invitation to visit Port Glasgow, and I acknowledge the importance of the matter to Stuart McMillan and his constituents.

I am fully aware of the need for additional primary care investment, not just in Port Glasgow but further afield. I understand that it is one of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s top primary care priorities—if not its number 1 priority. As I am sure the Presiding Officer will be aware, the capital funding position remains challenging, but I am working closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the refresh of the infrastructure investment plan, the results of which will be published later this year, so that we can set out what we can do to address the situation in Port Glasgow and with other primary care facilities across Scotland.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary knows that there are a number of important capital projects across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that are beset by serious delays, including the new radionuclide dispensary and the institute of neurological sciences. The Government says that it is committed to publishing a new infrastructure investment plan later in the year. Will that include details of timescales for delivery of those critical projects, which must progress so that patients can be assured that they will happen without further delay?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am keen to see our capital programme continue. Paul Sweeney listed a number of projects that I am desperately keen to see move forward. Paul Sweeney has some agency in that regard. The long-term capital funding perspective is largely driven by what will be detailed in the United Kingdom Government’s spending review later this month. I urge him to unite with the Scottish Government in urging the UK Government to invest in capital provision. It is good for the economy, it is incredibly important for our public services, and it would be remiss of a UK chancellor not to do so.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what additional focus areas it has identified, following the publication of the “Women’s Health Plan 2021 to 2024: Final Report”. (S6O-04421)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Women’s health is a priority for the Government, which is why Scotland was the first country in the United Kingdom to publish a women’s health plan in August 2021. We have started work to bring together an updated evidence base and gather views from women and girls, including the lived experience stakeholder group and from our stakeholders, with the intention of publishing the next phase of the women’s health plan in 2025.

Timely access to gynaecology services will be a priority, with early discussions also indicating pelvic health and optimising future health as potential areas of focus.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The women-centred approach to health is long overdue, and although progress is being made, there is a way to go, including in improving human papillomavirus immunisation and cervical cancer screening. Figures from health boards this week show that some women are waiting more than eight months for further checks following an abnormal smear test. Colposcopy exams can help to identify cervical cancer, but too many women are having to wait months for those vital follow-up checks. How is the Scottish Government working with health boards to address those waiting periods and ensure that early intervention is embedded into the cervical screening process?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We certainly agree that the speed of colposcopy is not good enough, which is why our 2025-26 budget provides £21 billion for health and social care. To offer some reassurance, following an abnormal sample, patients at the very highest risk of cervical cancer will be referred on a fast-tracked urgent suspicion of cancer pathway for further diagnostic tests. Where results show a low or moderate risk, patients will be offered a routine colposcopy.

Without wishing to underestimate the anxiety that is experienced by those waiting on a routine appointment, and while wishing to offer reassurance, it is important to remember that fewer than one in 1,000 patients who are referred for a colposcopy are found to have a cervical cancer that requires immediate treatment.

We are absolutely committed to eliminating cervical cancer. We have established an expert group, which is chaired by women’s health champion Professor Anna Glasier. Eliminating cervical cancer is within our reach, and she will provide recommendations on how Scotland can reach the targets set by the World Health Organization.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Rachael Hamilton for a brief supplementary question.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

In its 2021 manifesto, the Scottish National Party promised to reduce endometriosis diagnosis times to less than 12 months by the end of 2025, yet waiting times are still eight and a half years. Following the publication of the women’s health plan report, will that target be met?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I am aware that women are still waiting too long for an endometriosis diagnosis. We have discussed in the chamber that a definitive diagnosis requires an invasive laparoscopy test, which is not appropriate at the immediate first presentation. There is a process to work towards a presumptive diagnosis and then on to the invasive test that can confirm whether endometriosis is present.

There is no doubt that women are waiting too long. There has been an on-going series of work all over the system to increase awareness among women and health professionals and to tighten up the referral pathway to ensure that women are appropriately, rapidly and promptly referred into the system. As I said, though, people are waiting too long for gynaecology appointments, and we have invested extra money to try to improve that situation.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on NHS pay negotiations for 2025-26. (S6O-04422)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am incredibly grateful to our hard-working NHS Scotland staff for the care that they provide to patients day in, day out, and I am committed to ensuring that they continue to be supported and valued, and that NHS Scotland remains an employer of choice. I therefore confirm that pay negotiations for agenda for change staff will commence on 19 March. For consultants, specialty doctors, general practitioners and dentists, we await recommendations from the independent doctors and dentists pay review body. For resident doctors, we will engage directly with the British Medical Association Scotland to arrange for pay negotiations to commence.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the anger and frustration among the NHS workforce in the light of the delay in starting pay negotiations for the coming year. Does he accept that any negotiations will need to rebuild trust, given his decision to U-turn on the Government’s commitment to implement the reduction in the working week for NHS staff? Will he tell us whether that was his decision, or was it John Swinney’s and he was simply the messenger?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

There has been no U-turn on our commitment to get to 36 hours for agenda for change staff in a reduced working week. The commitment that was given in the pay deal was to get to 36 hours by April 2026, and that is what is being delivered. A recommendation of the reduced working week working group suggested an implementation of 30 minutes over three years, but there was no commitment from the Government on that provision.

I recognise the frustration that exists among staff and I continue to engage with unions in that regard. However, I have to ensure that the reduced working week is implemented in a safe way that maintains capacity and ensures that we can deliver what we wish to see in the NHS over the coming year. I have met with unions to explain my position and my decision, which was taken by me.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

In the face of impending industrial action in 2024, the cabinet secretary negotiated and agreed the commitment to pay and improved conditions, including reducing hours. He agreed to the timescale. There were no clauses that indicated that the Scottish Government commitment was subject to any decisions elsewhere, and he has reneged on that commitment.

Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that the commitments belong to him and the Scottish Government, and that he must own those decisions? How can anyone take the Scottish Government at its word in future negotiations?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The pay deal that was arrived at two pay deals ago was for a reduced working week to 36 hours, to be arrived at by April 2026. When I came into post, I implemented the first 30 minutes last year. There was always going to be a test-and-learn approach based on the implementation of that first 30 minutes, which has been challenging in some parts of the system.

There has been no reneging—there is a clear commitment and a clear process by which we arrive at 36 hours next April. I will continue to engage with trade union colleagues and staff as to that implementation, because I am committed to honouring the deal that we signed, which committed us to 36 hours by April 2026. I reiterate that there was no commitment as to the process for how that was going to be arrived at, but I have given staff and unions certainty as to how it will be arrived at over the coming year.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 6 was not lodged.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting people to access gynaecological health services. (S6O-04424)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

In 2024-25, we allocated more than £450,000 to gynaecology from our £30 million investment in planned care. That delivered around 3,500 additional new out-patient appointments. The 2025-26 budget will provide an extra £200 million to help to reduce waiting times and improve capacity. Gynaecology will be a key priority area. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, and our women’s health champion, have been meeting with clinicians to better understand the challenges; to discuss innovative solutions; and to reiterate our commitment to prioritise timely access to gynaecology services in the next phase of the women’s health plan.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Regular checks are an essential part of a proactive approach to gynaecological health. Can the minister outline the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to encourage women to undergo regular screenings? What action is being taken to reduce waiting lists for gynaecological appointments in NHS Lanarkshire?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

On the issue of waiting lists, as I said in my previous answer, gynaecology will be targeted as the key priority area for additional funding throughout the next year. We are currently reviewing health board plans to clear the longest wait from that specialty.

As I mentioned in answer to a previous question, the elimination of cervical cancer is within Scotland’s grasp and the cervical cancer elimination group is exploring strategies for increasing cervical screening uptake, including self-sampling, with an anticipated United Kingdom national screening committee recommendation this spring. Our equity in screening strategy and related action plan, published in 2023 and supported by a £1 million annual funding to address inequalities in uptake, cements our vision for access for all eligible individuals across the full screening pathway.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

With regard to gynaecological waits, that investment may be there on paper, but it comes down to the reality on the ground: women in Scotland are currently waiting on average eight years for an endometriosis diagnosis. Following diagnosis, things do not get any better. Here in NHS Lothian, one of my constituents, Jenny Macfarlane, has been waiting for urgent surgery since July 2023. She told me that she has been informed that, after already waiting for 81 weeks, her surgery will now not take place until the end of 2025. Due to that time lapse, she will also likely need another expensive MRI scan. That news has a detrimental impact on her mental health and, as she put it, on her will to live.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Minister, for how much longer must women in Lothian endure unnecessary suffering while waiting for life-changing medical treatment?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I agree that some women are waiting too long for intervention and, as I have already stated, we are working to improve the situation. I apologise to women who are having to wait and to cope with a painful and debilitating condition.

There are some green shoots that the member can pass on to her constituent. To the end of January, health boards reported that they had delivered 75,500 appointments and procedures, against a plan of 64,000. Broken down, that includes almost 56,500 diagnostic procedures, which exceeds the original plan to deliver 40,000 of those procedures by almost 41 per cent and has reduced the size of the waiting lists for imaging and scopes. As I said, gynaecology appointments and patients were prioritised last year and they will be prioritised again this year. Gynaecology patients will be benefiting from the improvement in performance.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Yesterday, a cross-party group of MSPs met the Galloway community hospital action group, which raised concerns about the lack of maternity services in the west of the region, leaving women having to travel more than 70 miles to give birth. Will the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care agree to meet members of the community action group in order to discuss their concerns about the decision that has been taken by the integration joint board?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The member’s question relates to maternity services, rather than gynaecology. I defer to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health on that, as she can give him a fuller answer. I know that she has previously met the individuals that he has mentioned, and I am confident that she would be more than happy to meet them again in order to hear about the latest developments and work out solutions.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I note that Karen Adam is not in the chamber to ask question 8, so I cannot call it. That is disappointing. I expect an explanation and an apology from the member.

I also note that the opening speaker in the debate on single-sex spaces in the public sector, which is the next item of business, is not in the chamber. Unfortunately, I will have to suspend the meeting briefly until the situation changes.

Single-sex Spaces (Public Sector)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

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.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

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.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

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?

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

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.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

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.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I do not think that I have much time in hand.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is not an awful lot, no.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

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—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Oh, come on. That is so pathetic.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

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.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will if we have time. Presiding Officer, is there time in hand?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is very little time in hand, but I can give you some of the time back.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair, please.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

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.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.”

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

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?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

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.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

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.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government is committed to increasing equality and improving the lives of trans people in Scotland.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

What an embarrassment.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

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.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

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.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

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.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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—

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.”

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Were any of them by trans people?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.”

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

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 .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members, please! We will hear with courtesy and respect the member who has the floor. That is Maggie Chapman. Please continue, Ms Chapman.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

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.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

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.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

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.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

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.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

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.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

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.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

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.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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—

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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—

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is about to conclude.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

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.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

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.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Is Emma Harper content that Scotland’s public sector and public bodies are following the law on single-sex spaces correctly?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

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.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Such incidents have been due to the poor behaviour of boys, not of trans women—is that not correct?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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—

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member will be concluding.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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—

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am coming to the end of my speech, but I will give way.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

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.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

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?

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

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?

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Regan, you need to bring your remarks to a close.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

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.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

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.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will Evelyn Tweed take an intervention?

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

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—