���˿���

I agree that it is not just about being a woman of colour and the only minority in the group. I have voiced that because women of colour have come to me, but other women and girls have come to me, too. It is not just about faith and religion; it is about decency.

I want to probe this a little more, because I know that you work on the Scottish ethnic minority older people forum. I also know that sometimes you may not be able to speak directly on behalf of Age Scotland because—and I am going to be honest when I say this—there is fear about talking about these issues in a lot of organisations. Could you give your personal view?

I know the sort of people—I am going to respectfully call them aunties and uncles—who come to forum meetings and do really good work. You mentioned that earlier, and I have also heard about them bringing community groups together so that they can respond to many of the issues that we have spoken about today.

I certainly know that there are no unisex toilets in a gurdwara, a mosque or a mandir. There are toilets for males and females, and there is sometimes another toilet that can be used by non-binary or disabled people—or whatever the need is at the time. Do you feel, in the religions that we and other faiths practise—again, religion is a protected characteristic—that it is quite clear how we achieve a balance in that regard with other characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, in terms of single-sex services and biological males and females?

Does anybody else want to come in on that question? It appears not.

My next question is for Jill Wood. Do you think that lesbian clubs and associations with 25 or more members should be able to exclude all males, including those with gender recognition certificates?

You would not be able to comment on the issue.

The inclusion of single-sex spaces and services is absolutely vital for women, including women from BAME and religious backgrounds. During the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I highlighted that many religious women do not feel comfortable being touched by biologically male doctors or nurses who are performing examinations such as smear tests or breast examinations.

As our witnesses will know, the national health service employs many women from BAME backgrounds. Now, they will also be made to feel uncomfortable—especially given what happened to Sandie Peggie and how she has been treated—changing in front of a biological male. Doing that would mean that they would break their religion, which, by the way, is also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Would that mean that all those women would have to go through a tribunal?

I need to ask about this, because I do not understand it. On the one hand, the public are given separate rooms for prayers but, on the other hand, single-sex facilities are taken away. That defeats the purpose of promoting equality. You will know that women of faith need to use those facilities before their prayers, without the presence of a biological male. Should it be mandatory for all public bodies to offer single-sex spaces and services?

Enough on what I have just asked about: enforcement activities.

Who do you feel is not doing their job?

Thank you, Rohini. You are absolutely right to say that it is up to the public sector. Again, we are here talking about the public sector duty, and it is important that it is clear so that people can understand it. The issues of dignity and respect are relevant not only to Muslim women; they are relevant to all women and girls.

I have one more question, which is for Vic Valentine. Do you accept that policies based around gender self-identification potentially open up employers and service providers to discrimination claims on the basis of sex and religion or belief?

Thank you for that.

I thank the witnesses for all the information that they have provided so far.

I asked this question of the witnesses on the first panel—those of you who were here will have heard me ask it—but I did not really get a response, so here’s hoping that I get some direction and a response from you.

The provision of single-sex spaces and services is vital for women, including BAME women and those from religious backgrounds. During consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I highlighted that many religious women do not feel comfortable being touched by biological male doctors or nurses when, for example, smear tests or breast examinations are being performed.

As you know, the NHS employs many women from BAME backgrounds, and they will now be made to feel uncomfortable and scared to speak up, especially given what has happened to Sandie Peggie and how she has been treated. Changing in front of a biological male would mean that those women would break their religion—religion is, by the way, also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Does that mean that all those women will have to go through a tribunal?

I do not understand why, on the one hand, the public are given separate prayer rooms but, on the other hand, single-sex facilities are taken away. That defeats the purpose of promoting equality. As you will know, before praying, women of faith need to use the facilities without the presence of a biological male. Should it be mandatory for all public bodies to offer single-sex spaces and services?

Good morning. This is a question for Jatin Haria. The Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights has said that its research strongly suggests that the guidance that is produced by the EHRC

“is not being widely used either for development or quality assurance purposes within listed bodies”,

going on to say that the EHRC’s

“enforcement activities do not appear to be effective.”

The EHRC, for its part, has said that it has yet to have

“sight of draft regulations from the Scottish Government on ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting”.

Is it not clear that the Scottish Government is not doing enough?