���˿���

When we conducted our consultation exercise, we got a huge amount of input. In the previous evidence session, I said that 80 per cent of the respondents said that the PSED was not being implemented, and they gave the committee a lot of information on why they thought that. Before the cake is cooked, will you share with us the ingredients that are going into it?

It might be a request, then. Before you put water through the pipe, you need to check the pipe. Minister, if the committee has an important role in your work, my request is that you consider providing any guidance to the committee first. I will leave that request with you to take away.

Last week, Vic Valentine, who was representing Scottish Trans, said:

“we are always clear that our advice and guidance is not legal advice ... We would never say that we were giving legal advice to organisations ... We do not provide legal advice.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 11 March 2025; c 56.]

That was said last week and it is included in the feedback in the committee’s papers. However, the following day, ahead of the debate on single-sex spaces in the public sector, Scottish Trans sent ���˿��� a briefing that said on at least two occasions that it would be unlawful not to allow trans people to access single-sex spaces in certain situations, which legal experts have refuted.

On one day, in front of the committee, Scottish Trans said one thing, but the next day, it issued a briefing that basically said the opposite. Minister, do you believe that it is appropriate for activist organisations to offer guidance that leaves public sector bodies vulnerable to costly legal challenges? Will the Scottish Government, as a funder of such organisations, distance itself from such guidance?

Thank you. I will probably write to you after the meeting.

Finally, I have noted that you have said that you want to provide leadership on the PSED and that you want to put your money where your mouth is, yet 80 per cent of respondents to the committee’s call for evidence said that public bodies do not understand and have not implemented the PSED properly. So, there is an issue with public bodies. During the previous evidence session, the EHRC said that there was an issue with the education sector and we have highlighted an issue with hospitals. I have also talked about big issues with Police Scotland.

In relation to the lack of implementation of the PSED, your leadership and putting your money where your mouth is, should you and/or the Scottish Government not suspend the pay rises of the leadership of those public sector bodies that are allegedly in breach of their duties? As a head of HR, if there were a specific issue in a part of an organisation, I could not take money off people, but I could and would suspend pay rises. If you have concerns and you are providing leadership, would it not be a practical thing to say, “Hang on a minute, let’s just suspend pay increases and review the implementation of PSED?”

I started with a question in relation to your view on whether the Scottish Government should provide guidance on the Equality Act 2010 in addition to the EHRC. At the meeting that you will have with it, there might need to be leadership in that space, which is a vacuum.

This inquiry is coming to an end today. Of the organisations that gave feedback, 80 per cent said that the PSED is not being implemented. That huge amount is alarming. We, as a committee, need to take that away and ask ourselves, if we believe that the PSED is important—which we do—what we will do to ensure that it is implemented properly. Definitions are a very important aspect of that, because how can you manage what you do not measure?

Thank you, Cat, but this is an example of an organisation that is in large part funded by the Scottish Government saying one thing in front of the committee and then, the next day, saying the complete opposite. It is an organisation that gives guidance to public sector bodies, so that is relevant.

Minister, given that you are providing leadership on the PSED, I would like you to take that issue away and say that there are big questions that need to be asked, given that that organisation is saying one thing and doing another. If I was giving large amounts of money to an organisation, I would want to question what was going on in that regard. I will leave the matter with you.

Jill, is it your organisation’s view that the law should permit employers and service providers to exclude all trans women from women-only spaces? Will you give a simple yes or no answer, please?

Okay. I will move to my second question, convener. In its submission to the committee, the LGB Alliance says that

“unclear definitions of sex, women, men, gay and straight, make it difficult for public authorities to actively meet their responsibilities under”

the PSED. Jill, do you agree with the LGB Alliance that a lack of clarity around the definitions of sex and women has resulted in poor compliance with the PSED?

Do you accept that failures by public bodies to meet their existing legal obligations around single-sex spaces will carry a significant cost to the public purse?