I started listening to the govt recording from the beginning hoping to find the right bit because I couldn't access TwiX. And when I got to about the right place I transcribed. I've made a note of the time in case anyone else wants to listen.
MSPs on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee are asking questions of an invited panel. Questions are in italics, my comments in (brackets)
10:45:50 Pam Gosal The inclusion of single sex spaces and services is absolutely vital for women including women from BAME and religious backgrounds. During the Gender Recognition Bill I hihglighted many religious women do not feel comfortable being touched by biologically male doctors, nurses, when performing examinations such as smear tests and breast examinations. Ay you'll know the NHS employs many women from BAME backgrounds and now they will also be made to feel uncomfortable espeically in relation to what happened to Sandie Peggie and how she has been treated tpo change in front of a biological male and would mean they would break their religion which by the way is also a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act. This means all these women do they go through a tribunal and I actually need to ask in the Committee, what I don't underdstand is, on the one hand the public is given separate rooms for prayers and then on the other hand single-sex facilities are taken away. It kind of defeats the purpose of promotng equality. As you'll know women of faith need to use these facilities beofre their prayers without the pressence of a biological male. So can I simply ask the question, should it be mandatory for all public bodies to offer single-sex spaces and services?
Jatin Haria (Executive Director, Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights) It's not... something that we really have expertise in.. in terms of the law around that... so I will defer to my colleagues but... you make the point of where the law already stands in terms of religion and things so you would assume people would abide by... but if there is a conflict that needs to be addressed.. but I'm not an expert in these issues, sorry.
Pam Gosal: But just.. I'm to ask you the question, on balance then basically these are all characteristics that are protected under the Equality Act 2010, sex is protected female/male and then there's nine other chracteristics, so how would you then translate that to balance that because this is a case, these are things that are happening live outside, every single day with these women, it's so important that these women that are listening today, they want that answer that ..., what happens? Do they not go in to NHS? Wasn't it yourself that mentioned earlier on that teachers basically - if you don't see somebody of colour you're not going to be comfortable, or you might not think that profession's for you. There's so many inequalities, but this is inequality right here in our face, the fact that NHS, these people are not being employed by NHS, do they think that profession is not for them?
Jatin Haria: If that's stopping them getting employment then absolutely we need to address that, but there are other issues as well that are stopping people getting employment but that one in particular yes if that is a concern then that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure how, we have to wait for the court decision on things that are very legalistic but it's not an area of my expertise.
Clare Gallagher, Human Rights Officer, CEMVO (Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations): Much like Jatin that isn't an area of our legal expertise. We would defer it to our collaeagues that do have that legal expertise. What I would say is that the Equality Act is very clear and the actions to be taken are proprtionate to achieve a legitimate aim. While we as an organisation we cannot comment on an ongoing tribunal that we've heard the convenor mention and we will refarin from making generalised comments relating to the iussue at hand but we are clear that everyone has human rights and every person regardless of identity should have dignity and respect including on the workplace.
(Gallagher's rotating chair shifts a lot more during that last bit than the early parts of the meeting!)
Pam Gosal: But wouldn't you be able to answer this question on a balance?
Clare Gallagher: I think I've answered it through my proportionate and legitimate aim.
( Pam Gosal's like Paddington Bear - when she asks a question she does not let it go!)
10:50:20 Pam Gosal: Second question. So this is a question for Jill. Do you think that lesbian clubs and associations with 25 or more members should be able to exclude all males including those with GRCs?
Jill Wood (Policy Manager, Engender): Well that's not something that we looked at within the scope of our written submnission to the committee or part of the original consulation process on the ? so that's not something I'm able to comment on this morning.
10:51:15 Jess White My questions's for Jill. My first question. Is it your organisations's view that the law should permit employers and service providers to exlcude all trasnwomen from women-only spaces? A simple yes or no answer please.
Jill Wood: I'll give the same answer as my answer to Pam. I'm not here to comment on that this morning so I can't give you an answer.
Jess White: My second question convener. In its submission toe committee the LGB Alliance says that - and I quote - "it's unclear definitions of sex, women, men, gay and straight make it difficult for public authorities to actively meet their responsibilities under the PSED" (Public Sector Equality Duty) So my question is for Jill do you agree with the LGB Alliance that a lack of clarity around the definitions of sex and women has resulted oin poor compliance with the PSED?
(Quoting LGBA at a government committee, well that's quite a sea change!)
Jill Wood: Similarly to my answer to Pam that's not something we looked at in this part of the review, the enquiry that's ongoing or previously in the Scottish government's consultatation. What we are looking into as I said before is the potential for this review, needs to think of a more expansive set of proposals that focus on some of the core duties where we see .. a lot of potential for chnage. That's the mainstreaming duty for EQIA and so on and for a better policy process from this point onwards.
Jess White: My thrrd question for Jill. Do you acccept that failures by public bodies to meet their existing legal obligations around single-sex spaces will carry a significant cost to the public purse?
Jill Wood: Again Tess that's not something...
Jess White: Again you can't comment. So question 4 and I've got 2 more. The First Minister has emphasised that it is currently possible to exclude a transwoman from a women-only space on a case by case basis. Do you believe this is practicable in the public sector and what about the risk of women self-excluding from spaces and services because they cannot be certain they are male free?
(That should be an easy one because "case" means "situation" not "person". It should easy to say that certain situations are always single sex. Like shared changing rooms.)
Jill Wood: Again Tess that's not something that I've looked at but I'll be happy to get back to you.
Jess White: If you can that would helfpul. My final question: this is something that Engender has highlighted. So Engender has highlighted the importance of data. So given your organisation's support of self-id what analysis have you done around women self-excluding from spaces and services, and what about as my colleague Pam Gosal said, in particular what about women of faith self-excluding?
Jill Wood: Again ask me to get back to you on that but I would be happy to do that.
Jess White: So you do accept that data is important and that data clarity is important around protected characteristics?
Jill Wood: (mumble) for many years alongside the National Advisory Council for Women and Girls we've advocated for a new duty on intersectional data collection and use as well as gender budget analysis so we absolutely are in support of better data use. I can't comment specifically on any analysis that's been done. I've not personally been invloved in that work but I'm happy to get back to you.
Jess White: But if you're asking for better data it's absolutely critical that the data on the protected characteristics and the definiitons are clear so how can you manage if you don't measure properly.
Jill Wood: I think your question relates to broader aspects of the Equality Act and this morning I am here to talk about the Scottish-specific duty so let me take that question and come back to you.
(But the Equality Act protected characteristic is sex so how does a "gender budget analysis" provide clear information?)
I did my best to be accurate. Transcription errors are my own.