I will.

If I had been allowed to intervene on the cabinet secretary or the minister, I would have asked them about the millions of pounds that the Scottish Government has given to activist groups that are providing guidance, which is being interpreted as law. That is extremely worrying. As we have heard in the debate, the minister can read out a speech, but she probably does not engage with the substance, as Mr Ewing has pointed out.

As Rachael Hamilton said, John Swinney recognises that the law is on the side of women, but the problem is that his SNP Government refuses to enforce it. Lest we forget it, the SNP Government has been arguing in the UK’s highest court that men can get pregnant and become lesbians; John Swinney confirmed at the end of February that he accepts that trans women are women; and he does not regret supporting the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was—thankfully—blocked by the previous Conservative UK Government.

We cannot have a women-only space and let biological men have access to that space. That is common sense. The SNP does not believe that women are adult human females, and it has taken a sledgehammer to the rights and spaces that are afforded to biological women and girls as a result.

In kowtowing to activist organisations such as Stonewall, the SNP Government has allowed self-ID to creep into Scotland’s public sector for years. As I mentioned, the law is being skewed by lobby groups that are being funded by the SNP Government. Faulty guidance is becoming policy, with disastrous consequences, as a result of Nicola Sturgeon’s self-ID obsession. She leaves a dangerous and divisive legacy when she stands down in 2026. As Russell Findlay said, women will not forget that she trashed their rights. The NHS, schools, councils, the Prison Service and the police all jumped on the so-called inclusion bandwagon at the behest of Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP Government. Labour did nothing.

Equality, diversity and inclusion policies in our public bodies have become exclusionary for women. That is why we need leadership and clarity from the SNP Government, and it is why the Scottish Conservatives are calling on John Swinney to issue a directive requiring public sector bodies to provide single-sex spaces for biological women and girls, in line with their legal obligations. It is high time that, after eroding our rights and relegating our needs for years, the SNP put women and girls first.

I say to Audrey Nicoll and Evelyn Tweed that language matters. Gender is a construct; sex is down to biology.

It is no wonder that trust in the Scottish Government has been so badly corroded. The SNP has made an absolute mess of this. Its amendment to the motion says:

“the Scottish Government fully upholds the Equality Act 2010”.

Senior SNP politicians have made similar statements, but the sleekit SNP is at it again. John Swinney is trying and failing to ride two horses on sex and self-ID.

John Swinney thinks that the legal position on single-sex spaces is “crystal clear”, but the SNP’s position is as clear as mud. Week after week, the Scottish Conservatives have been trying to get answers out of the SNP on what on earth is happening with women-only spaces in Scotland’s public bodies. Our requests for ministerial statements were knocked back. Our questions were swerved—

Many of the organisations that have submitted statements say that impact assessments are a tick-box exercise. Even that basic right is not being looked at or measured. What is your view on that?

We are talking not only about compliance but about generating a positive culture in an organisation. If that is not informed by advice and guidance and by robust evidence, that can open the door to miscommunication and misunderstanding. Do you believe that it is appropriate for activist organisations to offer guidance that leaves public sector bodies vulnerable to legal challenge?

You say that you are a charity, but you are largely funded by the Scottish Government. What percentage of your funding comes from the Government? Is it 90 per cent? Is it 100 per cent?

All right—thank you very much.

My final question is also for Vic. I know that Pauline Nolan wants to come in, so if she would like to come in after Vic, she should please do so.

In its written submission, the LGB Alliance suggested that issues of sexuality—the lesbian, gay and bisexual or LGB part—should be decoupled from issues of gender identity, or the TQI part, when collecting and analysing data on a range of issues. Do you agree with that?

People talk about LGBTQI+ as an umbrella term. A lot of organisations, including the LGB Alliance, are saying that there are two distinct groups.

My first question is for Pauline Nolan. People with disabilities are an overlooked group, as are—when it comes to interactions with services—women and older people. In this inquiry, we are looking at the public sector equality duty and impact assessments. In the Victorian era, women were on a urinary leash—they could not go out of their homes. It seems that we are going backwards when it comes to the provision of toilet facilities, which is having an unintended effect on people with disabilities and women. I am thinking, in particular, about public transport. There is a much lower percentage of people with disabilities in the workplace. If people with disabilities cannot get to and from work and have access to toilets, that is a massive issue.

I want to make two points before I ask my question. We have had the Scottish Government’s policy change whereby it is no longer going to provide £10 million for changing places toilets. There is also the unintended consequence of local government closing down local public loos. When it comes to the basic duty to carry out an impact assessment on new policies and to monitor the impact of current policies, is the provision of toilet facilities an issue that needs to be concentrated on, given that it is a basic need?