Seòmar agus comataidhean

As a Government, we have consistently prioritised taking actions to tackle persistent inequality. We have supported those who are most disadvantaged and who face the greatest barriers to realising their rights, and we will continue to do so. Over the next year, we will publish new equality outcomes and deliver our mainstreaming strategy, including the associated toolkit. We will also launch our inclusive communications toolkit and the training that goes alongside that. We will progress the expansion of the pay gap reporting, publish our regulation 12 reporting and use ministerial powers under regulation 11 for the first time.

Alongside our work on the operation of the public sector equality duty, we continue to work on building capability, culture change, strengthening leadership—including at senior levels—making better use of our equality data and further building equality and human rights into our budgeting process. There is certainly momentum there; based on some committee members’ comments, I think that the committee recognises that momentum.

Committee members will know that I am very pragmatic and practical. I want to base my work on outcomes, so I am very much future planning. I hope that the actions that I just listed will assist with that. If Marie McNair would like further information on perceived delays, I will happily bring in one of my supporting officials. Some of the delays will have happened prior to my time, so, with the convener’s permission, I am happy to bring in Nick Bland, who would be best placed to provide that information.

We always do a sense check and risk assessments, but I refer to my earlier comment that we are taking a phased approach so that we are not applying undue pressure.

My expectations are clear. I am providing leadership through extensive engagement with duty bearers, public sector bodies and the equality networks. The messaging through that engagement is consistent and, I believe, wide and very clear. We have close connections and we communicate regularly, so we would be able to anticipate any tensions, barriers or hurdles that might arise, and we would plan accordingly, as you would expect—that would be good practice.

However, the short answer is no; I do not expect further delay. As Nick Bland said, a lot of the structural work that has allowed me to build the current momentum was done previously. I am mindful of that and grateful for it, and I am now taking it on to the next step. I am playing my role in the position that I am in at the moment.

We fund many organisations to provide specific services—I am thinking of suicide helplines, advocacy work and all sorts of other things. Of course, those organisations also do other work. For instance, we may ask charities to deliver a particular service on behalf of the Scottish Government, but they may provide a range of other services, and in amongst that, they may well be advising other organisations. It is a matter for the police from whom they take their advice. It would not be up to me to comment on that.

I understand that there are two separate parts to that, which are both valid. My original point was that, under a human rights-based approach, we have the equalities legislation, which is very clear and which allows for exemptions. I recognise that there will be situations in which decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, because the numbers will be exceptionally small. Those cases will need to be sensitively and compassionately understood.

We have decided to take a phased approach to reform, because, as I said at the beginning, we need to take people with us. I understand where the member is coming from and possibly some of the frustrations around how we hold people accountable for compliance. The question is whether we take a punitive or a supportive approach: I have been very clear that I have decided to take a supportive, phased approach by providing that scaffolding. have set out my expectations very clearly and I will continue to do so.

I will bring in Nick Bland on the technicalities, because I think that you were asking about wages.

I refer back to what Jen has said, which is that the PSED is largely a procedural instrument. Nick, do you want to add anything to that?

You are right that there are multiple questions in there. I will do my best to address them; if I do not, I am quite happy for you to write to me and I can give you further information.

My role as an equalities minister is to balance the rights of various people. As you quite rightly said, there are nine protected characteristics, which were protected over time because it was recognised that people with those characteristics face additional barriers, systemic discrimination and harms. We want to ensure that people in each of those categories have a better life and have access to what everybody else has access to.

My job is to balance those rights in a compassionate and kind way that is within the law. It is not a competition, nor is it a hierarchy. If we strip back the approach and look at what underpins it, it is a human rights approach. If we accept that human rights must be at the heart of everything that we do to advance equality, we see the human who is in front of us and make sure that they have dignity and respect and are not in difficult positions.

I understand that there is a bigger debate around the issue, which has become very polarised, and that there are very strong feelings—it is difficult—but my position is that rights are not a competition or hierarchy. If we start from a point of dignity and fairness then, of course, nobody should be getting undressed in a situation that they feel uncomfortable in.

I understand the nub of what you are saying. I will give you an example from my experience—the member will be aware that I do not often talk from my experience because my job is to represent everybody and do the best that I can for them—that may be relevant here, which is for you to judge. Many years ago, a similar debate was had around BAME and Muslim women who were fleeing domestic violence and getting accommodation in women’s refuges. In that space, their harms were being compounded because they did not have access to culturally sensitive food, and they did not have access to other women who were like them—people take comfort in having such a service.

The women were also victims of racism in that space, and when those issues were talked about, it was discovered that, “Yes, there is a practical way forward,” and solutions were looked at that accommodated everybody’s needs—our needs as BAME women are complex and nuanced. After that, women’s refuges were set up specifically for women from ethnic minorities so that they did not have to suffer the additional harm that is caused by racism in such a space. I hope that that gives the member some comfort that I take seriously and understand the complexities. My job as a minister is to balance that with as much fact as I can, to reassure people and to make sure that the letter of the law is being followed.

You have touched on the prison service, so I will bring in Cat McMeeken.

Yes. I do not understand the point that you wish me to address—I am sorry.