Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand that there might be differing perspectives between PSED duty bearers and equality organisations on the challenges of ensuring that the duty is as effective as possible. It is the responsibility of public authorities to properly comply with the duty, as well as with the relevant codes of practice and the other guidance that is published by the EHRC. I want to see more consistency in the compliance, and the expectation is that the PSED duty bearers should be embedding equality and human rights in their existing work. My responsibility is to ensure that we have strong scaffolding for that approach and to push for the cultural change that is needed to ensure that it is embedded.

I recognise that we all have that shared ambition, and it is important to remember that we are all trying to achieve the same thing and ensure that we get the right balance between the Government being supportive and ensuring that public authorities live up to their responsibilities in order to improve.

I confirm that, as I said in my opening statement, the work of the committee is incredibly valuable. You have taken a range of views, so taking on board your recommendations would be the responsible thing to do.

I agree that there is a need to be clearer and to have a more integrated approach to embedding equality into the work of all public bodies. I am not going to sit here and say that everything is hunky-dory. There are people in our communities who still face inequalities, and it is incumbent on us all to recognise that.

I stress that we are aware of the issue and that we are working on it very actively. I assure the committee, and I hope that I can demonstrate to it, that we are using all the levers that we can, which are probably more limited than we would like them to be; however, that is the nature of what we are working within.

Taking that integrated approach to embedding equality is important, and it applies to the PSED more broadly as well. That is why we will publish our equality and human rights mainstreaming strategy later this year.

On the issue of pay gap reporting in particular, in our consultation, most respondents were supportive about expanding reporting, but we need to do that in a way that makes a real difference. As I said, I accept that there is a disparity in perception around this. I am not minded to get public authorities and public bodies to gather data just for the sake of it. Data is very important, but we must triangulate the qualitative and the quantitative as well as lived experience and direct stakeholder engagement. That is the best way to make it robust.

Part of that is about recognising that you must take people with you. I understand and accept that some people will say that they have been doing such work for a while and that it is not going fast enough. However, we all recognise that it is a complex area. There are examples of public organisations that are already extending their reporting, voluntarily, to include disability and ethnicity data—the Scottish Government, for instance, does that voluntarily. We can learn from existing practice.

I will give you a general overview. There are technical reasons for that perceived change, which I will bring in my officials to explain.

We know that inclusive communication is fundamentally important to people’s use of public services, and that many people have diverse communication needs. That is why we are investing in the new guidance and tools to strengthen the public sector’s approach. My decision to pursue a non-regulatory route was informed by careful consideration of what I thought would make the biggest impact. That was the rationale behind my decision.

We identified that a new regulation might not drive the change that we wanted to see in the way that providing practical tools and support would do. That is always the number 1 ask whenever we make a demand on public authorities—they ask what support we will give them to enable them to do what we want them to do. It was a priority for us to make sure that they would get the support that they needed.

I am pleased to be able to share with the committee that Communication Inclusion People and Disability Equality Scotland are the leads on that work, and I welcome their partnership approach. When I met the project leads last week, I emphasised my support for the work that they are doing.

Our contractors intend to co-produce that work with people with diverse communication needs, including people who have lived and direct experience of communication exclusion, people with various disabilities and people with neurodivergence. I am excited about that work, and I hope that I will have the opportunity to update the committee as it develops. I am confident that the approach that we are taking will significantly change the ability of organisations to meet the needs of people with communication differences.

I will bring in Nick Bland to explain why the change was made with regard to the limits.

We are doing a double-hander today—I note that representatives from the EHRC were at the evidence session prior to this one.

The EHRC plays a crucial role in supporting and ensuring the implementation of the PSED in Scotland. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that the EHRC is—rightly—independent. As a reserved public body, its powers cannot be changed by the Scottish Parliament, nor can it be directed by Scottish ministers. It is not funded by the Scottish Government and we have no say in who it appoints to official positions.

Having said that, I also want to be clear that the relationship between the Scottish Government and the EHRC is built on our shared commitment to advancing equality, human rights and social justice across Scotland. We have a good working relationship at the ministerial level and at the official level.

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.