Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

I have met many women who have suffered from domestic violence. I have visited—[Interruption.]—Rape Crisis Scotland, for instance. Forgive my hesitation; I was trying to think of the different organisations that I have met. I have spoken directly to those women and I think that the most important thing is that the service is based around the survivor and their needs. The law is quite clear that actions must be reasonable and proportionate. I have answered questions on that and my statement is on record. However, I can flesh it out a bit by saying that, of course, it should be person centred. If we take a human rights approach and look at the human who is in front of us, we can find ways around problems; that must be the starting point.

I do not know for a fact that they are not. I cannot sit here and say that about every single hospital or local board. I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect me to have that information here and now. However, I will refer you to my earlier comments. If we start with dignity and fairness, and if we ensure that the measures that we take are proportionate, we can accommodate. Nobody, from any community at all, should be forced into an undignified position. I am very clear on that, and always have been, wherever it might happen on the public estate.

I will have that conversation with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I have made my position on that very clear several times in the chamber. We expect everyone to be following the equality act as well as the health and safety regulations. The position is absolutely clear.

They are.