Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

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.