Seòmar agus comataidhean

:At the start of this evidence session, you talked about the four priorities, and I noted that one of those key goals, which drive all of the actions, is delivering high-quality, sustainable public services. The fact is that data and its recording matter; you mentioned non-binary people and the gender equality index, but when we look at four of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010—age, disability, sex and race—you might argue that the characteristics that people are most discriminated against on are age and disability.

There has been a decrease in even the most basic public services, such as loos, libraries and leisure centres. There is still a urinary leash; in fact, the number of local toilets and changing places has massively decreased, which is causing issues in rural areas. There has been a 16 per cent decrease in the number of libraries, which provide a safe space for people to go to where they can access information technology; they also provide warmth for people who need it during the day. The massive decrease in libraries was raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture last week. Risk assessments for leisure centres are not taking place against the protected characteristics of age, disability, sex and even race. You are looking at and collecting data on things that are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. If you cannot get the base data, how can you build and create positive outcomes?

:To address the most basic point, there is a cross-party group on changing places, and very little progress has been made on the issue. I acknowledge that there is a fund, but the number of toilets and changing places is decreasing in local areas—there is only one in the north-east, in Dundee station, and there is not one on the rest of the line. It means that if you are a 75-year-old woman who has dementia, for example, you cannot leave your home, because nowhere has such facilities. The reality is that if you are stuck at Laurencekirk station, there is no loo.

The feedback is that there is a huge disconnect when it comes to basic intersectional data on protected characteristics, and if you overlay what the Scottish Human Rights Commission has shared with us—it is in our report—you can see that data is not being collected on age, disability, sex or race. If you overlay rurality on to that, you can see that there is a massive issue.

Do you recognise that the basic data is not being collected across Scotland on those four protected characteristics, and that if you overlay rurality, it is definitely not being collected?

:So, that is Government funded, and there might be some requirement that those people spend time on legal aid cases.

:My next question is on something that my colleague Paul McLennan touched on, which is longer-term legal aid reform. It is difficult to say, because this is for the next parliamentary session, but have you stressed the point that reform is long overdue and needs to be looked at quickly?

:When we had the debate on legal aid in the chamber, we discussed the issue of women fleeing domestic abuse and the recommendation that the financial thresholds be removed. On the Scottish Legal Aid Board—or SLAB, which is an unfortunate word—there was heavy criticism of it and the bureaucracy involved. Have you addressed that issue with SLAB since we raised it in our debate?

:If the public sector was collecting data on four core protected characteristics—age, disability, sex and race—you would not be facing what you term “systemic discrimination”. We have just spoken about race, and you could say that race and religion are characteristics to address, which Maggie Chapman raised. I am adding age, disability and sex to that list. There is a massive disconnect with what the Scottish Government is measuring and reporting on, because being non-binary is not a protected characteristic, and neither is gender. You cannot manage what you do not measure.

Why do you not go back to the nine protected characteristics to look at age, disability, sex and race on an intersectional basis and at the basic services that you are providing? Last week, the committee published a report on the huge issues related to rural discrimination. You just have to look at maternity services in the Highlands and in the northern end of Scotland to see that women are being discriminated against in those areas. We are also not providing public sector loos, which discriminates against disabled people.

Both women with disabilities and women of a certain age are being discriminated against, but the Scottish Government is not collecting the data and is not requiring local government to do so. How can you measure positive outcomes if you are not even looking at the basic data?

I am a Scottish Conservative MSP for the North East region.

I am a member of the committee from the Scottish Conservatives, representing the North East Scotland region.

Thank you. I hear you about the importance of transparency, accountability and spend. This is the first document that has brought those things together in one place, which makes it is easier to come back and ask questions.

I want to drill down into one specific line: item 31, on violence against women and girls. I am looking at the sheet in front of me. On violence against women and girls, the work has a score of 1, which is “exceptional”. That row has scores that are all exceptional or positive. When I look at that in relation to the performance on equality and human rights for women, I see a disconnect, given the current reality for women and girls in Scotland. Are you saying that you view the fund for the 100 or so organisations that you are giving the money to as exceptional or that the outcomes in terms of tackling violence against women and girls are exceptional? I would like to understand that in more detail.

I hear you, cabinet secretary. Thank you for that clarification, because when organisations look at this, they just go, “Oh my goodness, the Scottish Government is marking its own homework.”

My next question is linked to that budget sheet, which people are looking at in terms of outcomes. One of the criticisms of the equalities fund is that it is very siloed and does not work across the different cabinet secretaries’ portfolios. Last week, on 21 January, in a debate that started off in the Education, Children and Young People Committee, a criticism was raised about the Scottish Government funding of LGBT Youth Scotland.

You said that every pound that is spent has to have the greatest possible benefit, and I agree with you on that. Can you confirm whether you are content for the public money that is spent on LGBT Youth Scotland to go to an organisation that helped to draft the “Supporting transgender pupils in schools” guidance, despite professional warnings of safeguarding risks, parental exclusion and legal exposure for schools, and in the light of the fresh safeguarding allegations now facing LGBT Youth Scotland? Is that money well spent, cabinet secretary?