Chamber and committees

I have a quick follow-on question, and I want to hear from Dr Malik as well.

One good bit about Scotland is that everybody knows everybody and, sometimes, one of the downsides is that everybody knows everybody. In a business context, how can we avoid groupthink and always keep the perspective fresh, particularly on the significant drivers of change?

A witness at one of our sessions, Tony Rodgers from Emtelle UK Ltd, had what I think all members felt was an entirely refreshing approach. It felt to us that Government will often go to the same old same old, not because they are not good—I am not dismissing anybody—but because that is easier. It is quite hard work to find the voices with a fresh perspective. Often those voices are from businesses that are taking risk and that are quite small—they could be spinouts from a university.

Given that we need to be at the head of the queue with some of the drivers, what are your plans within this cultural shift to embed that fresh perspective in Government? After you have answered, Deputy First Minister, I will bring in Dr Malik.

This is where I am coming from. You mentioned the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, and I think that you recognise that there is an obligation to meet those regulations over and above the Equality Act 2010. You have referred to the fact that those regulations state that there must be “separate” toilet facilities “for men and women” except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside, and separate changing rooms where needed “for reasons of propriety”.

Are you completely 100 per cent comfortable that you are working within the 1992 regulations? Indeed, it might be useful for us to know how many of the facilities meet the requirements of those regulations, relative to the number of women in the civil service. Are you completely certain that you are meeting the 1992 regulations, which require that each toilet is in a separate room that is lockable from the inside?

So, the only facilities that provide a reliable alternative to de facto mixed-sex provision are fairly limited, by definition—

Are you reassessing your legal advice just now, in the light of the number of cases that are coming out of public bodies, to ensure that the employment law element of it is absolutely on point? Are you actively doing that at the moment?

I see that there is clearly the potential for tension in relation to the elected role of ministers.

You will know that the civil service’s total operating costs have routinely been overspent by around 10 per cent in recent years. If ministers have limited potential to do something about that—it is a dialogue-type situation—but you retain ultimate accountability, that would seem to be a problem.

I have questions relating to the Scottish Government’s responsibilities as an employer and potential exposure to costly legal action. It cannot have escaped your notice that quite a few—the list is piling up—public bodies are falling foul of overreach on gender self-identification, despite that not being the law.

I have a quick yes or no question first. I assume that you have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Scottish Government, as an employer, complies with the law.

Is it in the public domain that the women’s development network allows men to self-identify as women?

I have actual examples—I could perhaps help you if you cannot think of any. Might you be forgetting about changing rooms and toilets, Lesley, which you referenced? The trans and non-binary equality and inclusion policy, most recently re-issued in 2023, states that

“trans staff should choose to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with”—

in other words, that they self-identify into. Do you accept that that means that any facilities—for example, changing rooms and toilets—that are stated as being for women only in the Scottish Government are therefore, in practice, mixed sex?

It would be useful to understand the relative weighting in the development of a multitude of EqIAs and how you assess that all protected characteristics are recognised.

I have a final question on a completely different area—before the convener interrupts me. There was quite a spat between you and the Scottish Information Commissioner over FOI 193/2024, which was to do with James Hamilton’s report. I want to assure myself about whether there were any other lingering issues that might come back to bite Joe Griffin in the future. In the light of all the outstanding freedom of information requests, if the Scottish Information Commissioner were here, would he describe himself as content with the status of all the FOIs before you move on from the Scottish Government?

I just wanted to check, before you move on and Joe Griffin comes in, for his sake, that there are no stink bombs awaiting him in the form of outstanding actions from the Scottish Information Commissioner.