Chamber and committees

It is fair enough to ask the questions, Ms Gosal. I have respectfully listened to that question and I have given you an answer. Any discussions about the law with regard to any court cases are best conducted within that court setting. It is only right that they are discussed there and that is fair to both sides—to the litigants and to the presenters.

The preparations for developing the third equality evidence strategy are under way and we expect a draft of the strategy to be ready for consultation by late November 2026, with a view to publishing the final strategy by March 2027. The third equality evidence strategy will be designed collaboratively with Government analysts, policy makers and external organisations, including public authorities and bodies that are interested in improving equality evidence.

The priorities for the third evidence strategy will be shaped through the evaluation of the second strategy, a stakeholder engagement process and an internal audit of Scottish Government data sets. Initial engagement suggests that some areas from the second strategy will remain a priority, such as encouraging opportunities to further intersectional analysis.

An evaluation of the Scottish Government’s current evidence strategy, from 2023 to 2025, is now under way and is due for publication in spring 2026. That evaluation will provide an assessment of improvements to the equality evidence base and identify areas for improvement to take forward as part of the next strategy.

That is a good question to highlight. The Scotland-specific duties have a complex framework, and listed authorities in Scotland already have multiple mandated reporting cycles to balance. If reporting cycles change for the SSDs, that could impact the others. They are all interrelated, and that could cause duplication, increased administrative load or misalignment with other statutory processes.

Many factors have to be carefully considered if we are to streamline the reporting process. Reporting cycles often align with regulatory requirements, governance frameworks, funding timetables, for instance, or indeed cross-departmental collaboration. Any adjustments, therefore, would require careful consideration and clear communication to avoid confusion or misalignment. Of course, we have stakeholders who rely on reports for operational planning, and they might well resist changes if the new cycles make it harder for them to forecast and monitor performance.

11:45

Managing those expectations is essential to minimise disruption and maintain trust. As we continue to take a phased approach to PSED improvement, we will carefully consider how the reporting cycle could be improved, and that will include consideration of possible alignment with the reporting requirements related to the new human rights bill, for instance.

For completeness, one further complexity to note is that different public bodies have come on stream as duty bearers at different times, meaning that there is no single set of reporting dates. That is also a factor that we would consider in any reviews of cycles.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, we have been clear that we accept that judgment, and the Government is taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the judgment. I remind the committee that it is the statutory role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to monitor and enforce compliance with the Equality Act 2010, given that it is the regulator of that act. I have been clear that we expect everyone to follow the law. There is no ambiguity about that whatsoever. I have said that repeatedly in my answers in the chamber and, indeed, in front of this committee.

The Supreme Court ruling provided clarification, but it did not say anything about the how, in that sense. As part of the work that we have been undertaking to scrutinise the judgment and ensure that everything aligns, a working group has been established. It was originally known as a short-life working group, but the work is taking more time, so it is now known as a working group. The group, which is convened by the permanent secretary, was established to consider the implications of the Supreme Court judgment in areas such as legislation, guidance and policy.

It might be helpful for me to give a summary update of the work that we have undertaken—I know that you would be very interested in that. The Government is often asked what we have done. Some people say that we have done nothing, but I do not believe that that is true at all. We have made progress in what is quite an extensive area. The EHRC acknowledges that we are talking about a huge estate. There are many areas to consider, and we are proceeding through the work systematically.

To date, the Scottish Government has updated its guidance on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. We have amended the public appointments recruitment process for public bodies that are subject to that act, with data on biological sex at birth now being collated and used. We have introduced an interim trans and non-binary inclusion policy for Scottish Government staff, and we have removed a line regarding facilities use while we develop new policy and guidance in consultation with trade unions.

We have published revised guidance on supporting transgender pupils in schools, and we recognise that the EHRC is reviewing technical guidance for schools. We have advanced joint work with Police Scotland, with a public consultation on the stop and search code of practice to be issued shortly.

We have also actively engaged with health boards. On 30 September 2025, the director of the health workforce wrote to health boards to reinforce the importance of ensuring that the law is followed and that the Supreme Court judgment is implemented. However, the application of the law following the Supreme Court ruling remains a matter for boards, in accordance with their legal advice.

Furthermore, we conducted an initial review of facilities across the Scottish Government estate, and a more detailed review is now under way to ensure that our provision meets the needs of staff and the legal requirements. Our approach is focused on ensuring accuracy and clarity, so that we avoid unnecessary complexity or confusion at a time of heightened public debate.

12:15

You mentioned legal challenges, which can come from all directions. People have the right to test the law through legal challenges, and we all support everybody’s legal rights in that regard. However, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court stated that its ruling should not be seen as a victory for one group over another. We must also be cognisant that everyone, across all the protected characteristics, has rights. We are following the law—I have made that clear, and I emphasise again that I expect everybody to follow the law—but we must not exclude people from accessing their basic rights. We need to find a way forward in which everybody’s human rights are protected, because I am sure that nobody on this committee would want one group to be excluded, marginalised and so on for the sake of another group. I believe that we can find solutions to this.

Our equality and human rights fund continues to advance equality for those with protected characteristics, and we support 47 organisations that make a difference to people’s lives. That of course includes working with a range of LGBTQI+ organisations to help shape policy and practice in order to improve outcomes for LGBTQI+ communities. This is particularly important at a time when we are seeing a rise in attacks against the members of that community. These organisations receive funding to create lasting improvements in the lives of LGBTQI+ people in Scotland, including the funding that is being referred to, providing funding to LGBT health and wellbeing to support their LGBTQI+ helpline, which provides emotional support and information to LGBTQI+ people.

I have said to the committee before that we are talking about 0.44 per cent of the population here, a very small body of people, who can often be mischaracterised, misrepresented and draw quite a disproportionate scrutiny on their lives, which has a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. For instance, that helpline saw a spike—and I cannot remember off the top of my head what the percentage was—of calls from people who were vulnerable and considering suicide, for instance. That is horrendous. We are funding that suicide support helpline in order to reach the very people who are in the spotlight and need that support.

Through the funding, we have also commenced initiatives such as supporting the ending of conversion practices through legislative and non-legislative measures, advancing non-binary equalities, supporting policy development for LGBTQI+ people, and research into the lives of those within those communities.

All organisations that receive Scottish Government funding are subject to monitoring and evaluation to ensure that they are meeting their stated outcomes. We have no concerns about the performance of LGBTQI+ organisations in delivering those outcomes for the communities they represent. I can reassure you that we fund specific pieces of work that I have outlined and we fund organisations that do many things, such as organisations in the disability field. We procure certain services from those disabled people’s organisations, which they deliver for us and which achieve the aims that we want to achieve, and then they do their other work as well—

With respect, that question would be better asked of the minister for sport, who would have more in-depth knowledge. However, I would like to offer a short view, just to provide you with some reassurance of my understanding around this, especially when it comes to women from an ethnic minority not exclusively intersectional with communities of faith.

I have had representations from Muslim women and young girls who wish to have single-sex swimming sessions in order to make sure that they learn to swim—which is really important. I remember from way back, when we did not have advanced thinking on this, thinking that everyone should be entitled to be able to learn to swim. Sadly, I was excluded. I was not allowed to attend swimming classes when I was at school, and I know that I carried that with me, because I was never a confident swimmer. It is something that I am very aware of through my own lived experience.

What I always encourage people to do—and I have given advice to constituents who have come to me and made representations—is ensure that they work with the people who are in charge of the leisure centre, whoever that may be, whether it is the local authority or whoever, to make sure that a balance can be struck so that there is space in the timetabling, or whatever the logistics are, to have protected sessions in which whoever wishes to have a safe space in which to learn to swim, in this particular example, is able to do that. There is an overarching need for that in terms of health and safety, as being able to stop yourself from drowning is a life skill.

I sympathise with where you are coming from, and my view is that all the protected characteristics deserve the same right. I refer you back to what I said earlier: it should not be seen as a competition between either. If your intention is to include, which it should be, then we should do so. However, we recognise that there are times when people need those spaces in order to be themselves, whether it is while learning to swim or whatever. We are able to do that.

I would like to briefly comment on that. You are addressing your remarks and registering your dissent to me. However—

On that backdrop, I would add that, in my role as Minister for Equalities, visible leadership is key to driving change. I know that that is an area of interest for the committee. I believe that I have consistently demonstrated leadership to ensure that public bodies have strong awareness of the requirements of the PSED, and that we all do, because it is a shared endeavour across all public sector bodies to tackle inequality across Scotland.

I am sure that we will come on to questions about building strong awareness in public bodies of how important equality is for our society, paired with an understanding based on robust data and reporting, where public bodies still have some way to go.

I can expand on the bit about providing leadership on mainstreaming. In my opening remarks, I referred to the suite that we have published, which is extensive, and to using regulations 11 and 12 of the 2012 regulations. I have also taken part in relation to equality outcomes. The Scottish Government is leading by example. We are responsible for setting our own equality outcomes, but we have done that in workshops, bringing in stakeholders and creating those outcomes together. Obviously, it is incumbent on all public sector organisations to set their own equality outcomes. Doing it together and having that shared understanding builds that.

I will bring in Nick Bland briefly.

If I am honest, we do not talk about it enough. There is no doubt that we do talk about it, but I share your frustrations about that, especially at a time when we are seeing quite divisive rhetoric playing out in public discourse that is pitting groups against one another. That is not helpful at all. I have reflected on this in my role as minister. Given that polarisation, I have reflected on the leadership role that I have. I certainly do my absolute best to make sure that all discourse is conducted respectfully, being mindful that we are protecting everybody across the protected characteristics. I have said to the committee before that it is not about a hierarchy of needs, and it is not a pick and mix either.

Before I go into detail on what we have done in the area, I note the responsibility that we all have—all of us in this room—as public sector workers. At every level, all of us who work for the public have a duty to foster good relations. It is incumbent on us all to reflect on how we are conducting ourselves and what we are doing to make sure that we foster good relations between the people that we serve. We need to be mindful of that.

This year, we have provided £7.9 million of funding across third sector organisations to support anti-racism work, interfaith dialogue, hate crime prevention, and asylum and refugee integration projects. Part of that investment is the work that I mentioned in my opening remarks on establishing the Anti-Racism Observatory for Scotland, which is a national centre for excellence to tackle structural racism and promote inclusion. It is anticipated that, once AROS is fully operational later this year, it will focus on developing strategic partnerships across all sectors to collaboratively embed anti-racism change. That will include working collectively with third sector organisations to ensure that lived experience and co-production are at the heart of driving that meaningful change.

I am very mindful of the tensions that can arise when people maybe feel that their standard of living has plateaued and resources can be scarce. My opinion is that we all have more in common and that, actually, we all want the same thing. We all want access to good public services. We all want to feel a sense of belonging, to be included, not to be discriminated against, and to have equality. In order to enhance community cohesion in that space, I was able to secure £300,000 of additional funding that will directly support the community cohesion work and projects—I hope that they will be mainly grass-roots projects—in the heart of our communities that build strong, connected, resilient communities across the country. As far as I am concerned, that is a must have.