Chamber and committees

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.

That is a really good question. I will not name any specific organisations, but I will give a general overview. I have visited a wide variety of organisations that are based in the heart of our communities. One reason why I will not mention names is that, unfortunately, some groups have drawn negative attention and been targeted as a result of the work that they have done in relation to anti-racism, for example, so I want to avoid that.

When I ask such organisations how we reach the people we need to reach—those who feel disenfranchised—I am reassured by the fact that the organisations are based in the heart of communities. That is one reason why STV, not the Government, is distributing the fund. It has extensive networks and is very experienced in doing such work, in creating new opportunities and in enhancing current ones.

The organisations gave me the example of outreach workers, who go into the heart of communities and communicate with people wherever the touch points are. People are bound to attend a centre of some sort, whether it is a leisure centre, a general practitioner surgery or a shopping centre. Those outreach workers have conservations in which people can express their concerns or views, and they can signpost those people to services or have difficult conversations with them. That is very skilled work. Some people might be applying for £50 from the fund, whereas others might be applying for much more. There is no prerequisite, because I want the fund to be as flexible, responsive and accessible as possible so that we can reach the very people you are talking about.

We have made it very clear, as I have said—thank you for the opportunity to restate it again—that the Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Court ruling. We expect everyone to comply with the law.

The PSED was introduced due to the desire to see tangible improvements for our society. That positive vision is clearly set out in the three underlying goals that I mentioned. Since the PSED was created as part of the Equality Act 2010, we have seen significant improvements to some groups’ experiences of equalities and rights. For example, we now have equal marriage, stronger hate crime laws, new domestic abuse laws, a more robust approach to using equality evidence and significantly more investment in equality groups.

However, as the PSED is a due regard duty, it procedural. It cannot be used to require public bodies to act in certain ways beyond what might be provided under the Scotland-specific duties which are in themselves restricted due to the “due regard” part of the duty.

It might be helpful for the committee to understand the interactions and complexities, so I will bring in Vuyi Stutley.

Just to help you—I did actually see that bit.

Apologies, convener. I was invited to come between 11 and 12, so I scheduled an extra half hour on top of that, and we are now over that as well. If there are any further questions that members feel they need answers to, the committee can—as always—write to me, and I will be happy to supply the information in writing.