The needs and safety of survivors of rape and sexual assault must be the utmost priority of support services. As the report makes clear, it is totally unacceptable that survivors were let down by a core failure of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre to deliver services to national service standards. The report highlights important areas where action is needed to ensure that survivors can confidently continue to access support from Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. I welcome the intention of the centre’s board to implement all the recommendations.

The employment decisions of ERCC are a matter for its board, and I cannot comment on individual cases. I hope that the board and the interim chief executive who is now in place can be given the space to continue to rebuild the service and confidence in it.

Rape Crisis Scotland continues to provide a service. Mr Choudhury is correct in saying that no external referrals are being taken, but women can self-refer.

I reiterate that violence against women is a fundamental violation of human rights and is totally unacceptable. We must root that out and tackle the toxic masculinity and gender inequality that lead to violent harassment, misogyny and abuse against women. We should stand against it and call it out when we see it.

I am very sympathetic to the needs of survivors, and I believe that they should have their needs put before anything else. I think that I have stated that quite clearly.

I remind the Parliament that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was not, in fact, enacted.

The Scottish Government strongly supports the separate and single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act 2010, which allow trans people to be excluded when that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is service providers’ responsibility to interpret and comply with the 2010 act.

We would expect the wishes of survivors about the sex of their support worker to be followed. I am pleased that the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre board has publicly stated that single-sex provision has been reintroduced at the centre.

The Scottish Government’s population strategy, which was published in 2021, includes a more balanced work strand that focuses on ensuring that our population is sustainably distributed. That work strand recognises the pressures of both population growth and depopulation.

Last year, our ministerial population task force considered exploratory research to expand our evidence base with regard to the drivers and challenges of population growth, the findings of which will inform future policy development.

We continue to work closely with local authorities. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are members of the population programme board and jointly chair the local government population round table.

Work is on-going. We take the issue very seriously and our population programme considers the challenges of population growth, as I mentioned. It has been a key consideration for the population round table, which, as I said, is jointly chaired by the Scottish Government, COSLA and representatives from all local authorities. I would be happy to meet Mr Briggs to discuss the issues that he raises in more detail.

The ministerial task force will continue to consider taking appropriate steps to address those challenges, in collaboration with key partners such as local authorities.

Our affordable housing supply programme investment in Edinburgh has been at a record level over the first three years of the parliamentary session, at £160 million. The allocation for the city of Edinburgh for this financial year is £34.9 million. Nationally, efforts to boost affordable housing supply by acquiring properties to bring into use for affordable housing and to help to reduce homelessness have been given an uplift of £80 million over the next two years. We have allocated a further £14.8 million to Edinburgh, raising the allocation to the city this year to more than £49 million. We recognise the City of Edinburgh Council’s strong track record of affordable housing delivery and we continue to work very closely with it to maximise affordable housing.

I can understand that. Disabled people have multiple barriers. I communicate regularly with our disabled people’s organisations and hear directly not only from them but from those with lived experience. Last week, the First Minister and I met the disabled people’s organisations to hear from them directly.

I recognise the reality of the multiple barriers that disabled people face. The issue is systemic and has been historically. Although the Scottish Government has been taking action on benefits and on the independent living fund, for instance, I cannot help but refer to the cost of living crisis and the impact of austerity. Although we are trying to help as much as possible, we have, in certain ways, a hand tied behind our back. The effects of the supports and policies that we can put in place are diluted by the erosion of the financial landscape due to austerity.

Therefore, I can absolutely understand why there would be support for a commissioner. As I said, we have already taken action to address that poverty in a wider context, because we cannot forget that the issues are also intersectional. For example, disabled people’s lives are affected by housing, access to transport, education and employability. Therefore, it is a multifaceted picture, so I am absolutely sympathetic. Progress has been made, but I absolutely recognise that there is much more to do. There is healthy discussion and debate around whether a commissioner is the vehicle for that.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for your invitation to contribute to the evidence session on this member’s bill. It would be remiss of me not to note that sitting on this side of the table is an interesting viewpoint, having been on the other side of it at one point.

I start by recognising and thanking Jeremy Balfour for the attention that he has drawn to disabled people’s equality through the bill. We are acutely aware of the exceptionally challenging times that disabled people in Scotland are living through. Disabled people continue to be impacted by the cost of living crisis that is gripping the United Kingdom and, alongside facing higher costs of living, a great many are being pushed into deepening poverty. I take the opportunity to recognise the unstinting work of disabled people’s organisations and communities across Scotland in tackling those challenges.

I share Jeremy Balfour’s intentions in introducing the bill. Improving the lives of disabled people and furthering disability equality are priorities for this Government, committed as we are to delivering a fairer Scotland for all.

As the Minister for Equalities, I have a key role in considering the possible implications of legislative proposals that fall within my portfolio. I am happy to share my learning and understanding in order to support the committee’s scrutiny of the bill.

Tackling the challenges that disabled people face is a collective responsibility and it requires a shared commitment across the public, private and third sectors. To secure real change, we must focus resource and opportunity where they are needed most.

We have concerns about a few of the bill’s provisions, which are currently being scrutinised, and we are considering very carefully the establishment of a disability commissioner and whether that is the right vehicle through which to achieve the change. The most significant concern that the Scottish Government has is the potential for the bill to simply duplicate functions that are already undertaken by existing bodies. As well as possibly being inefficient use of public money, that risks causing a lack of legal certainty and making it less clear to disabled people whom they can turn to for help.

Although the commissioner would have a single focus on disabled people’s rights, there are a few commissions that protect the rights of disabled people, including the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is notable that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has raised concerns about the potential weakening of its mandate that could be caused by the proliferation of commissioners.

That links closely to another key concern—the content and timing of the bill. There is already, in Scotland, a complex commissioner landscape which, as the committee knows, is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Part of the inquiry’s remit is to consider whether a more strategic approach is needed to the creation of commissioners in Scotland. Whatever that committee’s recommendations will be, its report will surely require significant consideration by the Parliament and further dialogue with Government and other stakeholders. Given that context, it seems to be inadvisable to bring a new commissioner into an already complex environment at this time.

To add further context to our position, the Scottish Government is preparing to publish the first phase of a disability equality plan that is aimed at tackling the systemic barriers that affect the daily lives of disabled people and impact on disability poverty. The plan, which has been developed in partnership with disabled people’s organisations, will bring about significant progress in advancing disability equality. Setting up a disability commissioner could divert resources from that valuable work without there being an evidence base to suggest that it would be an effective way of achieving change.

Although we have concerns about the bill, our commitment to furthering equality means that I remain open to hearing alternative views. I reiterate our commitment to greatly improving the position of disabled people in Scottish society, and I extend an invitation to Mr Balfour to discuss those shared aims.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

As I said, the Scottish Government absolutely supports the aims of the bill in relation to improving the lives of disabled people and is absolutely committed to furthering disability equality. However, it is only reasonable that we would have legitimate concerns about the content of the bill and whether establishing a disability commissioner is the most feasible and effective way to achieve that necessary change.

I am carefully looking at the potential for duplication of functions. There are existing bodies: there is already a complex commissioner landscape and there could be limitations in respect of how far the approach provides value for money and efficiency. Mr Balfour’s bill also refers to the Equality Act 2010 definition of “disability” and “disabled person”, so there are potential issues around the Parliament’s legislative competence in the area, as well.

However, we are absolutely open to exploring whether there is a need for a commissioner. It is up to the Scottish Parliament to do that and that is what we are doing.