Yes.

I do not have a breakdown of the figures, because there are many rape crisis centres around the country. However, I can reassure Pam Gosal that there is increased funding, and there is multi-year funding. The need for more sustainable funding has been the biggest issue that rape crisis centres have raised with me, and we are acting on that.

I reiterate some of the cabinet secretary’s views. Ms Gosal, you mention the word “failure”, along with an increase in reporting. I would have thought that having mechanisms that have increased reporting is some sign of success—it means that women are able to come forward and report, and that they have faith in a system that is more responsive.

There are many elements to the issue of domestic abuse, and we must not, in a bid to apportion blame, forget where the blame actually lies. It lies in deep-rooted misogynistic behaviours, and that is what we need to be looking at. The rise in domestic violence around the world is absolutely appalling, and it is not Governments that are to blame—the blame lies in the misogynistic, abusive behaviour and coercive control that is demonstrated by men. We must remember that.

We know that disabled people face significant structural barriers to employment and that we need to do more to support those individuals to enter and remain in sustainable employment.

With regard to our programme for government commitment and our commitment to halve the disability employment gap, specialist employability support for disabled people is now in place across all 32 local authorities, to ensure that more disabled people and those with long-term conditions can access fair and sustainable work. The cabinet secretary mentioned the no one left behind plan, and we have seen progress with the disabled people’s aspects of that.

In the local employability partnerships, in 2023-24, 27 per cent of participants reported being disabled and 40 per cent reported at least one long-term health condition. By 2024-25, those figures had risen to 33 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively. There has therefore been an improvement in participation, but I accept that there is more to do. I hope that that gives an indication that the trends are showing real progress in reaching and supporting disabled people.

The recommendations that you are referring to relate to the employability case study, which provided detailed recommendations in specific areas. In my letter of 19 January to the committee, I responded to the committee’s pre-budget report and laid out my detailed answer to those specific recommendations. However, I have the opportunity to highlight a few key points from that letter.

First, we now have a national customer charter that has been co-designed with people with lived experience of employability support, and that sets consistent service expectations across all 32 LEPs. Secondly, the refreshed local employability partnership framework has made it clear that those LEPs are required to undertake the design of services with the involvement of people with lived experience, in line with our wider commitment, through employability policy, to embed the Scottish approach to service design.

Finally, our employability strategic plan for 2024 to 2027 sets out our commitment to develop a national evaluation plan and effective ways to ensure that the voice of lived experience informs continuous improvement at national and local levels. As part of that, we have recently commissioned independent research to explore the experiences of people who have accessed services that are funded through the no one left behind fund. That project, which is scheduled to be completed during summer 2026, will help to shape policy on the development and delivery of employability services.

The principle of participation is really important to us. We are just about to head off to an important participatory process—the takeover of Cabinet by disabled people’s organisations—which will build on the previous takeover of Cabinet by children and young people, who were able to directly express their views early enough in a process in order to influence decision making.

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.

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.

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.