Chamber and committees

I assure you that we keep in mind the aim of securing benefits for communities in everything that we do. Sometimes, that means that we have to decide to realign things so that they fit together better and run more smoothly. I am constantly trying to embed communication, integration and mainstreaming.

As Rob Priestley has said, the restructuring was an internal civil service process. Departments were realigned to ensure that my expectations are realised to the best effect and with the greatest efficiency. As always, that process will be evaluated to ensure that it is having the impact that we want it to have. The ultimate aim is to benefit communities.

I would just like to clarify this. Ms White, are you referring to historical—

No, we are not. We increased the funding for the delivery of our equally safe strategy by £2.4 million, which will bring it up to a total of £21.6 million, subject to the approval of the budget. We recognise the increased need in that area. I confirm that that is part of our commitment to the fairer funding approach. I heard loudly and clearly that people want multiyear funding in order to stabilise their services and their workforce, and all the rest of it.

It is frustrating when we announce uplifts and they are taken away. The uplifts have not had the effect that we would like, because we had an increase in employer national insurance contributions, for example, which is the ultimate frustration.

We currently support 115 projects from 107 organisations that cover every local authority in Scotland.

I just want to highlight a wee example that might help. The child poverty tagging pilot study found that high-impact lines span multiple portfolios, as has been said, and cluster around a small number of primary child poverty drivers, including social security, household income support, income from employment and parental employability, and early learning and childcare. That gives an indication of how you can start to track things across portfolios.

Something else that we should remember about budget tagging is that, although we absolutely want to follow the money, we need to ensure that we prioritise the areas where we can have the biggest impact. I mentioned child poverty, because tackling that is one of the Government’s key drivers, and we need to ensure that we consider the tagging and the evidence in that respect quite deeply and scrutinise it rigorously so that we can have a better outcome and can evidence that outcome in a better way. My concern is that we are asked to budget tag everything, because I think that the effect would be diluted.

I totally understand that frustration. That is why I think that it has been a massive step to have Cabinet takeovers, with the people who are responsible for every portfolio in a room at the same time, given the example of the crossover that you gave about bus services and employability services. As I have said to the committee previously, and as the cabinet secretary has mentioned, part of my equalities role involves ensuring that people come out of their silos and get the best information possible, so that they know the impact of one budget line on another.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to the committee. I value the committee’s continued engagement and its scrutiny, which matters because embedding equality, inclusion and human rights in budget decisions and across the Government is core business, not a one-off task. It requires sustained leadership, strong capability and clear accountability for decisions and outcomes. I believe that we have shown that in this year’s budget.

As the Minister for Equalities, I am clear about my responsibility. I am personally accountable for driving the mainstreaming of equality and human rights across the Government. That means providing visible leadership, setting clear expectations and supporting—or, when necessary, challenging—ministerial colleagues to ensure that those considerations are built into decision making from the outset and that they directly influence decisions rather than being added on afterwards.

To strengthen delivery, I have worked collaboratively with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and colleagues across portfolios. Through one-to-one engagement and earlier ministerial involvement in the budget process, we are deliberately changing how we work. The focus is now on up-front assessment of impacts, clearer articulation of the trade-offs and more transparent explanation of decisions. That shift is essential if we want equality and human rights to shape, rather than simply describe, budget decisions.

The recently published equality and human rights mainstreaming action plan is a key enabler of that change. It moves us beyond aspiration by setting out practical, measurable actions to strengthen leadership, improve accountability and transparency, and better align evidence, capability and culture. By bringing the actions together in a simple framework, it will improve consistency across portfolios, sharpen accountability for progress and support earlier, more systematic consideration of impacts so that resources can be targeted where we can make the biggest difference.

We have already made improvements to how evidence informs budget decisions, and we have improved how those decisions are communicated, informed by the equality and human rights budget advisory group and, of course, the committee’s recommendations. As the cabinet secretary has already stated, SPICe has acknowledged those improvements and noted that the overall approach shows the clear link between strategic aims and spending that stakeholders have been asking for.

However, I am not complacent; there is absolutely more to do. I remain committed to listening and learning and making continuous improvements, and to working with the committee and stakeholders to strengthen transparency, accountability and outcomes for the people of Scotland.

As I outlined in my opening remarks, the changes that we have made demonstrate more transparency—that has been recognised. We are spending £72 million to promote equality, tackle discrimination, foster inclusion and embed human rights across the public sector to deliver better outcomes for all of Scotland’s people.

There has been some reprofiling of level 4 lines to reflect that restructuring, rather than substantive budget changes. I will give some examples. The refugee and resettlement line has replaced the Ukrainian resettlement line. That now includes the cost of the new Scots strategy, which is being taken forward by the asylum and refugee integration team, which sits alongside the Ukraine team in that division. We have committed more than £12 million to delivery of the new Scots integration strategy. As well as supporting families who have children who have been medically evacuated from Gaza, we are supporting Ukrainians who have sought safety in Scotland.

Similarly, the mainstreaming and inclusion division line has been amended to include the Anti-Racism Observatory for Scotland. The costs for the strategic anti-racism and AROS team were moved from the equality division to sit under mainstreaming and inclusion. In addition, the disability equality plan costs were moved from the equality division to the human rights division, to which the disability team and its work were moved this year. For all those areas, the total operating costs and staffing costs have been recalculated to reflect the new structure.

I recognise that. I think that we all recognise that we are operating in very difficult financial circumstances. I am sure that the cabinet secretary can develop that further and provide a more detailed and bigger picture.

The equality and human rights fund plays an important role. I absolutely recognise that the organisations that we fund through it deliver vital support. I put on record that we value and appreciate the work that those organisations do. Despite the increasing challenges, our third sector partners continue to provide essential support to communities across Scotland, which I absolutely value.

Scotland’s public finances continue to face a challenging fiscal environment, with public services having to meet growing demands despite increasingly challenging settlements. I know that the Government has been consistently clear on the extent of the challenges that are faced, with successive budgets and medium-term financial strategies highlighting the choices and trade-offs that I mentioned in my opening remarks, which are necessary to deliver a balanced and sustainable position.

I do not know whether the cabinet secretary would like to come in at this point.

Absolutely. To reiterate, generally, the funding helps to ensure that all vulnerable groups continue to receive support and that they get information and advocacy, and all of that has to be undertaken within the framework of the law. I make it clear, as I did to the committee previously when I was asked the same question, that third sector organisations are not funded by us to promote the Government’s views at all. We fund them specifically to provide services to vulnerable people and communities. All of our grant offer letters specify that funds are not to be used for any party-political reasons or for any other purpose.

Many organisations undertake other work. I will not name any other organisations, because inevitably that leads to pile-ons and brings attention to organisations, as has happened to the particular organisation that Tess White mentioned quite frequently. What that organisation does and how it raises money for other things is a different matter; my concern and the Government’s concern is to procure specific things.

I have mentioned previously that I visited LGBT Youth Scotland recently and spoke to the young people and to parents and staff. The advocacy and information that people receive through the services that we specifically pay for—I cannot speak about anything else; only what we pay for—have literally been life saving for some. The services have literally saved lives. For instance, that has included support for folks who might have suicidal ideation or support in getting access to healthcare—all of that kind of stuff is going on. Especially at a time when the trans community, which makes up 0.44 per cent of the population, is under enormous scrutiny, and when there is heightened debate in public discourse and all the rest of it, I would understand if people were asking for increased funding, considering that the demand is increasing because of the increasing vulnerability of and attacks on the trans community. The demand is increasing in that sense.

I always get confused about this: is it “Aspiring”?