I will deal with the minimum core requirements. I recall that, when I was convener of the committee, I asked questions of Government representatives regarding the minimum core, so I take a special interest in that.

We understand the minimum core as the most fundamental requirements of social, economic and cultural rights, such as the right to adequate food, housing and healthcare, that every state must uphold at all times, irrespective of resources. The Scottish Human Rights Commission promotes those concepts within the context of a potential human rights bill that will aim to incorporate certain international treaties in domestic law to ensure that everyone in Scotland can access those essential rights.

We understand that minimum core obligations fall into two categories. The first concerns the budget process, in relation to which they include running the process differently, driven by principles of transparency, participation and accountability—I know that the committee has been considering those themes. The second category concerns the budget itself, in relation to which they include demonstrating that the content of a budget—the decisions that are taken about how money is raised, allocated and spent—is in line with human rights obligations. That covers the maximum available resources in particular. Governments are obliged to take steps to progressively realise the rights to the maximum of their available resources. Minimum core obligations are understood to be the minimum protections that Governments should guarantee to everyone.

The human rights discussion paper that was published in July sets out proposals for ministers to run a participatory process to inform the minimum standard of social, economic and cultural rights. One of the actions that was identified in that paper was to develop the thinking on minimum standards and what that participatory process might look like. It might be worth noting that there is no global agreement on minimum core obligations, because they will differ for every nation, depending on the maximum resources that are available. It is new territory, but I can assure the committee that it is being taken incredibly seriously. I hope that that covers that bit of it.

On the decision not to legislate, Tess White quite rightly asked what we were doing in the meantime. As I said, we published the discussion paper. We are implementing the capability building programme to help the public sector and the wider duty bearers with the human rights bill. In the current financial year, we have invested up to about £200,000 to increase the knowledge and understanding of the rights that are proposed for incorporation across local authorities and health and social care providers. We will also engage with organisations’ funding through the equality and human rights fund to facilitate a knowledge exchange on the proposed rights and how to prepare the ground for future duties. Our capability building workshop group is helping to inform the delivery of that work in 2025-26 and beyond.

On making that information on human rights accessible and available, it is vital to allow the rights holders to claim those rights. Working with stakeholders, we will develop plans for information and awareness raising, including a campaign that is aligned with the future timescales for the implementation of human rights. We are developing a toolkit as part of the mainstreaming strategy that will assist with improving competence in that area. That will be an online platform that will have resources and checklists around training, continual professional development and best practice, which means that there will be a lot of practical support. There will be examples to support Scottish Government directorates and the wider Scottish public sector, so that people can evaluate the mainstreaming strategies and human rights priorities and take actions where appropriate.

I will add a couple of short points. I remind everyone that health boards, like other public service providers, have to undertake equality impact assessments on any decisions that they make. That puts it on the record that they have looked at the equality impact and are taking mitigating factors into account. If there is a disproportionate impact on certain groups, the mitigating actions that they are going to take are on record.

I can confirm that the responsibility for the EHRBAG secretariat function has officially been transferred to the Scottish exchequer. I know that doing that was a request for some time, so I hope that it gives clear evidence of that alignment—so that, as members have said, we can “follow the money”. That portfolio has been shifted into the Scottish exchequer, which demonstrates the direct link between them.

I can come in briefly on that. The way that it works is that we give money to strategic delivery partners who undertake that work, because they are best placed to do it. They have the knowledge and expertise and, usually, they have the voice of lived experience. I could give the example of the Scottish Refugee Council.

On the funding and procurement process, when the grant offer letters go out, the contract is very clear about what services we expect to be delivered. We have internal and external organisations that monitor that, analyse it and make sure that all the processes are followed. For example—I always get this one mixed up—Inspiring Scotland has more than 17 years of experience and it does regular checks and balances to make sure that the money that we provide is used for the intended purpose. If it is not, there are ways of managing that, as there are with many contracts.

I have been over how and why we procure services. In previous sessions, the issue of conflation has been raised—maybe it was Tess White who raised it. Different organisations provide different services. Some of them are campaigners and provide services, too. I have made it very clear in the past that the organisations that we fund are funded for specific services that they provide. Some of them may undertake campaigning work while others may not. None of that campaigning work is funded by the Scottish Government in any way whatsoever. Generally speaking, the organisations provide services such as providing information, gathering data, listening to the voices of lived experience, running suicide helplines and informing future policy. They are undertaking very valuable work.

I will have a go. If anything is left unanswered, I am also happy to follow up with you on it.

Cat McMeeken was correct, and I have reinforced what she said. One of the services that is provided is advocacy work. Often, the most marginalised people are not in a place to be able to represent themselves, so they need somebody advocating for them. For instance, the Scottish Refugee Council has just been awarded a contract to assist migrants—they are some of the most vulnerable people, as they are not able to access their rights on issues such as housing, benefits or healthcare. It is important to remember that the principle applies across all protected characteristics. Being trans is a protected characteristic, so trans people would and should be entitled to the same services as anyone with any other protected characteristic.

We will continue to work with our partners in Inspiring Scotland, with whom we have a well-established relationship. In response to Tess White’s question, on the budget that comes out of my portfolio and the equality and human rights fund, it might be helpful for you to be aware that 31 per cent of my total budget is spent on disability organisations and supporting people with disabilities. Twenty-two per cent of the budget is spent on advancing race equality and in the wider field. Twenty per cent of the budget is spent on women and girls. Fourteen per cent, which is the least amount, is spent on supporting organisations that work in the LGBTQI arena. I hope that that gives you an indication of the proportions of the money that is spent.

Thank you, cabinet secretary, for that introduction, and I thank the committee for giving us the welcome opportunity to appear jointly, demonstrating our shared commitment to collaboration and to advancing equality, inclusion and human rights across the whole Government. Our shared ambition is to ensure that equality and human rights are central to budget decisions, and we continue to build on our partnership, meeting regularly to maintain a consistent and embedded focus on equality in budgeting, while taking advice directly from the equality and human rights budget advisory group.

As I have previously said, my personal and visible leadership is critical to that. I have actively engaged with colleagues across portfolios, supporting and challenging them to identify meaningful actions to address inequality in Scotland. To date, I have held more than 14 meetings with ministerial colleagues, focusing on identifying practical steps that each portfolio can take to improve equality and human rights outcomes. For example, earlier this year, I worked in collaboration with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to launch a pilot scheme that will provide free rail travel for the companions of blind and partially sighted people. Those conversations have been constructive and forward looking, and I am encouraged by the shared commitment across Government.

We all have a responsibility to tackle inequality and to uphold human rights, and I am determined that that will be reflected in our actions. One example of that is the pre-budget ministerial equality workshop, which was first held in 2023. Since then, we have scheduled that workshop earlier in the budget process, and I have taken a more substantive role in the workshop, which enables ministers to discuss the impacts of potential budget allocations on equality groups before decisions are taken and is a powerful tool for embedding equality and human rights principles in our policy and budgetary thinking.

The budget does not, of course, exist in isolation, and the quality of analysis for the budget depends on how well equality and human rights are mainstreamed across Government. That is why, when we published our long-term equality outcomes this year, we focused on those that would act as enablers of system-wide change, improving the awareness and use of equality evidence, improving how we are informed by lived experience and participation and strengthening the relevant impact assessments. To support that, each outcome is backed by short-term and long-term actions over a four-year period. We will regularly report on those actions, further increasing transparency and accountability. Those improvements directly support the work that Ms Robison and her team deliver through the budget.

We hope that the committee recognises the Government’s continued dedication to advancing equality and human rights budgeting and the tangible actions that we are taking to drive improvement. There is, of course, more to do and we will continue listening, engaging and acting on feedback from this committee and other stakeholders.

I want to thank the EHRBAG members for their valuable support and input, and I extend special thanks to Emma Congreve for her thoughtful leadership as the interim chair.

I think that we wrote to the committee on 19 February to update you on the Scottish Government’s progress against the group’s recommendations. At the time, I was confident that we were making good progress on the actions and that we were broadly on track to meet those within the proposed timeframes.

At that point, of the 22 actions, nine had been completed, 12 were in progress and one was yet to get under way because it was contingent on the completion of another action. The completed actions include agreeing in partnership with EHRBAG the continued improvements to the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement—EFSBS—and taking a more integrated approach to the equality analysis of the programme for government and the budget. We have also been establishing a senior leadership group to scrutinise and bring challenge to our approach to embed equality and human rights and enable cultural change, and we have published an easy-read version of the EFSBS.

Since February, there has been further progress to support our commitment in Scotland to equality-led budgeting. The Scottish Government is hosting its first international knowledge exchange event in October, which will bring together experts from across government and civic society to explore how integrated impact assessments can advance equality and human rights in budgeting. That should foster a more collaborative approach, embedding inclusive evidence-based practices into future budget processes.

At its meeting on 11 June, EHRBAG members agreed that reporting on the action plan will be paused while further consideration is given to the group’s terms of reference. However, work continues during this time, so our focus will shift to the two strategic objectives for this year, which are achieving an integrated budget impact assessment and proposals to improve budget transparency and accessibility.

I have some sympathy with your line of questioning. However, in my previous answer, I gave a clear indication of the extensive work that we are undertaking. It is not a shelving; it is a delay in order to be able to advance that work and get it right. There are many treaties that are being incorporated, and getting all those different things to align is a hefty piece of work. There are treaties that have not been adopted by other countries, so, in that sense, some of this work is groundbreaking.

It requires time to take everybody with us—to make sure that duty bearers know what they are doing and how they are doing their work, and to find out what implications there will be for future legislative change in many different portfolio areas. It also requires time for rights holders to be able to take up their rights. Therefore, it is absolutely not a shelving; it is a reasonable delay to make sure that that work can be undertaken in full consultation with all the civic organisations, including stakeholders. The SHRC is a very valued partner in that.

In relation to the SHRC’s enforcement powers, it does an amazing amount of work, and its spotlights really home in on particular areas—those are really valuable. I have absolute sympathy for that point, and it will come out as the bill advances. Enforcement powers are absolutely not off the table.

We also need to bear in mind that, due to circumstances, some women may not be able to work. It is important that they get access to the benefits that they are entitled to. I am aware of the intersectionalities around women and girls.

I cannot speak on behalf of other portfolios, but I can give you an indication of what is being done in mine. In order for women and girls to feel empowered to access equal opportunities in relation to the right to work, for instance, given the disadvantages and detriment that they face, they need equitable access to economic resources and decision making and to be able to live their lives free from violence, abuse and harassment. In 2025-26, we are providing more than £2 million to 10 gender equality organisations. Of that, £1.8 million is being provided through the equality and human rights fund. The money that we are putting towards women and girls in my portfolio area makes up 22 per cent of the equality and human rights fund. Both of the figures that I mentioned are in addition to the £21 million that is being provided to organisations via the delivering equally safe fund, which is for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls. I hope that that provides you with some examples.