Chamber and committees

Good morning. I am interested in a similar theme—that of assessing the impact that budgetary decisions have with regard to equalities and human rights. When I asked the question of other ministers at other committees, I discovered that there was no consistency around the use of equality impact assessments.

I will start with the broader equality and fairer Scotland budget statement, and I will then come on to discuss equality impact assessments. The equality and fairer Scotland budget statement was offered by other ministers as an indication that the entire budget and its impact was being looked at in the round, but it is fair to say that there are inconsistencies in how different portfolios have provided detail on that.

I am interested to know what guidance is given to ministers on how they complete that work. What is your view? Do you feel that you have a role, as the minister with responsibility for equalities, to support your colleagues to give as full a picture as possible?

I appreciate what you have said about the aspiration of Government. However, we can evidence some inconsistencies. Do you feel that a better, standardised format should be given to ministers to ensure that everyone reports in the same way, or do you feel that it is up to individual ministers to make their own interpretations?

Okay. On the point about individual equality impact assessments and their use as a tool, there have been calls from organisations relating to individual budgetary decisions. Many organisations have said that the decision on the reduction in the housing capital budget should have been subject to an equality impact assessment. I put that to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, who pointed to the broader piece of work that we have just discussed. However, organisations feel that the ramifications and the understanding of the impact that that cut will have are such that it should have been subject to an equality impact assessment. Is it your view that there should be individual equality impact assessments on specific decisions?

Can I infer from that answer that your view is that the decision on the 27 per cent reduction in housing spend should have been subject to an equality impact assessment and that that would perhaps have meant that there would have been more rounded consideration of that decision?

The Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Parliament, will introduce two new forms of assistance—childhood assistance and care experience assistance. Is it your view that there should be a statutory requirement to uprate those in line with inflation?

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s openness to that process. Last night, in this room, I chaired the cross-party group on care leavers, and one of the discussions that we had was about the importance of uprating in relation to the challenge of cost of living pressures. Will the cabinet secretary agree to consult and discuss with people with lived experience the importance of uprating as part of the on-going scrutiny work that we will all undertake on the bill?

The committee heard a variety of evidence on either side of the argument. I acknowledge what the member is saying. What was clear to me was the significant concerns that were raised by not just the judiciary but by the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and many other bodies in the legal profession. I have significant concern about the wider issue of ensuring that the independence of the judiciary is protected. We heard that quite clearly in our consideration of the evidence. That is part of the reason why I advocated that the committee should not take a position on stage 1 of the bill and should not recommend whether to support it. I do not think that we have had enough clarity on what amendments might be brought forward by the Government on that issue. I asked the Government, because I do not think that it is unheard of to bring forward amendments in draft form so that they can be considered in more detail.

The convener made an important point about the requirement for further scrutiny. If the Government is to lodge substantive amendments that will change the core of the bill in that regard, there will have to be a level of scrutiny of those, and people will have to give evidence and give their view on either side of the debate. The Government has given a commitment in writing to the committee, and the minister made that commitment when she gave evidence, but we could have been further along if we had been able to discuss the amendments in draft form before we got to the stage 1 debate.

That point came up in the committee. The timescale was given that it would happen in the course of stage 2, but I do not think that we had any further clarity at that point, and I was concerned by that. The minister has said clearly that she will lodge the amendments and that she is in dialogue with the Lord President on a variety of issues. However, for me, the issue was the lack of certainty. I do not doubt the minister’s intent, but I would like to see the detail of those amendments.

I absolutely accept the minister’s commitment. It is not unheard of to have amendments shared ahead of stage 2. Indeed, in bill consultations in Parliament, draft sections have been shared ahead of the drafting of a bill. It is possible to do that, particularly in order to build the consensus that we would seek.

The Government has recognised the challenge of trying to bring people together on the issue and that the bill has not commanded a huge degree of enthusiasm from all sides. There are significant challenges from those who want stronger representation for consumers and from those who want to ensure that we protect the independence of the profession.

It remains my view, as it has been the view in committee, that we must build as much consensus as possible. If the bill passes stage 1 this afternoon—which I imagine that it will, given the support that the Government has for it—there will be opportunity through the stage 2 process, and we must ensure that the process is robust, allows amendments to be lodged and allows sufficient evidence on amendments to be acquired and given to the committee to ensure that we move forward with the best bill possible.

I am very conscious of the time, Presiding Officer, so, rather than take the opportunity to sum up, I will leave my remarks there. We look forward to the rest of the debate and to ensuring that these points are made and that assurance by the minister is given once again in the chamber so that it is on the record.

Given that we do not have much time in hand, Mr Swinney has very helpfully moved me to my final point, which is about where we go next and how we can create the consensus that we all want to see. For Labour members, it is about the amendments in respect of the ministerial powers, and ensuring that we see the details of those amendments; that we, as a committee, have time to scrutinise them; and that we can scrutinise them in the chamber. It is also about looking at all the other aspects that have been raised in the debate and where further amendments might be made to support the many good contributions from organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland and Women’s Aid and those who have a view in this space. The Law Society of Scotland, of course, also wishes to see other amendments to the bill.

Although we will abstain on the general principles of the bill today, that is with the view of trying to make the bill better at stage 2, so that we can all support it by stage 3. I would be keen to hear an undertaking from the Government in that regard when it comes to its summation.