 Hello everyone and welcome to the third meeting of 2024 in session 6 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which is fully virtual today. We have no apologies and can I remind all participants that you must keep your cameras on? Our broadcasting colleagues will control your microphones so you don't need to touch these at any point. If you just subscribe for your mic icon to show you as being unmuted and then take a second before you speak. Thank you. Agenda item one the agreement to consider evidence in private. Our first agenda item is to agree to take item 4 which is consideration of today's budget evidence in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. Our second agenda item is consideration of one negative Scottish statutory instrument. That is SSI 2023 forward slash 375, the Equality Act 2010, specific duties, use of member information, Scotland, revocation regulations 2023. I refer members to paper one. Do any members have any comments to make on the instrument? There are no members who have indicated that they have any comments to make. That being the case, are members content formally not to make any comment to the Parliament on this instrument? Thank you members, and that concludes consideration of the instrument. Agenda item 3. The third agenda item is to continue our budget scrutiny. I therefore welcome to the meeting Clare Gallacher. Good morning, Clare, who is the human rights officer from the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations, also known abbreviation as Sembo Scotland. Professor Angela O'Hagan, chair of the Scottish Government's Equality and Human Rights Budget Advisory Group, and Heather Williams, who is the training lead from the Scottish Women's Budget Group. You are all very welcome this morning. As our meeting today is entirely virtual, can I remind our witnesses and members to type R in the meeting chat if they would like to come in on any questions as we go through the session? Could I also remind members to direct their questions to a particular witness in the first instance? I refer members to Papers 2 and 3 and invite each of our witnesses to make some opening remarks, and we will be starting with Clare Gallacher, please. Clare Gallacher. Good morning, convener. Thank you very much for inviting me back again today to give evidence. As you said, my name is Clare Gallacher, and I am from the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations. We are a national intermediary body and a strategic partner of the Scottish Government's Equality, Human Rights and Inclusion directorate with the aim of developing the capacity and sustainability of our sector. Overall, summary and remarks for today's evidence are delighted to see more funding allocated towards the Equality, Human Rights Fund, and I am looking forward to discussing in more detail the increases and decreases to certain areas within the directorate. Overall, I think that we have made some progress from last year, but I would like to explore again the use of data and the impact assessments in more detail and how we mainstream them in a better way for the next budget process. It was great to see some more increased participation with particular reference to the whole family equality group project and the citizens panel. They are a great group and do fantastic work, so I would like to pick up on a few of their reflections as well from their experience and how we can get more involvement within the budget process as a whole. Thank you, Claire, and I would like to now invite Angela O'Hagan. Good morning, convener and colleague. Thank you very much for another opportunity to engage with the committee. As colleagues will be saying and as Claire has already said, the focus on participation I think is particularly welcome. This morning, today's session is being watched by women from a project that I am involved in on women's economic empowerment. There are women from Glasgow Disability Alliance, a Scottish women's budget group and a project at Glasgow University on women in multiple low-paid employment. This project is about trying to build knowledge, understanding and awareness of the budget process as well as economic policy in Scotland. For women's such disease, being able to be part of the process, albeit today virtually, but we have the trains to thank for that, is really important. Seeing the organisations that are starting to be involved more in the budget process and the scrutiny of budget processes is really important. I certainly welcome the committee's endeavours on that part, along with other committees in the Parliament. Part of that process of scrutiny and accountability needs to focus on the human rights principles. The process principles of participation and accountability and transparency have been the focus of the committee, but I would urge to focus on the scrutiny and fulfilment of rights and the obligations of Government to ensure the maximisation of available resources to secure the progressive realisation of rights. I would also reflect that it has been a very busy year for the equality human rights budget advisory group with the publication of the Scottish Government response to our previous recommendations, pushing for integration of equality and human rights analysis in the process. There have been some significant changes in the process and the documentation, and there is on-going work in progress. Scrutiny by the committee and externally is very welcome, as is the informed analysis of the Scottish Women's Budget Group, ZEMBO and other NGOs that have contributed evidence already as part of the budget process. I always say that we have an open budget process in Scotland, but it continues to be hidden in plain sight, so I would encourage the committee and other committees to maintain and keep energised focus on transparency, accountability and participation. Thank you Angela for that. I would like to move swiftly on to Heather Williams, please. Thanks for letting us participate in this again. I am from the Scottish Women's Budget Group and we are a membership organisation that carries out or promotes gender analysis in public policy and public finance decisions and tries to make that link between equalities and budget processes because through our work with the Scottish Government, but also local governments often do not come together in a way that makes a difference for those who are most disadvantaged in our communities. That starts by looking at the impact on women, but taking that intersectional analysis. We have carried out an analysis of the Scottish Government budget this year, looking at the Equality, Fairer Scotland budget statement and other papers, and carried out an analysis, looking at transparency, looking at participation and that outcome focus and how it advances gender equality. While, as Professor Hagan was saying, we welcome the openness and the fact that those papers are available, but we still think that there needs to be a better joint upness in terms of explaining the decisions that are taken. That is something that we would like to focus on in our evidence today. Thank you, Heather, for that. Thank you to all our witnesses for their opening statements. I would like to move straight on to questions. Some of the witnesses have given a general sort of like view of the budget, however, just regarding funding. This is just a question for openers. Colleagues will be probing much deeper and scrutilising things much further, so it is just a one to get us started really, but an overall reaction to the Scottish Government's funding allocations for the equality, inclusion and human rights. I did hear that it was broadly welcome, but any further opinion on that would be quite interesting for us to hear. I will start with Heather, first place. I apologise, convener. I have a tickle throat. I will try not to take off that use. For us, it is that thing about when you look at the level 4 figures and the information that is contained in them, it is difficult to get a complete handle on what the funding means and what the changes and the funding for that directorate are. Often, things that are funded through that directorate, such as delivering an equally safe fund and things like that, there is not enough detail contained within the budget, the figure breakdowns, but also in terms of the quality and fairer Scotland budget statement is to actually how that funding is going to be used and what difference it is going to make. That would be our initial reaction, is that the detail is limited, to be able to identify what impact the changes and the allocations are going to have for the directorate. Thank you, Heather. Angela, if she has a view. There are a number of things to say here. I will not be commenting on the amount of money allocated in any portfolio, but just to pick up on Heather's points about the coherence across funding allocations is an area of work that still needs significant improvement, I think, the reading across and between the different elements of the documentation around the budget. I think that there have been efforts and I know that officials within Government are working very hard on that, but there needs to be continuous improvement on the knowledge base and the analytical capacity within portfolios. That requires time and resource, so the resource of time as much as the resource of personnel. We also need to see improved cross-portfolio working, and I think that that is improving. I think that the introduction of the senior leadership group is intended to help with that co-ordination across different portfolios, driven by and made visible by and to the senior directorate teams. I think that that applies not just to the Scottish Government but across policy analysis in Scotland. There needs to be a better understanding of the structural inequalities that result in differential and different experiences, because that has a bearing on the types of analysis that we see. We can then see better how our decisions about allocations are being made in a way that seeks to address the underlying causes of discrimination, the conditions that produce and reproduce inequalities, rather than at the moment that there is a tendency for policy analysis around inequality to focus on the very important issue of economic inequality, but not the gendered, racialised and other marginalised dimensions of that, and I think that that is still missing. In terms of the scrutiny, again part of the consequence of all of this being a work in progress and the constant drive for improvement is that we have seen lots of changes all the time. I suppose that that is part of my role in EBAG, trying to capture some of those changes and trying to keep things a bit more streamlined, because it is difficult, as Hera has said, to try and follow the money. The Scottish Women's Budget Group analysis is very clear on that, that it is difficult to follow the money. The 51.9 million allocation for the equality inclusion and human rights directive, yes, is very welcome, but across all the different documents, it is difficult to see what has been allocated for what purpose. There needs to be some improvement in the presentation. There is a lot of detail in Annex B of the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement, which I thoroughly commend to the committee and others. However, again, we see inconsistencies in the presentation of decisions around what policy and programme actions have been taken, but not what is being allocated to whom for what. The final thing that I suppose I would say about the clarity in the allocations is that this has been raised by a number of comments on the budget, and since the publication of the draft budget, we are also in advance, is the on-going need for improvement in what changes have been made and what are the implications and impacts of those changes. Nicleir mentioned that it is good to see an uplift in the funding, but where is it going? That clarity and consistency in the presentation still needs to come through the documentation. Thanks, Angela. Colleagues will be coming back to drill in further into answers and responses. Claire, do you have anything further to add? I am going to bring in Paul O'Kane, who is going to continue this line of questioning. Unless there is something that you definitely wanted to add just now, you probably will get an opportunity with my colleague Paul O'Kane. I would quickly like to add that I agree with what Heather and Angela have already mentioned about the consistency. I think that the other thing that is missing is that transparency in the funding. There are certain decreases in certain areas. For example, the equalities section has a decrease. We see an increase in the human rights section, but it has just been a bit transparent about the evidence of having a decrease. There was a one-sentence explanation, which did not offer a really insightful reason for the decision being made. That would be the only thing that I would like to add. I am happy to have more questions in depth about the funding later on. Thank you. Paul O'Kane, please. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the panel. I suppose that my question will follow on in this respect, but not just in terms of the budget lines that we have perhaps focused on in our first conversation there. I am keen to understand how the budget as a whole, I suppose, has been looked at in the lens of the quality of human rights. I suppose that my starting point is that, to what extent have the decisions taken in other portfolio areas perhaps had an impact on the Government's ambition to achieve its wider ambitions in terms of equality? I wonder if there is a sense from any of the witnesses that decisions that are taken in other portfolio areas might entrench the qualities rather than trying to combat them, combat inequalities rather. I wonder if I might come to Heather first. In terms of the analysis that we have carried out of the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement, and as Angela was saying, there have been improvements and it is a work in progress, and we absolutely recognise that. For us, it is sometimes really difficult to see how equality's considerations have been taken into account when budget decisions have been made. For instance, there was a recognition in the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement that there was a cut to the funding in relation to further and higher education spaces. However, what the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement says is that it is difficult to say how that will impact because colleges and universities are autonomous organisations. I understand that colleges and universities are autonomous organisations and they will make decisions. The Scottish Government is providing funding and that must come with expectations. That is an example of how, at least—that is an example of an area where there has been a reduction in funding that has been recognised within the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement. There are many others where there have been reductions or standstill funding that has not been recognised in the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement. I think that it is that thing about sometimes it feels a bit like, yes, we admire the problem, so we set out what the issues are and we are really good at doing that in terms of these are the inequalities, but what we are not good at doing is that follow-up analysis. That is a real issue in terms of the equality and impact assessment processes across the public sector in Scotland as our analytical ability to join the dots and say, how is the way in which we do that? How does it help or how does it entrench and embed inequalities? That analysis is often the bit that is missing. I do not know if other colleagues might want to contribute, convener, Claire, perhaps. Just to build on what Heather had said there, impact assessments are something that across the portfolios that we can really do better at having a mainstream approach to impact assessments. I spoke the last couple of times about the crucial part of impact assessments in each portfolio and we are really good, as Heather said, explaining what the inequalities are. In Scotland, what we are not doing is quite rightly, as Heather said, is the analysis of that, but we are also not doing what actions are we doing to address these inequalities, so what mitigating steps are we taking if we know that this is going to have a disproportionate impact on certain groups? Referring to your original question, Paul, about the decisions relating to equality as a budget as a whole, we can see definitely more stock going into each portfolio about equality and the impact of the decision making, but one example that I would like to draw up on is within the social security section. Social security has been awarded more money and an increase in their funding, which is great, but we still see in their breakdown of their data that they are still not reaching certain community groups. We need to remember that, in line with our human rights guidance, we have to prioritise those whose rights are most at risk. What are we doing to make sure that, yes, we are giving more funding to Social Security Scotland, but how are we making sure that the recipients of that payment are those whose rights are most at risk? Are we doing targeted advertisement? Are we helping people to overcome the barriers to accessing that service in particular? I think that that is an area that could—I use Social Security as an example, but I would across different other areas that we could really look into a wee bit more. We are giving more money, so let us make sure that we are reaching those who are furthest at risk and how we are going to do that, and that would be really good fitting in with the principle of transparency within the budget process. Thank you, Claire. Can I bring in Professor O'Hagan, please? Hi there, Angela Spine, really. Paul, you asked about how the budget as a whole has been looked at from an equality and human rights perspective, and I think that is the ultimate goal. That is the starting point for scrutiny. It is the starting point for any analysis around any policy area. What are the current inequalities? What is the extent of the realisation of particular rights? Where are the gaps there? How do we work collectively as Government and across public agencies to close those gaps and to bring about the realisation of those rights? That has to be the starting point for policymaking. Scotland is not alone in that, not being the starting point, but we have a strong narrative around the budget and policymaking in Scotland. That has come over very strongly in this budget. The focus on values and the focus on equality. We are seeing significant changes in the process. They are maybe not very exciting to the outside world, but they are very exciting to me because I spend a lot of my time trying to promote those changes. Internally, the use of six questions around the budget encouraging policy officials to think through what are the implications. What is the outcome that the policy is aiming to achieve? What do they know about existing inequalities? What impact will decisions make? How will budget decisions contribute to the realisation of rights? Can the budget be used differently to address existing inequalities and how will it be evaluated? Those are all really important questions. They have been around for a while. They have made a difference this year, but they need the practice of that analytical approach to be more embedded. It needs to get stronger within the portfolios and committees. The other thing that I would say is that there are multiple elements. There are so many different bits of documentation around the budget process. One of the things that I would like to see is for the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement and its annexes to be much more visible as part of the full suite of budget documentation. There is a lot of useful information there that shows some of the workings in the margins—not all of it but some of it—in terms of the distributional analysis, the annex B that I have already mentioned to the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement, which in turn is informed by lots of other documents, including impact assessments, which, as colleagues have said, continues to be a process that requires a lot of improvement both in terms of the analytical capacity and in the time that it is given. However, I think that those are all ways in which we can see how the budget as a whole is inching towards improving that equality and human rights scrutiny. Quickly, a couple of other things that are important to note in this year's process. The programme for government and budget process have started to become more aligned. It might sound strange to external viewers that it did not previously happen that the budget commissioning and programme for government all happened at the same time. That was a major breakthrough this year when that started to happen. One of the lessons emerging already from the current process that needs to happen in the same way but earlier. The other innovation this year was the introduction of challenge workshops, ministerial workshops, and one of them was around the Equality and Fairer budget statement. That brings much more scrutiny from across Cabinet into the process, and I think that that has been a really important development. Obviously, I am talking about the process issues. Colleagues from a range of external organisations have already made representations to the committee and elsewhere about the impact, which was your other question all about portfolio decisions and the knock-on effects. There needs to be much more cross-portfolio working to identify the implications of those decisions. Colleagues from Joseph Rowntree Foundation and elsewhere have highlighted the implications around child poverty and child poverty targets, Glasgow Disability Alliance and others have highlighted the impact of on-going care charges on disabled people. Funding on social care remains a priority and so on and so on. There are lots of things that others have commented on in relation to the knock-on effects of spending decisions. I am grateful for that, Angela. I would like to ask Brian Heather if you could be brief. That would be really helpful. I am mindful of time, and we have a range of questions that we need to get through. I would like to remind everyone at this point that, if I could get succinct and focused answers, that will enable all of us to cover the wide range of scrutiny that we wish to undertake this morning. Heather, please. Just quickly in terms of the impact of the budget as a whole, one of the reasons that is often difficult to see and to analyse and to be able to identify exactly how qualities have been considered is that lack of targets, that lack of as much as the budget documentation at a very high level, link them to the national performance framework and the national outcomes. In terms of being able to interrogate that and identify, if we are putting money into, say, employability programmes, what do we expect that to change? Who do we expect that to benefit? What is the impact that that is going to have? How do we assess that? That is another bit that I think is missing that allows us to do that analysis of what impact and what change has this spend and made. Is it actually making a change for the people that we want it to make a change for? Thanks, convener. Thank you, Heather. Paul, is there anything further that you would like to ask at this point? No, I think that I actually, Heather, answered my second question, which was just about the quality of assessment of decisions within the budget. I actually think that that is a very useful conclusion there. We are going to now look at the theme of participation, and I would like to bring in my colleague, Adam, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning to witnesses. I would like to ask a question in regards to our citizen participation, which is part of our human rights budget and approach. Where do you feel that that is best placed? Is the value of that best added in committees, or do you think that the Scottish Government should have a more direct role with citizen participation? Adam, I would like to direct that to a particular I'll go to Claire first, please. Thank you for your question. I think that in terms of participation this year and citizens being involved, there is a huge difference between this year and last year in the budget process when we were doing the post-budget scrutiny, and that's always welcome. I can see other involvement out with the committee as well, so I was really pleased to read that the Scottish National Investment Bank were working with Black Professionals Scotland, a great group that are doing, again, some really amazing work. I think that there are different pockets in which we can involve the citizens in the budget process. I think that in terms of where would it best sit, I think that there's always a need for the committee to have citizens involved in the budget process, and I think that it's really important for them to continue to be able to access the committee in terms of specific issues that they've raised, so I know that the citizens panel from the whole family equality project had raised some questions with yourselves for you to take to the minister, and I think that's a really direct route to, in terms of when we talk about accountability, having that direct access that's a really good step, but as a whole, so my answer is probably both for you, but as a whole, I think that we need to embed participation much more, like, wider across the Parliament and Government, because we're making decisions, budget decisions, about people, and we know that a budget decision affects people in every different way. There's not two people that a budget decision will impact in the same way, so I think it would be welcome to continue to have that direct link with the committee, but also to see it more mainstreamed across the Government and Parliament. Thank you. Caden, would you like to bring Heather? Thank you. Just quickly, just to say, the work that the committee has done this year, I think, has been really interesting, and I think that when you look at the analysis, though, of the kind of open responses that you got to the survey that was put out over the summer, I think that that gives us some interesting information about that level of understanding about the budget process and about how connected people feel to it. I would say that that has come out in the work that we've done. We've been doing some work, as Angela was talking about, in conjunction with Wise at Glasgow Caledonian University. We're a group of women, but we've also been doing some sessions recently with Amunan Glasgow and with Forside Women Girls Group in East Lothian. One of the things that people constantly say to me is that all they see is that what they pay is going up, and they don't actually see the benefit of the taxes that they are paying. I suppose that the optimist in me would like to think that we could have really good conversations about taxation and public services and try to take some of the politics out of it. I know that, as I said, that's the real optimist in me that we can maybe have proper good conversations that can help people to participate and to understand the process, because it's complicated in terms of how the Scottish Government is funded, where the money then goes, who then implements it. There's lots of different moving parts in this process, and unfortunately, sometimes politics gets in the way. Now, I'm not naive enough to expect politicians to stop doing politics, but sometimes it would be nice if we could just have a bit less politicking and a bit more honest, grown-up conversation about where we are in terms of our financial situation and the decisions that we have to take. That's my plea. Thank you, Heather. We hear you, and I'd like to thank this committee in particular. Thank you for making reference to the way that we did the participation with the citizens that we had, and we got excellent feedback from them. They felt more connected to the process, so hopefully that could be rolled out across other committees. Thank you for acknowledging that. I don't see that anyone else wants to come in on that one, Karen. Would you like to continue? Yes, thank you, convener, and on that point it's great to get that feedback on the deliberate approach that the committee did take. I felt, as a member, that it was very beneficial just to be in touch with the citizens in that way, and part of an educational process as well. On that point, and the way that we proceeded with our work, do you feel that other committees would benefit from our deliberate approach and our actioned approach towards that participatory budgeting? You've spoken a bit about cross-portfolio and collegiate working across portfolios a bit there. Do you feel that that would be beneficial for committees to be doing that as well? Angela, on that first place. Your previous question, Karen, was where is it best placed? It's with Government and with Parliament, and I think that it's cross-committee. There are different things that different committees can and should be doing. I think that the points that colleagues have made are really important. I think that it's also important to separate out information, involvement and participation, because they're different things. We need good information coming from the Scottish Government and coming from the Scottish Parliament that is accessible, that is in a range of formats, that supports involvement and then supports to increase participation. I don't think that what's going on is participatory budgeting. It's participation in commentary around the current budget process, and I think that that's an important distinction. The founding principles of the Parliament around openness and transparency, accountability and equality should all be driving this openness in understanding and participating in the budget process. To come back to my opening point, there are different roles for different committees there. I think that there's the overview of the budget process that this committee looks at, which is the economy committee that looks at or finance an economy, but then subject committees. I think that we need to see a much wider range of engagement and participation in subject committees from a wider range of people around social care, around training and employment, whatever education, whatever the policy focus happens to be. That's where I think we need to see, and that needs to be an equality in human rights perspective on the allocations and spending and outcomes in the scrutiny of those committees, because it's not just—again, I've said this before—it's not just the responsibility of this committee to look at the equality in human rights dimensions across all committees. Can I bring in Claire, please? Thank you, convener. In my point slides, really nicely, and after what Angela had mentioned there about it sitting, the responsibility of equality in human rights sits with all committees, and I think that it was one of the points of the citizens panel that you were working with and raised that they would like to be involved in more portfolios and more committees, because we need to see the equality embedded throughout, and it's not just siloed, because if what we just keep it to ourselves, we're not mainstreaming equality. One of the examples I'd like to touch upon was the introduction of the case studies and the annex, and I thought that that was a really demonstrative way of showing the impact of the budget decision, and it laid it out very clearly with the questions. I did notice that some of the questions, there was a lot of inconsistency, so for one of the questions, it related to the existing inequalities of the outcome in relation to the budget decision, and some budget areas had went on to explain each protected characteristic, amongst other things, for example social and economic background, and the impact that that had on it, but other budget areas did not do that, and I think that we need to be a bit more consistent. I think that when we're talking about mainstreaming equality throughout directorates, throughout committees and portfolios, it's so important to have citizens' views at the heart of that, because what you can see, and I'm going to take the drugs and alcohol budget area, for example, is when they broke down into race, they said that there was no data there to say, but we can see from England that the use of alcohol and drugs is lower within ethnic minority and communities, but that doesn't reflect that people from those communities do struggle with alcohol and drug use, and it's the barriers that they face to access those services and the fear of accessing those services that stop them prohibiting access and support. What I'm trying to say is that that demonstrated to me a lack of an awareness around the barriers that people from those communities face, particularly on the use of drugs and alcohol, and it means that they are the furthest away people from accessing support, and in our breakdown of the budget we didn't have anything to show for that, so I think that's why it's really important to get citizens involved to explain those barriers and the cultural differences and how we talk about drugs and alcohol and reflecting on the barriers and the challenges that they specifically face within their own communities. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, Claire. Karen, is there anything further that you wish to pursue before I bring in your colleague, Annie? No, that's good. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Annie Wells, please. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Karen. Claire spoke about that briefly in our previous couple answers to Karen, but I was just wondering whether there was any other views on the way that ministers responded to the questions that the citizens panel developed, and in particular focusing back again on the potential issues in mainstreaming. I don't know whether Heather could come back in on this first. I think that the questions that the panel came up with were—I clearly already mentioned it, but one of the things that struck me read in what the panel had said was that idea about recognising that people don't live their lives in silos, that the equalities and human rights impacts on all aspects of people's lives. I think that some of the detailed responses provided by the ministers were perhaps stronger in terms of their response to the questions, but part of that goes back to what we have been saying, which is that lack of analysis that often gets done across different portfolio areas. I suppose that it is that thing about—I often talk about that—that we need to show our work hands of an age, and you did mass exams. That is what we were told. You had to show your work hands. I don't know whether I could still get told that or not. That is the bit that is sometimes missing. Difficult decisions are having to be made in terms of the priorities that the Government has. We might not always agree with those decisions that get taken. For instance, one of us is the council tax freeze. We do not think that that is the best way to address inequality, but that is a decision that has been taken. The one thing in the documentation of the paperwork, there has been no explanation of that. There is no evidence, there is no information to show the work hands as to why that decision has been taken. I think that sometimes that lack of cross-portfolio analysis leaves the minister not always been able to answer the questions that people have. It is that thing about the public sector. Sometimes, in the third sector and in the private sector, we think in silos, we work in silos and we do not always lift our heads to look at whether we do that in one area. What does that mean in another area? That bit is often missing as well. Thanks for that, Heather. I do not know if anyone else, if Angela or Claire, wants to come back in on any of that. I think that that was a pretty comprehensive answer. I do not see any indication. Do you have any further questions, Annie? Yes, I do, convener. The Scottish Government did promise an easy-read version of your Scotland, your finances, but unfortunately it has not been published just yet. However, I wonder if you had any views on the accessibility of the 24-25 budget and where does the senior responsibility line for making the budget process accessible to citizens? I think that this is probably what you were speaking about, Heather. It is just to get citizens more involved, to get the public more involved. I do not know whether you would—I see Claire wants to come in on that one, so Claire, if you would not mind answering that for me just now. Thank you. I was actually in reference to your last question. All right, we can do another main statement, but I will just briefly touch on that if that is okay. One of the main roles that we have at Semmel Scotland is mainstreaming equality and human rights, specifically race equality and human rights. I think that one of the challenges that we face when we work with different directorates and different groups within government is that the priority of equality is different everywhere. How important is mainstreaming equality to certain directorates and portfolios? It is completely different. Their commitment to it is different, so I think that we need a more strategic approach to mainstreaming and what that looks like. A good approach to embedding equality and human rights into our delivery right now looks very different across portfolios, and we need to be much more strategic in how we are doing that. There are some directors that are doing amazing work in terms of getting participation involvement, where it is co-design of services, but we are not seeing that transfer to other areas, and I think that there is a lot of learning that we can do from each other around that. In relation to your question that you asked about the promise of easy reads that is not yet being published yet, I am happy with the commitment of publishing an easy read, and I think that we all welcome that, but it should be published at the same time. It is very hard. We know the need for an easy read document, but it is very hard to become involved in the budget process when that is not being published and we are now at a post-budget scrutiny process, so we really have to be publishing things at the same time. That reflects back on, is this a priority or is it not? I think that it would really be a priority for it to be published at the same time. One of the other areas that we can do to improve that is—I think that the last time that I was here I spoke about—we have to relate budget decisions to people. Sometimes they can seem really far removed. Heather talked about the council freeze tax. People want to know how those decisions affect them because it still seems like a super-distant idea. People are paying more in tax to get council freeze, but they are not seeing any changes. I think that that is maybe how we can do a bit of—there could be a bit of capacity building around how does it relate to you? How does it relate to your communities? Excuse me, I have also got a bit of a tickly throat. The main point here is that we need to be having those accessible documents published at the same time to really encourage meaningful participation from our citizens. Thanks. Thank you for that, Claire. Thank you, Annie. I want to come in. I mean, there will probably come—there will be plenty of opportunity. People are sort of segueing in answers to different areas, so we are going with it. That was mainly around participation. I am going to move us on to the area of transparency. Our contributors this morning have already mentioned transparency throughout their other answers and their opening statements, but I just want to focus in on the fact that both stakeholders and the committee made several recommendations last year on how the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement could be improved. They have been further changes this year, including the removal of detail on how the impact of spending might have changed. It would be interesting to know our contributors this morning what their views are on those changes and whether they increase or reduce transparency. I am going to come to Heather first, please. As Claire mentioned, one of the changes this year is the case study approach that has been taken, and that has been quite an interesting approach. However, in terms of transparency, it is about showing your work in terms of—I will give an example—one of the case studies that they provided was about employability. When you look at education and skills budget, the employability budget has reduced. Part of that is potentially, I am assuming, is to do with the Fair Start Scotland end-in and no one left behind taking over. However, in the case study and in the annex B information, there is no explanation of that in terms of that reduction or what looks on the face of it as a reduction in funding and what the impact of that will be. While that case study approach is welcome in terms of trying to provide some understanding of the decisions that have been taken, I would say that, for a couple of areas, the level of information that has been provided is that it does not link to the budget decisions that have been taken this year. I think that that is something that we need to get better at, is the information that is provided. How do the decisions that have been taken on this budget address inequality, or how potentially can they embed and entrench it further? Thank you, Heather. Would either Claire or Angela like to come in on that one? They may wish to come in on the next one. The committee intends to focus its pre-budget scrutiny of 2025-26 on transparency. It would be really useful for us to hear what our contributors this morning, what priority issues be in this area for us. What would you like us to consider is paramount on that. Angela, please. Thank you very much, convener. There is quite a lot to say on transparency, partly because there is quite a lot going on. I agree with Annie Wells' comments. I miss your Scotland, your finances. I think that we definitely need, both from Parliament and from Government, those easy-read, accessible summarising reports. There is work going on in and around that. There is a separate from the equality and human rights budget advisory group. There is another project running around fiscal transparency. That is looking at publication of information on Scotland's public finances on a big scale. It is a huge project. It has been running for a while. The impetus behind it was open government, and it is really worth following through on what is coming out of that project, both in terms of the products that will change, as well as the information that is going to be coming being made more available, more accessible and more understandable. The next step is for some of the work in that project to look back through the budget process much more. The comments that colleagues have made on the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement and the new innovations and iterations this year are really well made and will certainly form part of our discussions on our lessons learned meeting in a couple of weeks' time in Ebank, where we look back on what differences have been trialled this year, what has worked well, what has worked less well, what some of the omissions and changes have meant. I think that there is a very strong message there that there needs to be not just the really important follow-through across the documentation, but as this committee, as many contributors to this committee and elsewhere have reiterated, including Audit Scotland, there needs to be much more attention to when changes and allocations are made, what are the impacts. We will certainly be taking that back. I think for the committee to be looking for those kinds of changes as well, but it would also be very helpful to hear from the committee as you work towards and then through your pre-budget scrutiny around transparency, what information you use, how you use it and so what would be helpful to see in future iterations. The other thing I would encourage the committee to look for in its pre-budget scrutiny on transparency is to draw on what will be published probably in March is the Scottish Human Rights Commission's forthcoming analysis on using the open budget initiative looking at transparency in the budget process. This is the second time that the commission has run this exercise. They are in the process of finalising the analysis there and that will be published in March. That will be really helpful for the committee's next steps. For me, the priorities for engagement will be looking for and already officials within government are saying that they recognise the need to bring forward the process that aligns programme for government and budget commissioning. As colleagues, particularly Heather and Claire, have pointed out the need for alignment to read across budget documentation. I think that because, as Heather said, there are lots of moving parts, there are lots of documentation, but that is where the… I know that officials are working really hard on trying to get this alignment, but that also needs better cross-portfolio working and leadership and engagement from the Exchequer. One of the things that the Scottish Human Rights Commission's open budget initiative is likely to flag, which has been flagged previously, is about timely in-year publications around changes to the budget. I think that that is a long enough list for you for now. Thank you for that extensive but very useful list. Thank you very much. Can I bring in Claire, please? Thank you, convener. I think that my point picks up on a lot from what Heather had said. For me, the priority would be explaining why decisions are made. I think that it is a really fundamental part of the budget process and being able for people to understand and increase their knowledge and awareness of the budget process. As Heather said before, sometimes difficult decisions are made, but we need to be a bit more transparent about that. For example, I spoke about it in my introductory summary about the increase. When we look at it from a whole, there is an increase of funding to the equality and human rights and inclusion director, which is always welcome. When we look at it a wee bit more thoroughly, we see a decrease in certain areas. For example, the equalities pot of money has decreased by 2 per cent this year. There are a couple of points that I would like to make. Equalities are so vast that it is kind of hard to understand who this impacts and what the impact would be, because we have disability rights, women's rights, the race sector all fall within that part. However, there is also an increase in the human rights budget. There is quite a significant increase of 60 per cent, which, as a human rights officer, I am always welcome, with more money allocated to human rights. What I would like to see prioritised is an explanation of the working to understand a little bit more. We know that the human rights bill is progressing really quite quickly in Government just now, which is really welcome and well-made. However, the impact that it has on the equality sector as we have labelled in the budget, what does that mean? That could well mean that we need to start building our capacity in viewing equality issues as human rights issues. We are still kind of sitting in these silos. For example, viewing racism as a human rights issue, viewing women's rights as a human rights issue, is there money within the human rights pot with that increase going to look at these directed, targeted areas? We need to remember that we are incorporating international law into Scots law. That means that we should follow guidance where needed from those bodies. All those conventions call for the prioritisation of those groups, whether it be persons with disabilities, whether it be for women or people from an ethnically diverse background. What I would like to see prioritised next year is to show the working and explain the reasoning behind that. The reasoning behind the decrease in the equalities might be because we are putting the money up in human rights, and that is how we are going to fit it in. However, that was not offered, and that is just the speculation that might not be true, but that would help with the transparency moving forward for next year. Thank you very much for that, Claire. I think that you are right to highlight the challenges that exist around intersectionality. On the other side of that, of course, you have silo working. To incorporate one and break down the other one has been something that I think many people have grappled with over a long time. Moving on very nicely on to the area of accountability, I am going to bring in my colleague Maggie Chapman. Maggie, please. Thank you very much, Cokab. Thank you to the panel. Good morning. I really appreciate your comments so far this morning. All of you have touched on the importance of accountability, and I just want to delve into that in a little bit more detail. You have said that it is difficult sometimes to follow the money. Cokab's comments are just there around the siloing issues. I am wondering if you could just give us your views on the links that you see or do not see within the budget documentation and process. The links to programme for government asks, and I suppose also importantly the national performance framework as well. Are we closing the gaps? Are there clear lines of accountability at different levels of government? Can I go to Heather first? In terms of that accountability element, how funding has been allocated in terms of the impact that it is going to have on the outcomes, that is an area where there still needs to be some improvement. Obviously documentation tells us at very high level in terms of outcomes that the directorate will aim to achieve or that funding will support. It also sets out in terms of human rights obligations that it will support. However, the link between specific PCA funding and what we hope that it will achieve and how it will address those things is not always clear. That is something that we would like to see addressed. One of the things that we would like is that in terms of, if something is mentioned in the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement, I want to know what has been allocated to that. For instance, in this year's document, national advisory council women and girls has mentioned things such as the women's health plan and action plans. However, there is no mention of what that funding has been allocated to. Is that increased? Has that decreased? What are we hoping to achieve with that? There is still work to be done in terms of how budgetary decisions are impacting on the national outcomes. We still have a number of national outcomes where there is little data provided in terms of being able to monitor them. An example of the report that we did was about the funding in relation to modern apprenticeships. Under the Education and Skills and Annex 2, it talks about the funding that has been provided, about the gender budgeting work that was done a number of years ago. However, there is nothing about what impact has the funding that was given to address that gender segregation and issues in relation to disabled people and people from black and minority ethnic communities accessing modern apprenticeships. We have had funding for five years, but there is no information about it. What difference has that made? That is part of it for me that, in terms of accountability, we are still not joining the dots between the funding that is provided and the impact that it is having. As we look ahead to human rights legislation, the link between funding and outcome and impact is going to be even more important. Angela, I know that you want to come in on that, too. Thank you very much, Maggie. I would wholeheartedly agree with Heather's comments just now, as well. The relationship using the national performance framework is an overarching framework that justifies actions and requires the evaluation of outcomes and progress towards those outcomes. I think that that is an area that needs real improvement and that the documentation around all of that needs to support that process, which sometimes gets a little bit overshadowed in other very welcome policy pronouncements that have had a very effective, useful framing effect this year. I think that that has been very helpful, whether that has been from the Butehouse agreement through to the policy prospectus in the spring. Those have all been very helpful framing devices, but the NPF, the national performance framework, is what is meant to anchor all of that, and I think that there needs to be a lot more clarity. I think that we have seen a significant shift in the narrative and understanding around the relationship across portfolios and in the framing narratives around equality and human rights. We are seeing significant improvements quietly in the processes behind the scenes, but where we still need significant improvement is to read across the documentation. I think that, particularly picking up from what Heather was saying about in the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement, there is some very useful description around what are the programs, but there is not enough detail on what the value of those allocations is and where they are directed and where they are to be found in the budget. That is certainly something that I will be working with colleagues on. I think that it needs to tie much more explicitly into an XB, which Spice has made a couple of points about how it is a very dense document and is challenging to analyse. We need to recognise the value of an XB in the Equality and Fairer Scotland budget statement. A huge amount of work has gone into that. I think that it needs to be better used to be better understood and to better understand what are its deficiencies and which can be improved upon, rather than saying on the one hand that we want lots of detail, and then when the detail that is provided is saying that it is too dense. Perhaps some of the answers there are about better improving the connections between those documents, which all, of course, have to tie back to draft budget. Finally, evaluation is the next big development in terms of the process improvements, but your final point there, Maggie, was about human rights and taking an approach whereby we collectively resorting allocations are made in such a way that they ensure that we are respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights obligations, and that is the evaluation framework as well. To what extent have human rights been respected, protected and fulfilled in the allocation, spend and outcomes? The frameworks are there. I think that there is a question of building capacity within the Scottish Government and, with all respect, within Parliament as well, on how those frameworks are effectively operationalised. We have great opportunity with the incorporation bill, but that, again, needs to be resourced in terms of building capacity and giving people the time to improve their expertise. Thank you, Angela. That is really helpful. I might come back on a couple of points, but I know that Clare wants to come in on that too. Thank you, Clare. I am just pointing out to members and to our contributors that we were scheduled to finish this meeting at 11. Whilst I can allow a little bit of leeway, I would just like to focus people's minds on succinct answers. There is no need to repeat, and that goes for members, because we have questions coming up that may have already been covered. In that vein, briefly, please, Clare. Thank you, convener. Very briefly, to lead on from what Angela had said, I think that, for the most part, we can see which national outcomes link to specific portfolio areas, but it is unclear how that links to the spending. One of the things that was drawn on my mind was how do we evaluate this, how do we link national performance framework, national outcomes, and how we are protecting, respecting and fulfilling human rights. There is a lot of linking that can be done, so the framework is there. For example, if you are providing funding to the Equality and Human Rights Fund, how are we making sure that those outcomes are linked to human rights, and how do we make sure that those outcomes are also linking to our national outcomes and our national performance framework? There is an exercise to be done to link them all together. You can do that terms or use key performance indicators, and that is how we can trace it. I think that we always need to remember that our national outcomes and our national performance framework are all embedded because we want to protect and respect our human rights. They are all there, so joining up the dots would be a useful exercise. I think that there is clearly some work for us to do on this. I am digging into the looking back understanding so that we can focus and make those links. I will leave it there. Thank you, Maggie. That is appreciated. I am going to move swiftly on to Fulton MacGregor. Hi. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. Just as the convener said, I think that the areas that I was going to ask about a lot of it have covered, and I think that the responses have been very full, so I really appreciate that. There is a particular question that I want to ask, and that is about I suppose it is about the committee itself and the scrutiny that we do. All of you said in your opening speeches, which I found were really helpful, but all of you also mentioned, thank you for having us back again, and thank you for becoming able to speak again. You are all familiar faces to this committee. It is great to see you again, and, as a member of the previous Equalities Committee, I know many of you from the last session as well, so you are used to coming to committee. My question is around how the Government responds to committee work like this. They will obviously be watching it, they will be watching the sessions, they will be reading our reports, but do you feel that the input that you give to us as a committee and what we put forward as a report has any impact on the human rights budgeting process? Do you feel that there are recommendations? Do you see a link between what we say in our committee reports based on your evidence and then actions? I wonder if any of you want to speak to that. I will pick somebody. In fact, I would like to give all our contributors this morning. That will probably be the last question, I think, so I think that I will give you the opportunity to respond. I will start with Heather first, followed by Angela and then Claire. I think that the impact that committee reports have, that is the bit that is still not entirely clear either. Angela talked earlier about accessibility documentation, so the responses that the Scottish Government made to all the committees this year. There was a supplementary document provided, and it was not always 100 per cent clear what it had done with the suggestions that were being made. For instance—I know that this is not for yourself—the Finance Committee made a suggestion that there should be comparative year-on-year spend in the changes that there has been. That is not something that we have seen provided. I think that, if we are honest, some of those recommendations have been similar for a number of years in terms of transparency, accountability and participation. However, I think that this work has a work in progress, as Angela was saying, that we are at a point of building capacity and increasing understanding of it. As much as some of it has been similar, it has been recommended for a period of time. I think that we see some improvements, but there is definitely some way to go. I will leave it there and see what everybody else wants to say. Thanks, Heather. Can I bring in Angela, please? Thanks, convener. Yes, it is definitely work in progress. Yes, those are repeated visits, repeated asks. Sometimes I do feel like a hologram. I have been in this process for a very, very long time, but I would have had to chuck it if I did not see that there were some changes. That would be even more at its oldest drawing. The committee's scrutiny is really important to try to help to present and to be able to understand, from my perspective, as chair of the feedback, some of the hidden behind-the-scenes developments that are going on. It is really important to get the feedback from committee and from colleagues. The external evidence that the committee's scrutiny is an opportunity for is really important and a really important driver for change, because it is not just me or others in an advisory group setting, but we are drawing on that evidence that highlights the emissions and deficiencies in the process, but also highlights where progress has been identified, where it has been positively received and what lessons there are for improvement. I know that not just the women's empowerment projects are watching intently, and that is a huge part of the scrutiny and building that awareness, but I know that the Secretary of State of Ebag will be watching very intently. What I also hope is that the reports, scrutiny and the interest around committee activity, and by that I mean the externals, is also as intently watched and received by the leadership panel or the senior leadership group within Government and senior directors, because that is where the changes need to happen in processes. Much of the asks that have been repeated, and I know because I repeat them, we also have to—this is not an apology, it is a recognition that there are significant resource limitations on this work, and that is because there are not enough people to do all the things that are required in Government really. A lot of those changes have been down to a very small number of people, and that is why the pressure from committee is very helpful, but it also needs the leadership of the directorate of the Scottish Government and indeed of the Cabinet, and that is where we have seen some changes as well, at the political level as well in terms of that engagement, and that is really important. Finally, yes, it is good to be back, but there are others with other views as well, and I think that that is part of the diversity of opening up perspectives and experience within the scrutiny and transparency process, so there are others out there who have also had plenty to say about all of this. Thanks, Angela. Claire. Thanks, convener. I won't take up too much of time. I think Heather and Angela provided a useful synopsis in answering the question. I think that it is one of the biggest things that we have to acknowledge in the key theme that I have taken away from today. It is really hard to trace the impact, and I think that it is quite difficult. There are some recommendations that have been taken forward in some things that we have said that have moved, and that is great, and that these forums are so, so important to be able to do that, but there are things that I know that the committee has recommended a few times now. I know that I have certainly sat here a few times and badgered on about impact assessments and how we need to improve the use of impact assessments and mainstream impact assessments. It is not a committee-specific issue or a directorate-specific issue. It is across the board, and I think that that is one of the areas that I would really like to see have more of an impact. I know that we have all mentioned that numerous times, and it is one small thing, but impact assessments are not necessarily very difficult. It is just getting the framework right in place and using the resources. My catchphrase is always, we do not want to do more work, but it is about changing the way that we work and our processes in the way that we are working, because resources are tight. We all know that, and nobody would expect more from the amazing work that people are already doing, and I will just leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, Claire. Fulton, are you content with those responses? Would you like to come back in? You are content. Thank you very much for that. On that note, that does conclude our formal business this morning, and I thank all of our contributors for joining us today and playing such a valuable part in our job of being scrutineers. Once again, thank you very much for your attendance, and I hope that you have an enjoyable rest of the day. We will now be moving on to private, and we will be going on to MS Teams to consider the remaining items on our agenda. Thank you, colleagues.