Seòmar agus comataidhean

In relation to home schooling children, it is often the case not that the school has failed the child but that the child needs education that is bespoke to them and that the family know will support them. Could trying to assimilate a child into a system that their family have purposely removed them from—for their best interests—end up adding problems, when the child was moving away from that system in the first place?

I am proud to speak in support of the Scottish Government’s motion and to welcome the publication of the first annual statement on gender policy coherence. It is a long overdue step that will start to hold us accountable to the promises that we have made to women and girls in Scotland.

The National Advisory Council on Women and Girls has given us clear direction, and its recommendations are rooted in real-world experience. We need to improve our public sector equality duty, gather better intersectional data, tackle workplace inequality, shift public attitudes and critically embed intersectional gender budgeting into our approach as a Government.

I will focus my remarks on gender budgeting, because how we spend money is how we demonstrate our priorities. Let us be honest: in Scotland, as in many other countries, we have benefited off the backs of women’s unpaid care for generations. It is mostly women who have raised the kids, cared for elderly parents, supported disabled family members, run the school fundraisers, managed the house and kept things afloat in a crisis. What have they mostly got in return? Pension gaps; poverty; burnout; and, oftentimes, stigma, especially if they are doing it alone. Such irony.

Instead of valuing unpaid care as the essential work that it is, we have often treated it as a personal lifestyle choice—something to be quietly admired, maybe, but not something to properly fund or support. In far too many cases, doing that role has even been used against women, who are told that they did not work hard enough, did not contribute enough and did not earn enough to deserve financial security in later life. That really has to change, and the way to do that is to build that recognition directly into our systems, which is what gender budgeting is all about. That is why the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls is right to keep pushing for it.

I thank the Scottish Women’s Budget Group for its briefing and for its brilliant long-term work on the topic. It has shown us clearly how budgets are not neutral but political, and that, if we do not apply a gender lens, we will end up with the same old story of services designed for a world that does not exist, where women are expected to pick up the slack. We need to turn that on its head.

Women still carry the weight of unpaid care and underpaid care in this country. They take time out of work to raise children, and they often reduce hours to support relatives, meaning that many retire without enough contributions for a full pension, yet they are the ones who have held together families, communities and even whole sectors such as health and social care. Although they are doing all that, they are still made to feel as though they should be doing more, doing it with less or doing it more quietly.

We should not be interested in quiet gratitude. I am interested in structural change. I want a Scotland that builds fairness into its foundations, and that starts with how we raise and spend our money.

The Scottish Government has made great progress on free childcare, the Scottish child payment and many more initiatives, such as the carers allowance supplement and, of course, the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. Those policies are great examples of what happens when we centre fairness and compassion in our budgets. They are lifting families out of poverty and recognising the value of care.

Gender budgeting should not be optional; it should be law. We should not still be seeing local authorities pass budgets without proper equality impact assessments. We cannot keep saying that we care about fairness while we are still making decisions that disadvantage the very people who do the caring.

This is not just a women’s issue; it concerns children, disabled people, low-income families and future generations. When we budget for women, we are budgeting for a fairer, more equal Scotland for everyone. Women have done the heavy lifting for far too long. It is time that we lifted the burden from them and shared the power. I look forward to seeing the progress that has been made when we gather to debate the issue again next year.

We all agree that councils have tough choices to make, but some of the cuts, in particular those from the Tory-led administration in Aberdeenshire, have hit vulnerable people the hardest. For example, elderly people in assisted-living complexes have been threatened with eviction. How will the reform strategy make sure that councils put people first and stop balancing their books on the backs of those who need the most help?

It is up to you what you would like to ask, Pam.

That brings our second evidence session to a close. As a north-east Doric BSL user, I appreciate the awareness of regional BSL that has been shown this morning. I am sure that my dad will be watching and that he will also be pleased about that.

I thank the Deputy First Minister and her officials for joining us. I will suspend the meeting briefly before we turn to agenda item 3.

Thank you so much. We move on to Professor Annelies Kusters.

Thank you. I put the same question to Stacey Gourlay and Rachel Tardito. From the context of a public body and public service, what have been the positive impacts of the BSL act, and what are the challenges in meeting its aims?

Thank you. We have heard really positive feedback from BSL users on Contact Scotland BSL, including that it has been life changing for some people, but unfortunately it has been threatened with closure a couple of times. What are your thoughts on Contact Scotland BSL? Is there anything that we can do to ensure that the service remains for BSL users?

I welcome our second panel of witnesses this morning. With us from the Scottish Government we have Kate Forbes, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic; Kevin McGowan, unit head, equality division; Andrew Godfrey-Meers, BSL and social isolation policy manager; Alison Taylor, deputy director for improvement, attainment and wellbeing; and Robert Eckhart, additional support for learning policy team leader. You are all welcome; thank you for attending.

I invite the Deputy First Minister to make a short opening statement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2025, in session 6, of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Under our first agenda item, we will take a decision on whether to take agenda items 5 to 8 in private. Agenda item 5 is consideration of the committee’s approach to stage 1 of the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill; item 6 is consideration of a draft report on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill legislative consent memorandum; item 7 is consideration of a draft letter to the Scottish Government on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and item 8, which is our final agenda item, is consideration of the committee’s work programme. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.