Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can bring in Nick Bland—actually, Matthew Elsby would be better on that issue.

It goes without saying that it is essential to have good quality, robust data. There are always calls for more of it. I hear calls for intersectional data, as well, to inform good policy making.

The EFSBS uses information gathered from different portfolios to support ministerial decisions as part of the budget process. This year, the document included, in the distributional analysis, new analysis of the impact of some areas of public service spending. Chapter 1 of the EFSBS sets out how the budget process integrated evidence on equality and fairness, through the ministerial workshops and better integration with the programme for government.

As Matthew Elsby said, the budget does not determine every single decision for the Government. Cabinet secretaries will consider the evidence available when they make their many decisions outside the budget process as well. For example, data was used in the setting of tax and social security policy, as demonstrated in the distributional analysis document. In that tax example, we know that there are different outcomes for men and women, and we can break those categories down into, for instance, women who are in an ethnic minority and those who are disabled. That gives an indication of the layers upon layers of data that we need.

Another thing, which I mentioned in a previous committee meeting, is that I am mindful of making sure that we have the robust data sets that we need and that we have enough data, because sometimes we drill down so much that we are talking about very small numbers. The numbers tell a story but not a complete story, which is why I keep saying that the process must be qualitative as well as quantitative. If you triangulate the data with the voice of lived experience, you get a clearer picture on which to make decisions. Making decisions purely based on numbers would further exacerbate situations for those who are already marginalised, and we want to be absolutely sure that that does not happen.

The Scottish Government is continually in the process of improving equality and intersectional data collection. We encourage its analysis, publication and, when sample size allows, robust disaggregation.

Forty-five actions are set out in the equality evidence strategy, which is overseen by the EDIP project board that you referred to. Those actions, which are the key mechanism to advance the equality evidence base, cover improvements to all main equality variables: 33 cover data on race, 30 cover data on disability and long-term conditions and 16 cover intersectionality. As the equality evidence strategy moves into its final year, the key task across the Scottish Government will be to work across all the analytical areas, as well as with external stakeholders, to set out a new strategy to prioritise and fill remaining gaps in equality and intersectional data.

I expect that that will include expanding disaggregation of quantitative data sets, where that is possible with the sample sizes; utilising qualitative data and lived experience to allow for insight into differentiated experiences, which may not always come through in the quantitative data; and drawing on the mix of evidence to identify the relevant research questions from an intersectional point of view.

In addition to those improvements, which we are working towards, we expect policy areas to take a proportionate approach to the existing evidence base in order to ensure that they have enough information to enable ministers to take equality-informed budget decisions.

I know my organisations but, with the best will in the world, I could not say that unless I had the list in front of me, which I could then cross-check. It could be the case, but it might not be so—I cannot give a definitive answer. I can say that it is not necessarily the size of the organisation but the service that it provides that is the important thing. Obviously, the Government wants to deliver services: it is about the organisation that is best placed to deliver that service, and its size is not the most significant factor.

We know that families from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds are one of the six priority family types that are identified in our tackling child poverty delivery plan as being at the greatest risk of poverty. We recognise that the intersection with other protected characteristics, including disability, increases the risk of living in poverty. Since 2018, the Scottish Government has strengthened the evidence base on poverty, building on a series of focus reports, including on minority ethnic families, that outline the challenges and barriers faced as well as policy approaches that might be taken that are successful in addressing those challenges.

Remember that tackling poverty and inequality is a priority for all ministerial portfolios, so those actions should be driven across the Government to deliver on that progress. That includes our more focused work, such as on the take-up of devolved social security benefits and benefits for seldom-heard groups, and our anti-racist employment strategy, which is focused on addressing structural barriers to enable more people from racialised minorities to access, sustain and progress in employment. Understanding how we can address unacceptable levels of poverty for Black and ethnic minority families is a shared endeavour that we will continue to drive forward, and the member knows that I will do that.

Yes, absolutely. Please write to me with any supplementary questions that you have.

I will bring in Nick Bland.

I believe that the overall budget for delivering the equally safe strategy has increased. I was at the launch of that, with SAY Women. Indeed, that was an excellent visit. That organisation provides support to women and girls between the ages of 16 and 24 who are dealing with sexual abuse and violence. I think that there was an uplift in equally safe funding of £2.4 million, approximately.

Are you referring to intersectionality regarding mainstreaming?

The use of the human rights budgeting principles remains part of the budget process. In our attempt to streamline the document and make it more accessible, we had to focus our efforts on those parts of the publication that we thought would add most value for the readers. We have set out our approach to human rights budgeting in detail over the past two years. Since there has been little change in the principles behind the Government’s approach to human rights budgeting, we focused on analysis of the key budget decisions in this year’s document.

The six key questions that were developed with EHRBAG were used as part of the case study approach, which included two questions that specifically asked how human rights impacts had been considered. Additionally, the portfolio summary chapters tied portfolio budget activity to both human rights articles and national outcomes.

There is an increased use of intersectional evidence and analysis to inform policy making across the Scottish Government, and that is helping us to understand structural inequalities and to inform inclusive policy making. Analysts and policy professionals—I will bring in Nick Bland shortly—are building their understanding of how to apply intersectional approaches. Practical considerations are set out in “Minority ethnic women’s experiences in Scotland 2024: intersectional evidence review”. That was published in December, and the committee will be aware of it.

When undertaking intersectional research, analysts are encouraged to use qualitative and quantitative sources of data and evidence to ensure a deeper understanding of intersectional issues. We then need to triangulate those to ensure that we get the best evidence possible and the clearest picture. Nick, can I bring you in here?