Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know that we are going to unpick and explore some of the issues that you have mentioned in a bit more detail.

I see that Gerard Wilkie wants to come in. I will then come back to those in the room. It is over to you, Gerard.

I will move on to ask about some particular funds and budget lines. For a long time, the equality and human rights fund has provided important support across organisations that work on race, disability, LGBTQIA+, age and a range of other areas that are fundamental to the Government’s aim of improving equality and human rights across Scotland.

However, for five years, there has been a flat-cash settlement for that fund, which, in effect, is a 25 per cent cut. The committee has had representations from BEMIS and 27 other organisations that work together to deliver the services that the fund supports. They are concerned about the on-going flat-cash settlement and the fact that, because of the real-terms cut, they will not be able to do the work that they have been doing for the past five years. We will not see the outcomes that you have just mentioned, such as improvements in equality and the fostering of inclusion. Such aims and aspirations will not be realised because those organisations cannot sustain a 25 per cent real-terms cut. How do you answer that challenge?

Thank you; I appreciate that.

Is it fair to say that we might not see any tangible benefits for communities, and that the restructuring was about management, oversight, integration and cross-portfolio or cross-departmental working?

I appreciate that, but that is precisely the point. The letter that I know you have had and the correspondence that the committee has received are quite clear. The 27 organisations are working together. They are collaborating—they are not competing with one another. They are quite clear that they do not want one organisation to be played off against another. They are looking for a £2.3 million uplift, which would take the fund from £8 million to £10.3 million. You mentioned the quantum approach. That sum is less than 0.004 per cent of the £68 billion that you mentioned at the start of your opening remarks.

I understand the fiscal challenges, but people are really struggling, whether that is due to the cost of living, to increased racial tensions on our streets or to not having the services that are required. We know that the third sector goes way over and above what it has the resources to deliver. Surely that £2.3 million is a small price to pay for organisations that deliver such vital work on a collaborative, co-operative basis. If they do not do the work, it will fall to the public sector to pick up the pieces when things go wrong. It will probably be criminal justice that has to do that, and it will have to do so in a way that will be detrimental to communities and individuals.

I would ask you to take away a slightly expanded commitment to look seriously at the issue. You have talked about the values and priorities of the Scottish Government, one of them being fairness. Given that those organisations are delivering such important community cohesion work—never mind the nuts and bolts of the remit of this committee, which is equalities and human rights—making such a commitment would be very valuable.

I move to my final question on this area. You have talked about the certainty of funding and the importance of multiyear funding. I think that it is good and very positive that we have seen that shift, so thank you for that. That will give a lot of people the security that you talked about.

However, some people still feel quite vulnerable. Perhaps another fund—the investing in communities fund—can help deliver important community cohesion and anti-poverty work as well. On 7 January, I wrote to you about that fund. Last week, Richard Lochhead provided some comfort about it in the chamber, but organisations still do not have the detail. A line in a letter that says, “There will be some funding for some organisations up to the next financial year,” is not enough for them to not enter into redundancy conversations with staff. Therefore, can there be clarity, sooner rather than later, on what that means? That would give the certainty that you were talking about, because the fund does not have multiyear security.

I appreciate everything that you have said, but the evidence that we collected from CARM members suggests that there has not been the positive outcome that you have described. You said that you have commissioned more research, which is to be completed by the summer, but there is already lots of evidence and information out there, including the evidence that the committee has gathered over the past four and a half years in relation to our approach to equalities and human rights budgeting. There is a degree of frustration about the Government gathering more research instead of getting on with changing things for the better, particularly by joining things up. We can have the best employability service in the world but, if someone cannot afford the bus to get there, it is no good to them.

Lots of different things go into this, and I appreciate that it is a work in progress, but I think that the committee should, in the future, hear from the Government about the direct read-through of the project that we have undertaken with CARM and how that has a material impact on the Government’s decision making.

Good morning, minister. Thanks for joining us this morning. My question is not on the detail of the instruments before us but on the consequences. Given what you said in response to Tess White and Rhoda Grant, and given that everyone would have liked us to have made more comprehensive progress on legal aid reform during this parliamentary term, it would be useful if, before the end of this session, the Government could set out what is happening and what remains to be done. We know that we will need legislation, but there are other things that will not require legislation that we perhaps could be getting on with, some of which we are getting on with already. It would be valuable to have all of that brought together.

What you have just said about the fee review group and the trainee places is positive news, but I am concerned about the possibility that, because we do not have a chunk of time to spend on this as we would in a bill process, the piecemeal bits might not all end up fitting together effectively.

I would like an initial response from you on that, but I am really just making a request for the Government to set out what is happening, what remains to be done and how everything will pull together.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. To follow up on the convener’s question, I am interested in understanding the analysis that you have done on the restructuring that you described. How confident are you about that restructuring? What evidence do you have that it will deliver improved impact?