Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. That is really helpful.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2026, in session 6, of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have apologies from Karen Adam and Tess White. Pam Gosal and Rhoda Grant are joining us remotely; you will see them on the screen.

I welcome everyone who is sitting round the table. Our only agenda item in public this morning is a continuation of our evidence taking as part of our inquiry into neurodivergence in Scotland. The inquiry was precipitated by the Scottish Government’s decision in 2024 to delay the introduction of a learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill. In the inquiry, we will be focusing on the experience of neurodivergent people in education, employment and the criminal justice system. This morning, we will hear from witnesses in two round-table sessions: the first with a focus on education and the second with a focus on the workplace.

We begin with our first round table, but before we move to questions from members, I invite everybody to introduce themselves. I will begin, and then we will move round the table from my right. I am the deputy convener of the committee and a Scottish Green MSP for the North East Scotland region.

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?

That would be helpful.

I want to come back in on some of the work that the committee did with the Commission Advocating Rights for Minorities. I come at this from the point of view that social security is there for us all, because poverty damages everyone, not just those it directly affects, and that individuals’ worth should not be measured by their ability to contribute economically to society.

There is a little bit of a disjoint here. Cabinet secretary, the members of CARM whom we engaged with on employability specifically did not recognise either the excellent tagging of employability services or the positive outcomes that you have identified. I appreciate that some people have received those positive outcomes, but CARM members have not, and they feel that there is no evidence that the Scottish Government is meeting its minimum core obligations. I am not so interested in that point for now, but, given the case study approach work that the committee has done and the on-going engagement on employability that we have had with CARM and its members, it does not seem to have featured in the Government’s approach to the budget this year. Could you say more about how the work that the committee has done with CARM has had an impact on decisions that have been made or on some of the restructuring that we were talking about earlier? Where is the throughput of the evidence that the committee gathered?

Thank you.

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.