Seòmar agus comataidhean

We do not personally go out and do safeguarding checks; that would be impossible for ministers to do.

I do not think that it is fair to ask us during a committee session to review an organisation and potentially withdraw funding from it, so I am not going to commit to that at all.

If any concerns have been flagged through Inspiring Scotland, they would come to us. That is the proper process around any organisation’s funding and service delivery. If we provide funding for a particular service—not for the organisation and all the work that it does—and if there are concerns about that service and the way in which it is provided, or any concerns about young people or anybody else getting the service, that would of course be flagged to ministers.

We have to be fair to organisations. You are referring to an article in a newspaper. Sometimes articles in newspapers do not always tell the whole story about an organisation and the particular services that it provides. If there are concerns about a service that we fund, we would of course take the necessary action.

10:45

If there are any concerns from anybody about an organisation, we would expect those concerns to be listened to. I am sure that that can be picked up through intermediaries. What you have described is a very vague thing about parents in East Dunbartonshire. Beyond that, I do not know what that refers to—whether they are concerned about a particular service that we fund, or whether it is just a general concern about an organisation.

To reiterate, the funding that we provide is for specific services. Kaukab Stewart mentioned services that are saving the lives of young people who are suicidal. If the parents have a concern about that particular service that we fund for vulnerable young people who are potentially facing suicide, we would of course want to know what those concerns are—as opposed to hearing about a general, unspecified concern about an organisation. Let us hear what it is. If you want to write to us, I am sure that the minister and, potentially, intermediaries could follow up on those concerns. In the absence of knowing what any of that is, we would need to know the specifics.

Thank you.

We recognise that multiyear funding of support to tackle violence against women and girls is really important.

Violence against women and girls is a global scourge that is affecting women and girls all over the world because of misogyny, because of social media and because of the power imbalance. All of those things are huge enablers of misogyny, which every Government is trying to tackle. We, as a Government, are absolutely trying to tackle it.

The exponential rise in the number of cases that are coming through the criminal courts, particularly for sexual offences, suggests that our prosecutors and our police force are active in that space to ensure, for the victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, that there is more chance that the perpetrators will face the consequences that they should face. Courts are absolutely full of cases because, quite rightly, action is been taken to send an important message. I can tell you that the Lord Advocate is very active in that space.

Are we sitting on our laurels saying that we are complacent and that everything is fine? Absolutely not. As a mother of a daughter, I can tell you that the level of misogyny in our country and beyond our borders absolutely terrifies me. It is pervasive. Our Government takes that very seriously. We are absolutely not complacent.

More multiyear funding and more services will be provided but, of course, that will happen only if people vote for the budget.

Yes.

On the timing of the review as set out in the equalities and human rights mainstreaming action plan, we remain committed to publishing a full process evaluation of the new approaches early this year, and the work to evaluate both the strategic integrated impact assessment and the tagging pilots is already well under way.

As part of the evaluation, we will engage with stakeholders on the improvements made and their priorities for future iterations of the new strategic integrated impact assessment, and the findings from that evaluation will directly inform and strengthen our approach for the 2027-28 budget. The plans for publication are, I think, to be confirmed post the election, so it will be there for the new Government coming in and in good time for the next budget cycle.

Good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.

The budget and the spending review reflect our priorities and values as a Government. I am very proud of the choices that we have made, which have fairness at their heart, to ensure that every pound of public money spent delivers the greatest possible benefit for the people of Scotland. The budget—which is, of course, set against a backdrop of constrained resources and a rising demand for public services—will invest almost £68 billion to secure a fair, healthy, safe, prosperous and green society for the Scottish people.

As we navigate that challenging economic and fiscal environment, we also have a duty to ensure that our decisions advance equality and protect the most vulnerable. Our ambition is to ensure that every policy decision improves lives for those who need it most across Scotland. On 19 January, we published our first strategic integrated impact assessment of the likely impacts of the decisions taken in the budget, the spending review and the infrastructure delivery pipeline on people in Scotland. The new approach brings all impact assessments together in a single process and publication to provide a more holistic and transparent view of fiscal decisions. That new approach has been developed in collaboration with international experts and key stakeholders in Scotland, such as the equality and human rights budget advisory group and the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls.

I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament information centre has acknowledged that the new approach has brought “significant improvements”, including a more accessible document, better use of data, stronger links between our aims and our spending, and open recognition of unmet targets. The document does more than any before to address past concerns. Our analysis shows that the Scottish budget redistributes from high-income households to those further down the income distribution scale, through the tax and social security systems and through the delivery of public services. Overall, the decisions taken in the budget, the spending review and the infrastructure delivery pipeline are expected to have a positive or neutral impact across the five statutory duties considered.

This year’s publication also improves budget transparency. For the first time, we show the impacts of spending decisions, as well as the implications of constrained or reduced resources, for disadvantaged groups, including the trade-offs involved and the mitigations considered. The report also presents new and emerging findings from enhanced distributional analysis and pilot activity on budget tagging and intersectional analysis. That evidence was actively used throughout all stages of the process to inform decision making, including—for the third year running—in a cross-ministerial pre-budget workshop. I am grateful to the Minister for Equalities for her continued support and challenge in those important meetings. We intend to evaluate the new approach and will publish the results later this year.

To help today’s session to run smoothly, I note that there will be a hard stop at 11.30 am, when we will join the Cabinet takeover with disabled people, which is an important engagement that reflects Scotland’s leadership in placing lived experience at the heart of decision making. We both look forward to joining that event.

As I said in my opening remarks, the new approach to impact assessments has enabled equalities and human rights evidence to shape decisions earlier and more effectively than before. Rather than directing the analytical effort towards producing a document—which was perceived as somewhat lengthy—at the end of the cycle, the new approach focuses resources on generating insight at the moments when choices can genuinely be influenced and decisions are made. That shift has allowed us to make better-informed decisions for all three fiscal events.

The evidence gathered, including lessons from the pilot activities, was actively used at every stage of the budget process. That included, for example, integrating impact analysis directly into ministerial advice at key decision points, so that ministers would have it in front of them. It also provided a structured briefing for the ministerial workshop in November, which had a particular focus on eradicating child poverty and sustaining high-quality public services. We also ensured that the emerging assessment was shared at critical junctures in the process, including Cabinet discussions, which were really important for sign off. That meant that ministers were able to consider distributional, equalities and rights-based impacts alongside the fiscal, economic and delivery factors when making decisions. We were able to see all that in the round.

The assessments have helped make the budget process more evidence driven, more coherent and better aligned. The approach has been positive.

If I remember rightly, you asked exactly the same question last year, and I think that the minister and I will give the same answer. Organisations—whether it is that organisation or any other organisation—are funded by the Scottish Government for specific programmes. The minister will be able to outline in more detail what those specific programmes are. Many organisations are funded for specific things around mental health and so on. It is not just general funding for an organisation. That has to be done dispassionately, because otherwise we get into a political bunfight about which organisations we like and which we do not like, given our political views. That is not right. We should look at which organisations provide services to vulnerable people who need them and what those services are, without passing judgment on something that we do not like about a particular organisation.

Kaukab, do you want to talk about the specifics that that organisation provides?