Seòmar agus comataidhean

Tackling child poverty is a good example because it is a statutory duty. It is not a nice-to-do. The Parliament passed a law that we would meet the child poverty targets. Therefore, the work on the next delivery plan has to set out the analysis of the data on where we are.

That is important. We need to know where the base is now. Progress has been made on child poverty but we need to do more to close the gap to 2030. The ongoing analysis and use of data is really important to know whether we are on track to meet the requirements by 2030. Then it is about being able to use that as drivers and to test whether the policies that we are enacting to close that gap are working.

There is a lot of evidence and data that shows that the Scottish child payment has probably been the single most important tool, but the evidence on the investment in housing, childcare, transport and employability is a little less direct because it is not about putting money in people’s pockets per se. Therefore, it is important that we can capture the data on what impact reduced housing costs make on a household income to help to reduce poverty and how a flexible childcare service helps the family to reduce costs.

There is also employability. We know that work is the best way out of poverty, so we need to ensure that our programmes support parents and families in all the shapes and forms that they come in.

The six priority groups are a real focus for the next delivery plan. The data is really important not only for us to know whether we are making progress but for scrutiny. There is a lot of external scrutiny on progress on the child poverty targets. The eradication of child poverty is a good example of where we are probably more advanced. It is the single most important objective that the First Minister has set out and a statutory target.

I hope that that gives you some assurance that we use data a lot. We evaluate and it is crucial. Otherwise, how do we objectively measure the progress that we are making?

I will hand over to the minister on the specifics of that, but I put on the record that the funding to our health boards and local authorities has increased. There have not been cuts to funding; it has increased in real terms. That is not just me saying that—we talked about scrutiny and accountability, and the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland have confirmed that funding for local government and health and social care have both increased in real terms. We should be accurate.

That does not mean that there are not difficult decisions to be made around where funding goes, but the funding has increased in real terms because of the decision that we made to increase health and social care funding considerably in the 2025-26 budget. It is important to put that on the record. Funding has increased, not decreased. The Minister for Equalities might wish to come in on the specifics around funding.

Yes, absolutely—we are. We have heard from the Minister for Equalities about the changes that we have made in the process to ensure that it is not a case of doing a human rights analysis after the event but of engagement before budgetary decisions are made, to ensure that decisions and potential decisions are put through a human rights lens. Success looks like having that engagement earlier to ensure that the assessment process is transparent and open.

The added opportunity on this occasion, with the upcoming fiscal events, is that, through the spending review, we are able to demonstrate the line of sight for funding that will ensure that we can be open and transparent about the commitment to this work over a number of years. Ensuring that human rights are at the heart of the budget process is the job of not only the Minister for Equalities. It is the job of every cabinet secretary and every minister to ensure that human rights are at the centre of the work that they are doing and that they engage with the Minister for Equalities, who is providing a check in the system that the processes and work that are under way meet the requirements and are being done in a way that engages with not only ministerial colleagues but key stakeholder groups.

That is what the process looks like; it should not be overly complicated, and it should have a demonstrable effect. I emphasise that we are not talking only about the funding in the equalities brief; we are talking about funding across the board and looking at whether the decisions that we are making and the decisions that have been made can stand up to the scrutiny of a human rights perspective. We are not there yet. We have work to do, but progress has been made, as I outlined in my opening statement.

You touch on a real tension. I will have to watch that I do not go back to speaking as a home care organiser, which I was in my former years, because I feel very passionate about this area. Without a doubt, huge improvements need to be made.

Clearly, as you have described, the debate on the national care service became focused on territory, powers and disagreement rather than the areas of extensive and broad agreement. What service users and their carers want to see from social care services should have been at the heart of it, but that was lost somewhat both in the broader debate and in the debate in the Parliament.

There is now an opportunity to work outside Scottish Government and local government silos and to focus on how we will improve social care, not just in the here and now. The demographics show that there will be a huge increase in the over-80 age group in the not-too-distant future. There will be a requirement for us to take a root-and-branch look at how we provide social care and ensure that the budgets will work. Silos do not help; the health and social care integration joint boards were established with the intention of moving away from siloed budgets but, in my opinion, there is still far too much siloed working.

We all have to take a step back and think about how we will transform social care in a way that will meet people’s needs both now and in the future. Human rights are at the heart of that, because the rights of those who are often the most vulnerable in our society need to be considered first and foremost. If we keep that at the heart of our discussions perhaps we can avoid falling back into what you described as the territory and powers issues.

I could talk all day about that area, but I will stop myself there because I think that we need to have a very long and hard look at it.

I agree with the point that you made about local government and health boards. There is scrutiny there, and it is a difficult job. Councillors are working in a very challenging environment—given everything that we understand about the political environment, we know that the work of councillors is very difficult and can sometimes be a thankless task. I recognise the work that they do.

On the point about citizen involvement in the budget, we have worked to improve people’s understanding of how it works: how we reach a budget and its development. We have heard a wide range of views from stakeholders across Scotland, from diverse communities, and we have heard the priorities of the third sector, public sector, business sector and communities at large.

We have produced public-facing information: following a review of international best practice on citizens’ budgets, we enhanced our guide to the Scottish budget, “Your Scotland, Your Finances”. That is now produced alongside the draft Scottish budget publication and is updated to reflect the finalised Scottish budget agreed by the Parliament. It is also updated on budget revisions agreed in-year by the Parliament. It is a complicated system. There are in-year revisions in spring and autumn—it is not a straightforward process. However, through that publication and the updating of it, we have tried to set out how the process works in straightforward terms.

I recognise that there is more to do. We want to make those improvements, which is why last year’s budget document signposted the 27 supporting documents and associated publications that accompanied the 2025-26 budget. I do not expect that there will be many folk who have read every one of those from cover to cover—present company excepted—but we try to go from that to “Your Scotland, Your Finances” to provide a much snappier way of producing information about something that is very complex.

Those are the attempts that we have made. It is work in progress. There is more to do, but we have recognised that we need to try. We want people to think about the budget. We want people to be involved as much as they can be and to give their views on process and outcome.

We are delivering against our commitment to develop what we described as a fairer funding approach by providing more multiyear funding to third sector organisations that are delivering front-line services and, in particular, that are tackling child poverty. As part of the 2025-26 programme for government, we committed to what was described as a fairer funding pilot that provided multiyear funding to a range of third sector organisations, totalling about £130 million over 2025-26 and 2026-27. That supports projects in areas including health, education, justice, poverty and culture.

That is the first step towards what you described as mainstreaming multiyear funding agreements. I hear all the time from the third sector that certainty is sometimes as important—or more important—than quantity. It is important that organisations have line of sight and know what they are getting, because they can then hold on to staff and do not have to work on a year-to-year budget.

To be fair to the Scottish Government, we had been subject to single-year budgets for many years, and it is difficult to guarantee funding to other organisations when we do not know what funding we will have. There has now been a multiyear spending review by the United Kingdom Government. That is why we set out that we will have a spending review alongside the 2026-27 budget, which will allow us to, as much as possible, look at providing that line of sight, which is only fair in relation to the spending review. I am keen to go further—this is really important, particularly when money is tight. We know that multiyear funding will help the third sector to hold on to key people who deliver vital services.

I hope that that gives you some reassurance.

The quality assurance of making sure that any funding that goes to any organisation is spent on the services that it is supposed to provide will be done by the intermediaries that are paid to do that job, and that is what they will do. If an organisation is not spending the money on what it is supposed to spend it on, that would be relayed to ministers, and that is when ministers would become involved. That is how the process works.

I do not think that alarm bells should be ringing.

Will we come back to that, Richard? Is there anything that you want to say?

Yes. There is a good example that I can give you, but I am not sure whether it is in the public domain. Is Granton in the public domain?