���˿���

Meaningful engagement with rural stakeholders and communities at an early stage of policy development is absolutely vital. We continue to encourage engagement with rural and island communities across relevant portfolio and policy areas to understand their specific experiences of the issues in their localities—which of course can vary—in order to be able to develop a more flexible and localised approach to delivery. That includes engagement through the Scottish Rural Network and direct consultation with island communities on the new national islands plan.

The islands community impact assessment and the rural assessment toolkit, which was launched in April, encourage that in a systematic way, supporting access to specific islands and rural data and offering channels for engagement where they do not already exist.

If you would like more information on that, I am happy to bring in Anna Densham. Before I hand over, though, I will just agree with your point about the vital role that third sector organisations play. I could not have said it better myself. Third sector organisations are essential. They know their communities. I am aware that around 34 per cent of voluntary organisations are based in rural and remote locations, despite only about 21 per cent of the Scottish population living in those areas. That demonstrates how important they are in those communities, and we absolutely value the essential role that they play. We acknowledge that the sector needs support, stability and the opportunity for longer-term planning. Anna Densham can give you more detail.

Thank you for that. I agree and I am very sympathetic, as we all are in Government. It must be most frustrating. It is equally frustrating for us, because our budget is set on a cycle that comes from the Westminster United Kingdom Government. When that budget settlement is done yearly, it is difficult and challenging for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to set multiyear funding. We can make decisions on fair pay, for instance, but then there are decisions at the UK level such as the national insurance contributions increase, which can have an enormous impact. It is incredibly frustrating that the benefits of our decisions cannot always be seen because of decisions that are made elsewhere.

The latest estimates indicate that, across Government, we have invested over £1 billion in the third sector in 2023. Anna Densham talked about the fairer funding pilot, which covers multiyear funding worth £130 million over 2025 to 2027. It is part of our commitment to prioritise and focus on the delivery of front-line services and on tackling child poverty. When you are doing a pilot, you are including more and more organisations that you can support. This is not an exhaustive list but some organisations that are included in the pilot are Scottish Mountain Rescue—it is really important that it is part of the pilot—the Scottish Book Trust, which delivers the Bookbug programme, and the communities mental health and wellbeing fund, which is delivered across Scotland through third sector interfaces.

I acknowledge that it is frustrating, but the pilot is an important first step to mainstreaming multiyear funding agreements across the third sector to balance our ambitions against challenging financial decisions and the landscape that we are working in.

You mentioned women’s aid organisations, Ms Chapman, and I can touch on that. The equally safe strategy specifically recognises that women in small rural and island communities can face particular challenges in relation to all forms of violence against women and girls; abuse can sometimes be even more hidden than in urban areas. To help address those issues, we fund vital support services across all parts of Scotland, including in the rural and island communities, through our investment of £21.6 million a year in the delivering equally safe fund. At least £5.4 million of the delivering equally safe fund is allocated to rural and island communities. That figure excludes rural areas within predominantly urban local authorities, so the actual amount will be higher than that. I hope that that gives some reassurance.

Improvements are being made to the availability and analysis of equality data across the Scottish Government through the equality data improvement programme and the equality evidence strategy for 2023 to 2025. That includes improvements to the collection and analysis of disaggregated and intersectional data across policy areas. Good progress has been seen across the strategy as of July 2025. Of the strategy’s 45 actions, 17 are complete, 20 are in progress and officials are supporting the remainder to be delivered within the strategy period, where possible.

An evaluation of the current equality evidence strategy to examine its impacts, including how the work has improved outcomes, will commence shortly. Work is under way to begin the development of the next equality evidence strategy, which will be done in collaboration with analysts, policy makers and external organisations that are interested in improving equality evidence.

I will come in on that. During my previous appearances in front of the committee, I have emphasised my personal commitment to provide support and challenge across portfolios. As I said in my opening remarks, I have had 14 ministerial meetings so far, and we are now working differently. Governments are set up with departments, and everyone has subject areas while, in the chamber, we have shadow ministers to cover portfolios. It is also about cultural change. As I have said, there needs to be a will to change. We need to take people with us in order to make the change by demonstrating the positive effects that it can have.

That is part of my challenge. If we undertake impact assessments earlier, it will lead to better decision making in the future, especially in these times of fiscal challenge when serious financial decisions must be made. Money is not infinite. Therefore, we need to ensure that we look after the most vulnerable people, as the cabinet secretary says, and see the intersections in how a decision in one portfolio area can affect another.

There is much more to do. That is why having a vision and a bold ambition is important. It gives us a clear trajectory to aspire to. The journey is long and complicated but I assure the committee that we are making good progress along that way.

I will deal with the minimum core requirements. I recall that, when I was convener of the committee, I asked questions of Government representatives regarding the minimum core, so I take a special interest in that.

We understand the minimum core as the most fundamental requirements of social, economic and cultural rights, such as the right to adequate food, housing and healthcare, that every state must uphold at all times, irrespective of resources. The Scottish Human Rights Commission promotes those concepts within the context of a potential human rights bill that will aim to incorporate certain international treaties in domestic law to ensure that everyone in Scotland can access those essential rights.

We understand that minimum core obligations fall into two categories. The first concerns the budget process, in relation to which they include running the process differently, driven by principles of transparency, participation and accountability—I know that the committee has been considering those themes. The second category concerns the budget itself, in relation to which they include demonstrating that the content of a budget—the decisions that are taken about how money is raised, allocated and spent—is in line with human rights obligations. That covers the maximum available resources in particular. Governments are obliged to take steps to progressively realise the rights to the maximum of their available resources. Minimum core obligations are understood to be the minimum protections that Governments should guarantee to everyone.

The human rights discussion paper that was published in July sets out proposals for ministers to run a participatory process to inform the minimum standard of social, economic and cultural rights. One of the actions that was identified in that paper was to develop the thinking on minimum standards and what that participatory process might look like. It might be worth noting that there is no global agreement on minimum core obligations, because they will differ for every nation, depending on the maximum resources that are available. It is new territory, but I can assure the committee that it is being taken incredibly seriously. I hope that that covers that bit of it.

On the decision not to legislate, Tess White quite rightly asked what we were doing in the meantime. As I said, we published the discussion paper. We are implementing the capability building programme to help the public sector and the wider duty bearers with the human rights bill. In the current financial year, we have invested up to about £200,000 to increase the knowledge and understanding of the rights that are proposed for incorporation across local authorities and health and social care providers. We will also engage with organisations’ funding through the equality and human rights fund to facilitate a knowledge exchange on the proposed rights and how to prepare the ground for future duties. Our capability building workshop group is helping to inform the delivery of that work in 2025-26 and beyond.

On making that information on human rights accessible and available, it is vital to allow the rights holders to claim those rights. Working with stakeholders, we will develop plans for information and awareness raising, including a campaign that is aligned with the future timescales for the implementation of human rights. We are developing a toolkit as part of the mainstreaming strategy that will assist with improving competence in that area. That will be an online platform that will have resources and checklists around training, continual professional development and best practice, which means that there will be a lot of practical support. There will be examples to support Scottish Government directorates and the wider Scottish public sector, so that people can evaluate the mainstreaming strategies and human rights priorities and take actions where appropriate.

I will add a couple of short points. I remind everyone that health boards, like other public service providers, have to undertake equality impact assessments on any decisions that they make. That puts it on the record that they have looked at the equality impact and are taking mitigating factors into account. If there is a disproportionate impact on certain groups, the mitigating actions that they are going to take are on record.

I can confirm that the responsibility for the EHRBAG secretariat function has officially been transferred to the Scottish exchequer. I know that doing that was a request for some time, so I hope that it gives clear evidence of that alignment—so that, as members have said, we can “follow the money”. That portfolio has been shifted into the Scottish exchequer, which demonstrates the direct link between them.

I can come in briefly on that. The way that it works is that we give money to strategic delivery partners who undertake that work, because they are best placed to do it. They have the knowledge and expertise and, usually, they have the voice of lived experience. I could give the example of the Scottish Refugee Council.

On the funding and procurement process, when the grant offer letters go out, the contract is very clear about what services we expect to be delivered. We have internal and external organisations that monitor that, analyse it and make sure that all the processes are followed. For example—I always get this one mixed up—Inspiring Scotland has more than 17 years of experience and it does regular checks and balances to make sure that the money that we provide is used for the intended purpose. If it is not, there are ways of managing that, as there are with many contracts.

I have been over how and why we procure services. In previous sessions, the issue of conflation has been raised—maybe it was Tess White who raised it. Different organisations provide different services. Some of them are campaigners and provide services, too. I have made it very clear in the past that the organisations that we fund are funded for specific services that they provide. Some of them may undertake campaigning work while others may not. None of that campaigning work is funded by the Scottish Government in any way whatsoever. Generally speaking, the organisations provide services such as providing information, gathering data, listening to the voices of lived experience, running suicide helplines and informing future policy. They are undertaking very valuable work.

I will have a go. If anything is left unanswered, I am also happy to follow up with you on it.

Cat McMeeken was correct, and I have reinforced what she said. One of the services that is provided is advocacy work. Often, the most marginalised people are not in a place to be able to represent themselves, so they need somebody advocating for them. For instance, the Scottish Refugee Council has just been awarded a contract to assist migrants—they are some of the most vulnerable people, as they are not able to access their rights on issues such as housing, benefits or healthcare. It is important to remember that the principle applies across all protected characteristics. Being trans is a protected characteristic, so trans people would and should be entitled to the same services as anyone with any other protected characteristic.

We will continue to work with our partners in Inspiring Scotland, with whom we have a well-established relationship. In response to Tess White’s question, on the budget that comes out of my portfolio and the equality and human rights fund, it might be helpful for you to be aware that 31 per cent of my total budget is spent on disability organisations and supporting people with disabilities. Twenty-two per cent of the budget is spent on advancing race equality and in the wider field. Twenty per cent of the budget is spent on women and girls. Fourteen per cent, which is the least amount, is spent on supporting organisations that work in the LGBTQI arena. I hope that that gives you an indication of the proportions of the money that is spent.