³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I think there has to be some leeway, and I accept that decisions are made in different portfolios for lots of different reasons. This year, I will look at examples that have worked from last year’s ministerial workshop. I will use the best examples of ministers applying equalities and human rights budgeting, which I will share with other ministers in order to set the expectation for this year. For example, it is my plan to continue with the workshop idea, but to have it much earlier in the process, while being clear with ministers about what was received well in the previous process and what was perhaps not as helpful.

That is the point of them. I hope that ministers who maybe do not have as much of an idea of when to apply assessments will, as we develop a better in-the-round process for the budget, take the opportunity to ensure that they are familiar with that need and that they know when to look further at what the impacts would be on particular groups of decisions that are being recommended by others or, in the case of housing, what we are having to do due to extreme financial difficulties.

I refer back to my opening statement. We are in a very difficult position. A 10 per cent cut to medium-term capital spend is a huge thing that we cannot simply absorb without anybody being impacted.

I would not say that equalities and human rights budgeting is about never making cuts. It is about making sure that cuts are proportionate, that there is a reason for them and that all the spend is directed towards the progressive realisation of rights, and I think that that is what we have done.

It is hard to prove the impact of spend-to-save processes, but inequalities drive public spending—whether that is spending on social security, on health, on education or on criminal justice. People who are subjected to the worst barriers to accessing human rights and the worst inequality are more likely to have to use those public services. Therefore, putting money into making sure that services are designed with them in mind, and that public services are flexible enough to react to people, regardless of their background or protected characteristics, will undoubtedly save money, and it will save a lot of hassle and, potentially, trauma for people who are trying to access those services. I have no doubt about that.

On equalities being an add-on, that is the attitude that all the work on mainstreaming is seeking to challenge. That attitude absolutely still exists in many minds in public life, but as I said in my previous answer, we need culture change. We need not only a mainstreaming strategy; we also need people to think about equalities and about the impacts on individual groups of people who are subjected to inequality when they make decisions about where to prioritise spending.

I would encourage engagement with lived experience throughout the year, at all stages of any process within Government, because it is absolutely correct to say that lived experience is valuable and should be considered when we are making decisions that impact on people’s lives.

You said earlier that my job involves speaking to other ministers and supporting and pushing them to consider equalities and human rights. Part of that has involved ensuring that the lived experience of groups that fall within my portfolio—such as disabled people, older people or people who experience racism—have direct access to other ministers. It should not be the case that those people always see the equalities minister—they also have issues with health, transport and education. I have been facilitating that contact. One example is that I have been ensuring that the voices that feed into the immediate priorities plan for disabled people are able to engage directly with other ministers.

Absolutely. I am already feeding into next year’s budget process. I already have written notes on things that I felt went well and things that did not. As I said, I will meet the equality and human rights budget advisory group again this week. We will probably talk about how the budget process has gone, but we always look forward and think about what we could do better next time and what needs to change, because that is why we are all here.

The First Minister has challenged all his ministers to think about how every decision will reduce child poverty. When we make spending decisions, we have to think about the impact on tackling poverty, reducing inequality, creating a wellbeing economy and providing growth that does not contribute to further inequalities. There is a challenge. Last year, for example, we looked at the impact of Scottish Government spending specifically to reduce child poverty, such as the Scottish child payment and other schemes. The information that we got is that child poverty is increasing at a slower rate in Scotland than in the UK.

That brings us back to mitigation. It is difficult to be positive and optimistic about a budget that is so focused on mitigation, instead of thinking about how much more of an impact those measures would have on our goal of tackling child poverty if we had control over the whole lot and were not reacting to cuts in other places.

We recognise that more work is to be done across the board on equality and mainstreaming, and I have been pretty open about that throughout the whole session. However, if, for example, the equality and human rights budget advisory group tells us that it cannot see our workings out or how we have reached a decision, we take that on board.

I am trying to target that approach. Throughout the coming year, in the run-up to the next budget process, I will be working hard to ensure that we are reacting to such feedback. I want to ensure that ministers are, by the next budget process, able to explain fully—as many are able to now in regard to decisions that have been taken in this budget—and more widely how they came to decisions and how they engaged equality impact assessments, equality and human rights budgeting and all the other considerations that can help them to make a better, well-rounded decision that completely takes into consideration the impact on those with protected characteristics in particular.

Much of it is designed in partnership. The convener will be aware that many of the recipients of funding in the equalities and inclusion and human rights budget line are long-term partners with whom we have developed good relationships and who can evidence that they are able to support us in delivering on our equality and community opportunities. Much of that budget is reactive to changing inequalities. The committee will be able to see in the budget line the over-time reactions to groups that have been under threat or that have particularly been able to highlight that they are the victims of systemic inequality.

Within the human rights and equalities lines, the committee will be able to see the strong partnerships that have been developed over time.

Those matters would be for education and finance colleagues to take decisions on.

A very clear expectation has been set that ministers—regardless of portfolio—should have a focus on tackling inequality. I doubt that there is a single minister who is unaware that the First Minister expects us to think about inequalities when we take all decisions, and to ensure, throughout our work, that our efforts to reduce inequality are evident. That instruction has been very clear, and the target of ending poverty and reducing inequality is absolutely clear to everyone.

As for my having a role, that is absolutely the case, and I hope that you can take reassurance from the fact that we are now in the week of stage 3 of this year’s budget, and I am already meeting the equality and human rights budget advisory group to talk about next year’s process and how we can improve things.

Of course, I appreciate that this year’s budget process has been the first one that I have been directly involved in, so I am not able to make a comparison with previous years; all I know is what we could have done differently this time. I have made it clear that I am willing to listen to the budget advisory group and to evidence that is given to this and other committees to ensure that we are continually progressing and improving.

I am not familiar enough with that decision to know whether an EQIA would have been helpful. I certainly doubt that it could have made a difference to the outcome, given the financial situation that we are in. Everybody wants to support people who face housing issues. It is a question of ensuring that cuts are reasonable, proportionate, time limited and necessary things that we have to do, and are not harmful to human rights.