Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that, Maggie. You will be well aware of my years in education. I still feel very passionate about children in particular, but I include neurodivergent adults, autistic adults and dyslexic adults as well.

What you describe is heartbreaking, and we should absolutely be doing better. I would argue that we are, and that those issues are being taken very seriously.

I outlined to the committee the approach of getting portfolios to speak to each other. In the particular case that you raise, there are clear correlations with other areas. Cross-working needs to happen between, for example, the health budget, which is substantial, and education. Those are just two areas—there will be others. Housing will come into it, as will social care.

The challenge for all of us, as elected members with portfolio responsibilities, is that we have a duty not only to take care of our own patch but to recognise—as you alluded to in your question—that a decision in one portfolio area that is taken with the best of intentions could have an unintended consequence, and deprive somebody of a service, in another area. In addition, there are areas in which duplication can happen.

I have highlighted some of the work that I am doing—for instance, I met with representatives of the Scottish councils’ equality network. For a minister to meet with those folk, who are working incredibly hard at local authority level, has never been done before; I brought together all 32 local authorities to do that. That should give you an indication that I am trying to get to the heart of our public services—in that case, our local authorities, which are direct providers of many of the services to the folks you mention.

The Scottish Government is taking those steps to build that competence and capability across the public sector. In addition, the online equality and human rights mainstreaming strategy toolkit will be published later this year. That will provide resources for officials across the public sector to increase their competence in equality, inclusion and human rights. Those resources will include guidance, checklists, training materials and best practice examples. The content is being developed by working groups, with representatives from key stakeholders, and the aim is to support policy officials by setting out pragmatic steps that they can take to support their mainstreaming journey.

We are also moving forward in building our capacity in inclusive communications, and we are committed to embedding that across our public services. I know that I am due another visit to the committee with regard to our public sector equality duty, so we will be able to go into that in further detail.

I hope that that gives you an indication that there is visible leadership in this area, not only in ensuring that we have different ways of working but in empowering officials. Those officials may be working in local authorities, as in the example that I gave, but the approach applies equally to those in the third sector; I mentioned my extensive meeting with duty bearers, for instance. We need to provide people with the support that they need to do that work. We cannot simply say, “This is what I expect”, because people will come back and say, “Well, how am I meant to do that? Where are the resources, and where is the support?” I think that I have given a reasonable account of how we are doing that.

It is always a bit odd when something is read out—it sounds quite stark. I do not agree that I was not across the detail. However, you will understand that each portfolio has a specialism and that, although I would be expected to have an overarching knowledge, I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect the equalities minister to have an in-depth knowledge of each individual portfolio area. I think that that is only reasonable, given that each area is highly specialist and extensive.

On rural proofing, rural considerations are mainstreamed in the Scottish Government, so, as I have said, good policy making should already include those. As I said in earlier responses, the Scottish Government is in the process of introducing a new and systematic approach, which is called the rural assessment toolkit and which should further aid the greater focus that is required to be applied to the unique needs of rural communities and businesses. As I have said, the toolkit will support civil servants to understand the unique characteristics, challenges and opportunities.

A key principle of the successful development of rural policy is to have meaningful engagement with rural stakeholders and communities at an early stage in the policy development process in order to consider how those stakeholders can actually shape that policy. The challenge for us will be to ensure that their evidence is visible within the policy. As part of the support and challenge, that is where I can come in to track that voice. We have spoken about that before, and Tess White will know that I am committed to ensuring that, as part of that transparency process, the stakeholders and people that we hear from can see that when we produce our documents.

Tess White will also be aware that many voices come to the table and many representations are made. Ministers and cabinet secretaries have the right to take on board everything that they hear before they make decisions. They are best placed to do that.

I was talking about the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and the Islands. That meeting is coming up, and if there is anything that Tess White—

Yes, I am happy to do that. The equality and human rights budget advisory group makes a significant contribution in helping us to achieve our ambition for Scotland to be a global leader in equality and human rights. We are hugely grateful for its guidance, leadership and recommendations, which we continue to progress, including in our approach to this year’s EFSBS. As is noted in the letter that I sent to the committee last week,

“Out of the 22 actions, 9 have been completed and 12 are in progress, with one yet to get underway as it is contingent upon the completion of another action.”

That included undertaking a structured review of the 2024-25 EFSBS and discussing the findings with the group, agreeing—in partnership with EHRBAG—an approach to this year's EFSBS and implementing improvements to budget guidance by providing portfolios with a handbook and better integration with the programme for government.

Yes—if you could just give me a wee second, because there is a lot of information that I want to make sure that I have here.

Can you just repeat the last bit of your question for me?

I can bring in Nick Bland—actually, Matthew Elsby would be better on that issue.

It goes without saying that it is essential to have good quality, robust data. There are always calls for more of it. I hear calls for intersectional data, as well, to inform good policy making.

The EFSBS uses information gathered from different portfolios to support ministerial decisions as part of the budget process. This year, the document included, in the distributional analysis, new analysis of the impact of some areas of public service spending. Chapter 1 of the EFSBS sets out how the budget process integrated evidence on equality and fairness, through the ministerial workshops and better integration with the programme for government.

As Matthew Elsby said, the budget does not determine every single decision for the Government. Cabinet secretaries will consider the evidence available when they make their many decisions outside the budget process as well. For example, data was used in the setting of tax and social security policy, as demonstrated in the distributional analysis document. In that tax example, we know that there are different outcomes for men and women, and we can break those categories down into, for instance, women who are in an ethnic minority and those who are disabled. That gives an indication of the layers upon layers of data that we need.

Another thing, which I mentioned in a previous committee meeting, is that I am mindful of making sure that we have the robust data sets that we need and that we have enough data, because sometimes we drill down so much that we are talking about very small numbers. The numbers tell a story but not a complete story, which is why I keep saying that the process must be qualitative as well as quantitative. If you triangulate the data with the voice of lived experience, you get a clearer picture on which to make decisions. Making decisions purely based on numbers would further exacerbate situations for those who are already marginalised, and we want to be absolutely sure that that does not happen.

The Scottish Government is continually in the process of improving equality and intersectional data collection. We encourage its analysis, publication and, when sample size allows, robust disaggregation.

Forty-five actions are set out in the equality evidence strategy, which is overseen by the EDIP project board that you referred to. Those actions, which are the key mechanism to advance the equality evidence base, cover improvements to all main equality variables: 33 cover data on race, 30 cover data on disability and long-term conditions and 16 cover intersectionality. As the equality evidence strategy moves into its final year, the key task across the Scottish Government will be to work across all the analytical areas, as well as with external stakeholders, to set out a new strategy to prioritise and fill remaining gaps in equality and intersectional data.

I expect that that will include expanding disaggregation of quantitative data sets, where that is possible with the sample sizes; utilising qualitative data and lived experience to allow for insight into differentiated experiences, which may not always come through in the quantitative data; and drawing on the mix of evidence to identify the relevant research questions from an intersectional point of view.

In addition to those improvements, which we are working towards, we expect policy areas to take a proportionate approach to the existing evidence base in order to ensure that they have enough information to enable ministers to take equality-informed budget decisions.

I know my organisations but, with the best will in the world, I could not say that unless I had the list in front of me, which I could then cross-check. It could be the case, but it might not be so—I cannot give a definitive answer. I can say that it is not necessarily the size of the organisation but the service that it provides that is the important thing. Obviously, the Government wants to deliver services: it is about the organisation that is best placed to deliver that service, and its size is not the most significant factor.

We know that families from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds are one of the six priority family types that are identified in our tackling child poverty delivery plan as being at the greatest risk of poverty. We recognise that the intersection with other protected characteristics, including disability, increases the risk of living in poverty. Since 2018, the Scottish Government has strengthened the evidence base on poverty, building on a series of focus reports, including on minority ethnic families, that outline the challenges and barriers faced as well as policy approaches that might be taken that are successful in addressing those challenges.

Remember that tackling poverty and inequality is a priority for all ministerial portfolios, so those actions should be driven across the Government to deliver on that progress. That includes our more focused work, such as on the take-up of devolved social security benefits and benefits for seldom-heard groups, and our anti-racist employment strategy, which is focused on addressing structural barriers to enable more people from racialised minorities to access, sustain and progress in employment. Understanding how we can address unacceptable levels of poverty for Black and ethnic minority families is a shared endeavour that we will continue to drive forward, and the member knows that I will do that.