Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks for that response. You gave a lot of information there, but I want to go back to that last point. Although we welcome a lot of powers being given to local authorities, it is important for you to give an answer to Emma Congreve directly but also to everybody who is listening—and I am sorry to be so direct, but it is important—because this is taxpayers’ money. At our workshops last week and this week, we heard a lot about the different areas where people think that money spent could be more transparent and accountable. When it comes to human rights budgeting, who is accountable for ensuring that the money goes down that golden thread? Is it leadership, or is it people all the way down?

Thank you for clarifying that.

You said at the beginning that progress has been made. However, we have highlighted quite a lot of issues today, which we also spoke about last week in our private session. The system is clearly broken somewhere; there are cracks in the system that the Government needs to look at. That is why we are scrutinising the issue today—otherwise, we would not be here.

Today, we have heard that there are numerous issues with connections and accountability. It is for the Government to ensure that the leadership is there, but, as we have heard, that should flow right down to the councils. In what areas has progress been made with the Government? What is being done wrong? If the Government has made progress, why are we scrutinising the situation?

Good morning. Minister, on 25 February, you said in response to one of my questions:

“My role is not to make ministers’ decisions for them but to highlight those intersectionalities, to get them talking to one other and, more important, to get them to do that prior to making any decisions. That is the change of approach. I assure the committee that I am robustly challenging my colleagues to consider those things, to come out of our silos and to move towards that outcome rather than outcomes that are based on portfolios.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 25 February 2025; c 6.]

Has there been any progress on that and are ministers talking to one another to achieve the best possible outcomes? As we know, women are often faced with disadvantages when it comes to employment, which are often made worse by an unequal burden of family responsibilities. How are ministers working together to ensure that women are not placed at a disadvantage, especially when it comes to employment?

I also want to highlight some of the evidence that we took earlier. People commented that there is a lack of connections; that things do not feed into wider budgets; that some areas of human rights are understood and some are not; that things are not followed through in how resources are allocated; that greater connections and clarity are needed; and that people cannot follow the money and wonder what is being spent.

It is clear that those are issues, and the Scottish Government cannot ignore the cracks that are showing in the system. It is good that we have you here today to provide evidence on what you have been doing since 25 February, and what work you are doing on women being at a disadvantage, especially when it comes to employment. Last but not least—perhaps the cabinet secretary would like to answer this question—what would you say about the comments that were made today, especially about connectivity? I know that the cabinet secretary mentioned that silo work is still happening and that there is still more work to be done. It would be good to hear your response to the comments that we heard earlier.

Over to you first, minister.

Thank you. Cabinet secretary?

I take what you have just said, Allan, as a positive that the committee has been doing good work.

Last week’s meeting was very interactive, and I found it very productive—I am sure that other colleagues have talked about it, too. We enjoyed listening to people’s real-life experiences as well as those of people who are working on the ground. All committees should definitely go out and hear people’s real-life experiences; after all, we just sit in this building, making laws and policy. Although there is consultation, last week’s meeting showed how important it is to hear about real life.

Something that was highlighted last week and which has been talked about many times today is the issue of accountability. One particular point was that the Scottish Government gives out money for programmes; the people leading those programmes might not be qualified or have the experience, but they are given large sums of money, with no accountability and transparency. I have heard today about a lack of transparency; about the fact that it is very difficult to follow the money and find out how it is allocated and spent; and about a process failure and a lack of accountability. Who is accountable when it comes to finding out whether progress is being made over time and where the money from Government to councils is being used?

The scenario that I have set out is one that people told us about last week. They said that, when the money that is given out goes down the chain, the project managers who are put in place do not have the experience. Nonetheless, they are given these very large sums of money to run those programmes. Allan, you mentioned accountability from Government to council, and it would be good to hear your views on how accountability in programmes can improve. What more can the committee do? We have heard about the good work that we are already doing, but could we do more? Could we ask the minister and cabinet secretary the right questions when they are here later? What would you want us to ask them when it comes to accountability from the top right down to the bottom so that we ensure that that golden thread is there?

No, I am saying that the work should be done in consultation with them. My bill does not say who should provide that education; it sets out that the provision should be in place. I have put it in the bill that there must be consultation. Governments cannot make such decisions in isolation, just as teachers cannot make them alone. We need to get people to work together and to engage in consultation so that no one person makes a decision on how to tailor the programme.

I am not going to say what the programme should be called; I am simply calling it education. I have included that provision in the bill to ensure that it is available for all schools.

That is a good question. I mentioned in my opening statement and in my answer to the convener what happens with the disclosure scheme. It is a good scheme, and my bill would be working closely with it and with MAPPA. However, I have spoken to survivors, and I am aware that people who have been domestically abused but do not know about the scheme will not know that they can contact the police in that regard.

Although the police have some—I stress “some”—names of certain sex offenders and more serious offenders, my bill will bring out more extensive knowledge on people who will have to give that information, which the police will hold. That will better protect victims, because, at the moment, they do not know that they can contact anybody. We are making sure that the police contact them, based on the limited information and knowledge that they have. I mentioned earlier that 3,000 offenders would be added to MAPPA. That information will enable the police to act fast. We can save lives out there.

I have been speaking to survivors, and the disclosure scheme has been letting them down. Although, as I said, I respect it and believe that it works, we need that extra layer of protection. Knowledge is key to saving somebody’s life. That is why part 1 of the bill, on notifications, is important. We just cannot let people think that they can rely on saying, “Somebody is going save my life if I have been domestically abused.” We need more information and more knowledge out there, because the statistics are very high right now.

Charlie Pound might want to add to that.

I know that you are very passionate about this issue, Mr Macpherson. There is also one organisation in the BAME community that we have spoken about, and I know that you know the subject well.

You have said that 2022 to 2025 is a long time, but we are talking about the parliamentary process around bills. I have to thank the non-Government bills unit, which did a lot of work very quickly on this. It was important to me that, at every point between 2022 and 2025, I gave organisations and survivors opportunities to contribute.

Around twice a week, I get a phone call in my office from somebody asking me for help, and I pass them to the correct authorities or charities. People think that I am going to be a lifeline for them, and I hope that I am.

You are absolutely right that the committee is here to scrutinise legislation, and I am here so that you can do so. I am quite open minded today and I will take away all the feedback from committee members. I will also look at what else we can add to the bill when we get to the later stages.

You asked about the kind of engagement that I have carried out. I have done quite a lot, and I had a chance to meet—

No, I am saying that the work should be done in consultation with them. My bill does not say who should provide that education; it sets out that the provision should be in place. I have put it in the bill that there must be consultation. Governments cannot make such decisions in isolation, just as teachers cannot make them alone. We need to get people to work together and to engage in consultation so that no one person makes a decision on how to tailor the programme.

I am not going to say what the programme should be called; I am simply calling it education. I have included that provision in the bill to ensure that it is available for all schools.