���˿���

Thank you for that. Two key stakeholders have given feedback—I will leave that with you.

My final question is on rural proofing, which was explored last week. The definition of that was new to me, but it resonated with me. Dr Hosie raised it when she talked about the geographical and gender inequalities that are occurring through the centralisation of healthcare services, which has a huge impact. If you are to provide leadership, you should look at the healthcare portfolio. Dr Hosie said:

“rural proofing ... does not do a satisfactory job when policy starts from a central belt perspective and then the rural aspect is considered, as opposed to thinking about that from the start.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 29 October 2024; c 41.]

We have seen that with the belated rural workforce strategy in the national health service. Will you look at that, minister?

We have had huge feedback on the drive to centralisation. Two examples that were given last week of the impact of that were that women are having to travel huge distances—such as from Forfar to Dundee—to access long-lasting contraception and that abortion rates have increased, as an unintended consequence of certain services being centralised. How will the Scottish Government—how will you—ensure that rural proofing is considered at the start of the budgeting and policy-making process and not at its end, as things are now?

Thank you.

I am interested in the equalities and human rights fund, which has awarded millions of pounds to organisations since 2021. We are going through the budget process, which is an opportunity for you to provide some leadership. The fund provides funding to controversial organisations such as LGBT Youth Scotland, which has so far been allocated close to £900,000 of taxpayers’ money. This year, BBC Children in Need withdrew funding to the organisation following reports that a convicted paedophile had contributed to one of its coming-out guides. How is the Scottish Government monitoring the funding that it allocates to equalities organisations to ensure that it is a responsible funder? What is your threshold for withdrawing funding?

Thank you, convener. I would like to ask two supplementary questions that concern issues that came up in our previous meeting.

Last week, two stakeholders gave us feedback on the pre-budget fiscal update. Sara Cowan from the Scottish Women’s Budget Group noted that we have seen emergency in-year budget changes for the past three years and said that that looks as if it is not now an exception and has instead become the norm. In relation to the budget process, Dr Alison Hosie said:

“There are lots of questions. It was not a very satisfactory process, and it was not transparent.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 29 October 2024; c 40.]

You have said that it is important for you to understand and scrutinise and that you want to look at areas that are stuck. This is one area that is stuck. How will you change the culture to ensure that such ad hoc in-year budget changes are not the norm?

You said that you can assure me, and you said that it is difficult to measure culture. However, many believe that culture eats strategy and planning for breakfast. If the culture centralises certain services—I gave a small example, but it is huge for a lot of women—you can provide leadership and support change if you say that we need to measure certain outcomes, which come from different committees. You could go into this budget round and say, “We hear from the health committee that this direction of travel has a massively negative impact on ethnic minorities and women. We want to show measurable improvement on those things.” Will you do that and start to make a human rights and equalities approach to budgeting impact on the lives of people in Scotland?

Thank you, convener, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to make a brief remark about this petition on Police Scotland’s controversial policy on recording the sex of offenders, which, until recently, was based on self-ID.

Public interest in the petition has, understandably, been growing, as the convener has said, not least among my constituents in the north-east. That is testament to the tenaciousness and determination of the petitioners Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray from policy collective Murray Blackburn Mackenzie.

In September, it shockingly emerged that Police Scotland had justified its data recording policy because it adhered to the force’s

“values of respect, integrity, fairness and human rights whilst promoting a strong sense of belonging.”

In other words, Police Scotland was prioritising the feelings of sex offenders over those of the victims of sexual crime, and to do so was absolutely indefensible. Rape is defined in law as involving penetration by a penis without consent, and it is therefore, by definition, the act of a male body. That is why this matters.

As MBM’s submission highlights, Police Scotland appears to have publicly U-turned on that policy, and that is to be welcomed, but questions remain about the application of the policy in the past, and the detail of how Police Scotland will implement this operational change in the future.

Since the petition was lodged in June 2021, which is a considerable time ago, the committee has corresponded with Police Scotland on several occasions, and I thank you for that. My view is that if we are to get to the bottom of the force’s operational policies on data recording, the committee must urgently invite Police Scotland to give oral evidence. I implore the committee to not close the petition down, please. The Scottish Government has already washed its hands of the issue, so I urge the committee to listen to the voices of women and treat this matter with the seriousness that it deserves. Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Dr Hosie, I was going to ask whether the revised national outcomes lend themselves to greater connection and coherence in a budget-setting context, but I think that that has been asked already. You have spoken about the transformational potential and the lack of policy coherence, and you and Ms Cowan have said that there is silo working. I will drill down into that by asking two questions. One of those is broad; the other is more specific.

Against the background of the £500 million in-year spending cuts that the finance secretary announced in September, to what extent has the Scottish Government successfully adhered to the three principles of human rights budgeting?

You both mentioned silo working. I have just come from the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and am enriched with a lot of learning from that. I come from the north-east of Scotland, where the delivery of healthcare is increasingly being centralised in order to cut costs and to gain from economies of scale. However, when you look at the impact assessment of that, you see that that approach can entrench gender inequality and geographical inequality, because services are becoming increasingly inaccessible. We have many examples of people having to travel from an outlying area like Forfar to the hospital in Tayside in Dundee for an intrauterine device, for example. Such treatment is gendered. People do not think about the cost of travel from a rural area to a major hospital or about the childcare or caring responsibilities that women have.

Is there a disconnect between budget decisions like that—I have given the example of rural healthcare—and policy outcomes?