Equality and Human Rights Budget Advisory Group minutes: December 2025

Attendees and apologies

• (Chair) Emma Congreve, Fraser of Allander Institute
• Jillian Matthew, Audit Scotland
• Joanna Anderson, COSLA
• Sara Cowan, Scottish Women’s Budget Group
• Alison Hosie, Scottish Human Rights Commission
• Simon Fuller (Scottish Government)
• Niall Davidson (Scottish Government)
• Simon Wakefield (Scottish Government)
• Angela Nolte (Scottish Government)
• Hugh Kirkland (Scottish Government)
• Graeme Wilson (Scottish Government)
• Gill McCrum (Scottish Government)
• Rob Priestley (Scottish Government)
• Ashley Ross (Scottish Government)

Apologies

• Stephanie Griffin (Equality and Human Rights Commission)
• David Holmes (Scottish Government)
• Yuki Tsujino (Scottish Government)

Guests/Observers

• No guests or observers to note

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions (agenda item 1)

The Chair welcomed attendees, noting the purpose of a shorter meeting, focusing on updates from Scottish Government (SG) officials on the integrated assessment approach in the run-up to this year’s Budget and Spending Review. 

Minutes from previous meeting and actions (agenda item 2)

Members approved the note of the previous meeting. The Secretariat took an action to update Group on the progress of actions from the previous meeting via correspondence, noting one correction required to action 1.8. 

Actions

• Action 2.1: Secretariat to update the Group on the progress of actions from the previous meeting via correspondence. 
• Action 2.2: Secretariat to update action 1.8 to replace Audit Scotland with SHRC and to note the toolkit is still in development. 

Integrated Impact Assessment approach – recap and update (agenda item 3)

SG officials provided an update on the integrated assessment approach being trialled for this year’s fiscal programme, which includes the 2026-27 Scottish Budget, Spending Review and Infrastructure Delivery Pipeline. It was noted that the overall aim was to develop a more streamlined approach to improve the assessment process and support decision-making. SG officials outlined a three-phase process which ran from August to December 2025 and which included new evidence gathering tools and approaches. For the third year running the impact assessment process involved a ministerial workshop (on 25 November) to consider impacts, with a focus this year on eradicating child poverty and delivering sustainable public services. 

Discussion points:

• In response to questions about whether the new approach being taken felt different, SG officials noted that it did; specifically that new analytical tools that had been developed were helping to present more integrated evidence to support decision-making and focus discussions. 
• Over the three years it was noted that discussion at the ministerial workshops had deepened, with evidence, new perspectives and understanding helping to focus these discussions. 

New tools and approaches (agenda item 4)

SG officials presented an overview of the Impact Database and child poverty budget tagging tools that had been developed to strengthen the evidence base for the impact assessment process. 

On the Impact Database, SG officials noted the rationale for budget tagging and benefits that were being achieved, before providing detail on the approach that had been developed to gather the evidence. SG officials noted this initial approach was a work in progress, within the resource available being able to cover a subset of 70 budget lines, adding up to 45% of the Budget in monetary terms. SG officials provided examples of the quality assurance and moderation process that had been applied while also pointing out some of the challenges and limitations with both the approach and quality of the information. 

SG officials provided an overview of the child poverty budget tagging that had been undertaken, to develop the evidence gathering and support the integrated assessment process. They noted a more granular level of detail for this exercise, going beyond level 4 budget lines and work with the SG’s Child Poverty Team to develop the parameters and a quality assurance process. SG officials demonstrated the process of identifying high, medium and low impacts. While demonstrating the potential of this proof of concept for future development, they noted challenges with what was still a largely subjective exercise; very much dependent on the consistency and quality of the underlying information. 

Discussion points:

• While noting the potential of both tools to improve the process, concerns were raised about the focus on exceptional positive impacts and subsequent presentation of these, with a more rounded approach needed in the longer term to take into consideration limitations and a focus on neutral and negative impacts. 
• The importance and current limitations of quality assurance and moderation
• The importance of these tools and approaches as iterative improvements in a journey with the gaps and limitations being acknowledged.
• Notwithstanding current limitations the potential for these tools to be used in other areas, for example, human rights budgeting, to improve evidence and outcomes. 
• Shared issues around data quality and infrastructure with other parts of SG working to understand prevention spend, as well as other administrations, such as the Welsh Government.

Strategic Integrated Impact Assessment (SIIA) publication (agenda item 5)

SG officials provided an update on the approach and date for the publication of the SIIA. On the approach officials indicated that a more focussed, streamlined publication was being developed which would present the integrated assessment impacts, aiming to strike a balance between the detail of the previous Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement (EFSBS) and the more streamlined approach taken by the Welsh Government in their SIIA publication. SG officials noted the working title at the current time was ‘Strategic Integrated Impact Assessment’ and that it is planned for publication after the draft Budget, on 19 January 2026. 

Discussion points:

• The Group welcomed the date of the publication being shared with them and noted an interest to see whether publishing after the Budget, rather than alongside it, turned out to be beneficial.
• The Group cautioned that, although the intention is for the SIIA to develop iteratively, that SG does not overclaim what it offers on this first occasion. 

Next Steps (agenda item 6) 

SG officials indicated that the date for the next meeting of the Group and proposed items for that meeting would be shared via correspondence. Officials noted potential for a meeting in Q1 2026 to cover an updated Terms of Reference for Group, evaluation and feedback of the Budget, Spending Review and the SIIA, as well as the development of a forward work plan for Equality and Human Rights Budget Advisory Group into the next Parliament. 

Discussion points:

• In the timing of the next meeting consideration to be given to the availability of the interim Chair.
• Ensuring that the next meetings of the Group are used to build on and progress the key areas into a forward work plan. 

Actions

• Action 2.3: Secretariat to liaise with the interim Chair providing proposals for the next meeting of the Group in the new year. 
• Action 2.4: Secretariat to work with the interim Chair to identify options for her replacement. 

Any other business

There was no other business raised.