Chamber and committees

In response to an earlier question, I set out how some of the budget decisions can be interconnected, not just in relation to equality and fairer Scotland impacts but also in relation to some of the other factors involved. Alongside the budget, we published analysis showing the impact that tax and social security measures have had on households with different income levels and characteristics. In response to feedback, this year’s equality and fairer Scotland statement included eight case studies, setting out the rationale for budget decisions in a transparent and accessible way, and one of those was on social security.

A great deal of work goes into the statement itself. This year, that has included a Cabinet-level workshop on the equality and fairer Scotland considerations. We will continue our process on the equality and fairer Scotland statement and make changes to it in the years ahead to develop that work further.

Decisions to reduce employability budget lines have not been easy to make, but in the challenging financial context they have, unfortunately, been necessary. Every savings decision related to employability funding has been taken with the primary aim of protecting investments in front-line services as much as we possibly can.

The number of parents accessing services since parental employability support became a funded priority in April 2020 has risen year on year, and we remain committed to increasing the effectiveness of our services for parents in line with our child poverty commitments. That is, of course, done very much in partnership with local government.

The draft budget sets out our plan to invest up to £90 million in devolved employability services in 2024-25, and we will continue to prioritise specific investment that is aimed at supporting parents during that process.

The budget ensures that we continue to mitigate some of the worst excesses of UK Government decisions, and we will continue to do that next year. We have the funding to continue to mitigate the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, and we have the Scottish welfare fund.

I will raise two points alongside that. I would class the Scottish child payment as a mitigation measure, because, quite frankly, if universal credit was at the rate that it should be, we would not need to come in with additional funding for the Scottish child payment, and we could spend that money elsewhere.

The other aspects of mitigation, apart from the Scottish child payment, cost £127 million in 2023-24—the financial year that we are currently in. Clearly, that is money that we could have spent in a different way this year or next year if the UK Government had agreed with the proposal for an essentials guarantee that would ensure that universal credit was at a level that allowed people sufficient money to deal with essentials. We are simply talking about paying for essentials—not for a high standard of living.

If we were not having to mitigate UK Government decisions, the Scottish Government could be spending the money that is being spent on mitigation measures and the Scottish child payment on other poverty measures, and not just on child poverty.

Again, I am happy to provide in writing to the committee further detail on the mitigation costs.

As I said in my earlier remarks, we have endeavoured very much to protect investment in front-line services as much as possible. That includes our focus on parental employability support, which is a funded priority. I totally appreciate that members will have views on what budgets might be increased, and I am happy to work with Scottish Labour—as are colleagues across the Cabinet, I am sure—should members wish to come forward with costed proposals for how employability budget lines could be changed. As always, where there is a request to increase employability and other budget lines, we would need to discuss what changes could be made in other budgets that would allow such an increase. I am happy to work with Mr O’Kane if he feels that something should be done in that regard, and I am sure that my colleague Neil Gray would be happy to do so, too.

Because of the lack of time that we have to go into that, I am happy to furnish the committee with the forecast for the Scottish Government budget for capital and tell it why we continue to have to make difficult decisions. If Mr Balfour would like to see that forecast increased, he will have to suggest where the money will come from.

A number of the funding streams are being provided on a multiyear basis. For the sake of time, I am happy to provide the committee with some examples of how multiyear funding has been introduced. There is not a blanket approach, but there has been movement on it.

I suggest that one of the main ways to give the Scottish Government certainty over its budget and thereby allow further work to be done on multiyear funding is for the Scottish Government to receive multiyear funding packages, so that it has better knowledge of the funding that it will have. A great deal of work and implementation has been done, and I can provide the committee with some examples of where multiyear funding has been introduced in the past few years for different third sector streams, if that would assist the committee. It is work in progress.

They may not know that a safeguarding concern has been raised and delivered to the local authority or the Office of the Public Guardian. As Camilo Arredondo pointed out, it will be up to those organisations to deal with that as they usually would. Again, that is specifically about allowing a member of the agency’s staff to ensure that any concerns that they have are dealt with in an appropriate process within the agency. There is the legal ability for a concern to be handed over to the relevant authority, which can then use its own powers and usual manner of investigation to look into it. It would be for those authorities to determine what to do with that information and how to deal with the individual concerned.

In a case where the agency believes that that is the only way that it can be done, yes. For example, the agency may fear that it would make the harm worse and allow a perpetrator of abuse to have more power and control, or more avenues for abuse, if the information is handled in another way. There is a sensitivity around dealing with the information and obtaining consent while also being very careful about how that is done. If it is not done sensitively, that could make an exceptionally difficult situation a lot worse.

Indeed—they would be the same types of processes. There will be an attempt to achieve consent, but if, for the reasons that we have gone into already, such consent is not appropriate or cannot be given, what we are talking about can still be done.

I have very little to add, convener. To respond to Roz McCall’s point, I note that the set of regulations is an attempt to ensure that the individual remains at the heart of everything that we do. The existence of a threat of harm to an individual is the reason why we would take the approach, which we recognise is a very serious step, of using the regulations. I hope that I can reassure Roz McCall that the intent is to ensure that we protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of whom, simply because of their circumstances, may not be able to give their explicit consent. The reason why we are seeking to make the regulations is very much based on the need to protect those individuals.