Chamber and committees

I support the instrument. For clarity, it is worth putting on the record why we have the council tax reduction scheme. The scheme was abolished on a UK-wide basis by the UK Government in 2013. The Scottish Government moved at that point to bring in a Scotland-wide council tax reduction scheme. In that time, 455,000 households per year have benefited—so, in 2022, 455,000 households benefited from the Scottish council tax reduction scheme. On average, low-income households benefited by £750, which is a £3 billion investment in relation to low-income households in the past 10 years.

If the negative instrument, which has been brought forward speedily by the Scottish Government, protects that key investment in relation to low-income families, I absolutely support it.

Good morning, Paul and Alison. I should say thank you to Alison and Saheliya, which has a wonderful facility in my constituency of Maryhill and Springburn, for the great work that you do there.

Ms Davis, I feel guilty for stopping you, because what you said is very important for the committee to hear, but I need to direct us back to budget scrutiny. That was all very powerful, though, and the committee will consider it, so thank you for it.

We are doing budget scrutiny, and both witnesses have made clear the challenges, the financial pressures on the ground and the lack of certainty about financial support. The Scottish Government has some budget decisions to make. How do the witnesses believe that it should prioritise funds? Should it generate those funds or should it reprioritise funding from one stream to another?

I do not expect a hugely detailed answer, unless the witnesses wish to give one. Can you say in general terms whether the Government needs to increase the amount of money that is taken in by raising additional revenue or whether it should prioritise one area at the expense of another? How should we realign the budget to deal with the cost pressures that are affecting the voluntary sector and your clients?

Sorry, Mr Balfour, but it would be helpful if Mr Bradley answered.

Funds are not unallocated if there is a pound sign beside them and they are notionally allocated to an organisation—we cannot move that money around.

I will bring in Ms Davis, and then I guess that that is my last opportunity.

Thank you.

The Scottish child payment was mentioned, along with the idea of direct payments. This year, that will cost £405 million. If that were to increase to £40 from £25, which is what some campaigners are asking for—I have sympathy with that call, but it has to be paid for—that would represent an additional £250 million, which would mean that there would be less money to spend on organisations such as Saheliya that are at the coalface, dealing directly with the most excluded and marginalised. Is there a balance to be struck between putting direct payments into the pockets of families that are very much in need and providing funding for those small organisations that provide support at the coalface? We cannot spend the same pound twice. Alison, do you want to respond first?

Thanks for that. That was very clear.

I know.

Mr Bradley, I know that time is moving on, but I think the committee would appreciate it if you drew a distinction between money that has been allocated but not provided to organisations and money that is unallocated, because those are different things. Could you address that? I will then bring in Alison Davis before my colleagues get a chance to ask their questions.