Chamber and committees

The committee might take a view on the support that the UK Government should be giving, but we can perhaps discuss that in private session when we consider the evidence that we have heard.

Given our time constraints, this will be my final question. In your opening remarks, cabinet secretary, you mentioned support for Ukrainian refugees. There was a time-limited £10 million commitment, which is no longer there. Can you explain the Scottish Government’s thinking on that and put on record what support will be available in the coming financial year?

Of course, I am not going to not support the instrument, but best start foods is sometimes seen as a poor relation when it comes to investment in supporting children and families across Scotland, so it is important to put on the record that, since their inception, the best start grant, which is given in cash, and the best start foods scheme, which gives voucher support—in effect, pre-paid cash support to children and families—have benefited more than 400,000 people with £105 million, £17.3 million of which has benefited people in Glasgow, including my constituents.

If the instrument passes, an additional 20,000 children and families will benefit. I know that it makes a real difference. The committee would be wise sometimes to hear directly from the lived experience of people who receive such grants, in order to see the focused difference that they make on the ground. I just put that on the record.

In addition, the regulations have value for women who are pregnant in removing the income threshold on qualifying benefits. Every four weeks, they will receive £19.80—or £36.90 during their child’s first year. That is the most generous and supportive series of grants anywhere in the United Kingdom. In the round, the five grants will see children in Scotland receive an additional £10,000 by their sixth birthday. At the heart of it, the best start foods scheme makes a laser-like focused difference to some of the poorest and most vulnerable children in Scotland.

Sometimes, the passing of such instruments goes completely unnoticed. This instrument extends the entitlement to an additional 20,000 children and is a £6 million investment. It is important to put such things on the record, because they involve public money for public benefit, and this will really deliver.

I have a follow-up question, but perhaps you could reply in writing to save the wrath of the convener and to save your voice.

Ironically, we invest more in the Scottish child payment, but when better-off calculations are done for parents who may be trying to get back into employment and off universal credit, there is a cliff edge as that financial support is taken away. That is an unintended consequence, but it is a consequence nonetheless. What is the Government’s thinking about how to smooth out that cliff edge? I know that that would require money to taper benefits as people move off universal credit and back into full employment. That may be something that the committee will have to look at in the months to come.

I have no more questions. The specific £10 million seems to be part of a larger global spend, and there is a connection between UK Government commitments and Scottish Government responsibilities. It would be helpful to get clarity on that in writing.

Cabinet secretary, you will be aware that Glasgow has declared a housing emergency, largely as a consequence of the UK Home Office fast-tracking asylum and refugee applications, which has led to hundreds of decisions—hopefully positive ones for many people—being made at the same time, which has put huge pressure on homelessness services in the city. That lets down refugees and other homeless people in the city. There is also a wider issue with homelessness and refugees across Scotland. What additional funding is the Scottish Government providing to local authorities to address homelessness among refugees?

Cabinet secretary, to rewind a little, part of Mr Macpherson’s line of questioning was about speeding up the consent process and about local authorities going quicker in relation to that. I am conscious that, for larger projects, decisions are made at a national level, and the energy consents unit would deal with a lot of those. I see in my briefing paper that the fees regime should make the running of that unit cost neutral. How do we make sure that the process is also cost neutral for local authorities and that they are appropriately staffed with the correct expertise to speed the process up? I imagine that there are a lot of up-front costs in resourcing local authorities to do that. How does the budget secure the investment in local authorities that they will undoubtedly need?

You had an exchange with Mr Macpherson about how other public bodies are financially supported. I think that NatureScot and Marine Scotland have been mentioned, and I am sure that other bodies are relevant. Our briefing pack talks about not being clear about how much funding could be realised for those organisations and about getting a better idea of the pipeline of projects. Do those organisations require funding for up-front costs in preparing for what we hope will be a full pipeline of projects?

That goes back to a question that I asked in the previous session. What is the latest update on what the pipeline of projects looks like?

Yes, absolutely.

Deputy First Minister, you talked about the path to balancing the budget when it comes to drawing down ScotWind moneys. As I listened to that, the expression “just transition” was floating about in my head. By that I mean, I wonder what people who live in poverty, but for whom direct action is being taken by the Scottish Government to mitigate and assuage some of that poverty in the teeth of UK austerity, would say about the use of the money that is being drawn down.

I declare an interest, convener, in that I am the deputy convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. There was a 13.1 per cent increase in that budget. Deputy First Minister, do you think that we could talk to the communities that I represent about a just transition and a climate emergency, and look them in the eye, if we did not draw down some of that money to plug the UK budget settlement gaps in order to help those living in poverty, whom we all represent? Surely, there has to be a balance, That, too, is part of a just transition.

I appreciate that. I am delighted that I do not have to deal with those complexities. Perhaps getting a flexible timescale to the committee at some point in the future would be helpful to allow us to better understand what is happening.

I am glad that that work is on-going. I am minded to ask whether, if there is a principle that the running of the energy consents unit will ultimately be cost neutral, there is an anticipation that, whatever funding mechanism is worked out with local authorities to underpin their work in that area, including fees regimes, that work should also be cost neutral to local authorities.