Chamber and committees

On the point about developments that have been made, particularly with the adult disability payment, we know that there have been challenges with information from clients coming in quickly. What improvements have been made in that process to ensure that, if somebody has information, they share it as quickly as possible?

The committee is interested in the challenges in people getting support and advice—in particular, on the telephone. There seem to be stubborn and persistent issues with telephony, year on year. Do you recognise those persistent issues? Can you give an overview of what more has been done to address them?

It would be useful to the committee to have that information as soon as possible, because I think that we can say that, across 2022-23, there have been persistent issues. If that situation has improved and there is data to show that, it would be useful to see it.

Can I ask about partner agencies?

Mark Scott was murdered in 1995 as he walked through Bridgeton on his way back from a Celtic game. The murder was a brutal, unprovoked sectarian attack. However, from that tragic murder came hope in the form of the Mark Scott leadership for life award, which is now delivered by the Outward Bound Trust and brings young people together to share experiences and reduce racism, sectarianism and intolerance. The Scottish Government has provided core funding since 2012, which has allowed the award to leverage other funding from alternative sources. That amount stands at £75,000, but the trust has been told that the funding will be removed from next year. Surely the First Minister agrees that this life-changing award for young people that tackles sectarianism in the best way that I can think of cannot be allowed to fail due to Government cuts? Given that I am meeting the trust today, will he engage with me to find a solution and reinstate the funding?

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I thank Kenneth Gibson for securing the debate and for his opening speech, which set out in detail many views that we would all share, across the chamber, about why the cap feels arbitrary and unfair, and why reform is so necessary. Mr Gibson got to the heart of the difference that charity lotteries can make in communities such as Cunninghame North or, more widely, across West Scotland, which I represent.

I declare an interest in that, in a previous life, I had the job of setting up a charity lottery for Enable Scotland when I worked there. I know the difference that that lottery has made, even in its infancy, although it is probably not reaching the cap at this stage. It certainly makes a difference in the funding for charitable projects for people who have a learning disability. We see that in the variety of organisations that are supported, including our hospice movement across West Scotland, which relies on charity lotteries to support its work.

We have heard about the important work that has been done by the People’s Postcode Lottery and the limitations that have perhaps been placed on it due to the cap. In my local community in East Renfrewshire, I have seen funding from the People’s Postcode Lottery make a real difference, whether that is community organisations supporting older people and reducing isolation or organisations such as Back to SchoolBank in East Renfrewshire, which provides new uniforms and school equipment to children. Those organisations have benefited from funding from the People’s Postcode Lottery. It is a real shame that that is limited by the effects of the cap.

In the context of higher and higher demands on our third sector, and at a time when we see funds being stretched further and further, it does not make any sense to cap the ability to generate funds and, in turn, share funds with organisations that need them. Analysis carried out by the People’s Postcode Lottery has demonstrated that the annual sales cap on the sector restricts funding that can be provided to its 40 large charity partners. As we have heard, that is millions of pounds annually that could be doing more good in our communities and is currently being restricted from being raised in the first place. We have heard from colleagues across the chamber that a variety of organisations would share that view, including, not least, the Gambling Commission, the Charity Commission in England and Wales and, I am sure, Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

It is clear that there is consensus across the chamber and in the House of Commons on lifting the cap. Indeed, I was reading the Hansard of the Westminster Hall debate that was held in July, to which Patricia Gibson MP and others contributed. I was pleased to see the efforts of Opposition parties in coming together to say that the cap needs to change, that it will not cost the taxpayer money and that it will improve charities. In responding for Labour, my colleague Alex Davies-Jones called on the minister to take action, take a step forward, get a move on with removing the cap through consulting the charities and organisations that are most directly impacted and find a way to do that. If the current UK Government is not willing to do it, it can get out of the way and let another party come in and take the issue forward, because it is important and it commands consensus.

I am conscious of time, so I will leave it there. The strength of feeling in the Scottish Parliament and at UK level shows that it is time to do the right thing and remove the cap.

Good morning. My question will follow on from that, but not in terms only of the budget lines that we have just focused on. I am keen to understand how the budget as a whole has been looked at through the lens of equality and human rights.

My starting point is to ask this: to what extent have decisions that have been taken in other portfolio areas impacted on the Government’s ambition to achieve its wider ambitions in equality? Is there a sense that decisions that have been taken in other portfolio areas might entrench inequalities rather than combat them? I will come to Heather Williams first.

Do other colleagues want to contribute?

No. Heather Williams answered my second question, which was about the quality of assessment of decisions in the budget. That was a useful conclusion.

In relation to the 27 per cent cut, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said in its written submission to the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is

“baffling that the affordable housing supply programme should be the victim of such a brutal cut as the one announced in the Scottish Budget 2024-25”.

Given the impact on children and families in poverty, to what extent have the cabinet secretary and her officials undertaken an equality impact assessment of that cut?

Can I ask one more question?