Chamber and committees

Thank you. I think that you must have read the question paper, because you are pre-empting my questions superbly. That answer was extremely helpful, because I was going to ask you about any on-going work programmes with the Health and Safety Executive. That goes back to Mr Mason’s question about whether there is duplication or overlap in what you do, work that is complementary, or a combination of all three.

I am conscious of the fact that, earlier this year, the Health and Safety Executive produced some research on Covid, although not long Covid. It also looked at cancer in the construction industry, although not among firefighters—cancer among firefighters is very topical at the moment. The Health and Safety Executive is already doing a lot of work in the area, and you have helpfully put on record that you observe some of that and work in partnership with it, which is important, but do you want to say any more about your on-going work or partnership work?

I am particularly interested in long Covid, neurodegenerative disease in footballers and cancers in firefighters, but please do not restrict yourself to that list simply because I have asked about those issues. I am trying to understand the dynamic between what you research, what you commission, what the Health and Safety Executive does and how that all fits together.

That is really helpful. Thank you.

I am keen to say yes, but I know that time is probably against us, so we would really appreciate it if you could follow that up in writing. I say to any Fire Brigades Union colleagues who are watching that that is due to time constraints. We are keen to hear what Dr Rushton has to say about firefighters, but we would appreciate it if she could provide that in writing. I suspect that the convener will have my guts for garters if we do not move on.

Will we get a case study within the guidance? Guidance can be dry and dusty, so I think that social work professionals would like to see a case study of a situation such as the one that I outlined to you that shows them—perhaps more eloquently than I did—what they should be doing rather than what they perhaps are doing. When finances underpin what is done and there is a budgetary impact on a local authority, we have to ensure that there is best practice and not budgetary practice, if I can put it—delicately—like that.

I am sure that the Notre Dame Centre would love to see you if your busy diary ever permits you to go along, minister. I would love to take you to show you what excellent work it does.

I will move on to my substantive question, which was going to be about the progress that the collaborative has made in recent months. However, I have a specific question on the progress that still needs to be made.

I had written down that there is a guidance rewrite group and that a national kinship assessment framework is being developed to get national consistency. I do not have an active case at the moment, but over the years, one of the issues with consistency has related to kinship care and bereavement.

I explain that as what happens when there is a gran or an auntie at hospital when a loved one passes away and the kids are in very vulnerable circumstances. Often, gran steps in and says, “I’ll take those kids home.” If gran does not do that, social work services will say to gran, “Would you please look after these young people? They are very vulnerable.” The outcome is the same; it was always going to happen. However, one situation would be deemed to be an informal volunteer-led relationship between the children and the local authority, and the other would be the local authority placing the child with the kinship relative.

I understand that some local authorities show good flexibility in acknowledging that the formal placement would have happened anyway, but others do not. The approach is inconsistent. That matter has been raised with me over many years.

In relation to the work of the collaborative, the guidance rewrite group, the national kinship assessment framework and, indeed, access to the Scottish recommended allowance, can the minister give me an assurance that such situations are being taken into account and that guidance and best practice will be rolled out, putting the onus on local authorities to do the right thing by kinship carers in bereavement situations?

Cabinet secretary, I have found these exchanges very helpful. The focus has been on what supports are available for applicants, but there are issues that have, as you said, been addressed and there have been improvements.

Quite rightly, that can be compared with what happens in the DWP and across the rest of the UK. In this committee, we should consistently draw comparisons between Scotland and the rest of the UK, because we want our system to be as modern, progressive, dignified and effective as possible. It is absolutely right that we undertake that type of scrutiny.

With that in mind, will you tell us how young people who get child disability payment are being supported with their applications for adult disability payment? In addition, can you contrast the experience of young people in Scotland, under our system, with what it would be if they lived elsewhere in the UK?

That is very helpful. The support in filling out application forms is not currently available in the UK system. Is there an advocacy service or a signposting mechanism in the UK system? I ask that question in order to draw out the contrasts but also to check whether, if those things exist in the UK system, we could use them as benchmarks by which we can check whether the quality of our service is as it should be.

I have a question for Graham O’Neill. What elements of the budget are most important for supporting refugees and asylum seekers? You have very powerfully put on record your thoughts on housing issues, so could you restrain yourself and not go down that road, because we know and are clear about that bit? What other aspects of the budget make an impact? What areas would you like to see more money spent on, despite my asking where the money would come from? I get all that.

Because of time constraints, I might not get back in, convener. I am conscious that the Illegal Migration Act 2023 constrains spend in the area, because it ends Scottish Government powers to support survivors of trafficking in Scotland. For instance, when I look at the budget for the three years from 2022 to 2025, I see that the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance—TARA—and Migrant Help are scheduled to get £6.35 million between them. That might be ultra vires for the Scottish Government to fund because of the 2023 act. As deputy chair of the cross-party group on migration, it would be remiss of me not to mention that during budget scrutiny. What areas of spend have had an impact, where would you like to see more money spent and do you have any comments on the restrictions on the Scottish Government?

Mr Scott, you have made your case for £20 million for the winter heating payment. Alternatively, £40 million would be fantastic, as would £60 million. That is not the point that I am making. You have absolutely made your case. However, I ask you to be laser-like in saying what your priorities are, because we, as a committee, also have to decide on those.

Taking the money from where?