Seòmar agus comataidhean

I get that, but I point to the other material that is produced, such as the impact assessments, as well as the things that are to come. If we take child poverty as an example, the delivery plan that Shirley-Anne Somerville will publish soon will contain a lot of the detail on the new areas and the evidence base that those will help us to get towards the target that we have all agreed on. I am merely pointing out that there is an array of other information that predates the budget or will come after it. As ever, however, I will absolutely reflect on what the committee is saying about the information that is provided.

Craig Hoy said that it would be hard to argue against the measures that I have set out. I would have hoped that it would be even harder to vote against them at stage 3, because that would involve voting for less money for social care and less money for local government. Those are areas of spend that I have adjusted in the light of discussions. I have met Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders and stakeholders and listened to the third sector, and I have adjusted those areas of spend in the light of listening to all of them. Ultimately, the judgment will be yours to make when it comes to voting for or against that additional funding.

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Overall cash authorisations

Amendments 9 to 11 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 11 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

In addition to what the minister has said, the committee will be aware that we have attempted to provide certainty to third sector organisations through the fairer funding pilot. Although they are not all part of the pilot, it is an attempt to move away from a quantum approach to the certainty of multiyear funding.

Organisations often say that stability and certainty enable them to hold on to staff and to plan what they are going to do. In an environment of constrained finances, moving to the certainty of multiyear funding represents an attempt by us to recognise some of the issues that have been raised around continuity of service, holding on to staff and so on.

There is a challenge that we continue to put to third sector organisations, which is that we need to move away from what might be seen as a competitive environment for funding towards a more collaborative approach to funding, with third sector organisations coming together to work together and share back-office resources, rather than all competing for the same funding.

I assure you that discussions are on-going and imminent around the level of detail that is to be provided. I recognise that people want to know what it means and will seek certainty. We aim to provide that information as quickly as we can, because we want to prevent any staff from being lost from those organisations, which provide important support to communities across Scotland. I am happy to ensure that, when the information comes into the public domain, we furnish it to the committee.

Simon Fuller, do you want to come in on that?

10:30

We rely on other organisations to give us the information; otherwise, Kaukab Stewart and I would be spending our time, 24/7, visiting organisations personally. We cannot do that.

Let me first say that this Parliament has a strong tradition, on a cross-party basis, of tackling domestic abuse and taking the most serious action on it. Right from the get-go, from when the Parliament was established in 1999, tackling domestic abuse and tackling violence against women and girls has been of the utmost priority on a cross-party basis. A lot of work has been done, including through legislation, and that continues. There are important pieces of legislation that protect victims of domestic abuse, and that is really important. It is good that that has been taken forward on a cross-party basis.

Regarding funding for violence against women and girls, we have a long tradition of providing funding to front-line organisations to protect women and girls, and that funding is continuing, including as part of the fairer funding pilot, I think—but I will double-check that.

First, as I said earlier, cases of domestic abuse and sexual crimes are rising not because of the money that the Government gives or does not give to an organisation. They are rising across most countries in the world because of the rise in misogyny; we can see an exponential growth in that.

In addition, our law enforcement and our prosecutors have got better at ensuring that these cases come forward and go through the courts. That, in turn, encourages more women to come forward. As I described, that was not the case back in the day, but now more women are coming forward and we are seeing—thankfully—more successful prosecutions.

With regard to support to Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis, we would expect the funding that we provide to Rape Crisis Scotland to be distributed through that organisation. We will have a look at the amount that goes to Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis as a proportion of the overall funding.

However, I make this point. Every single pound that goes to rape crisis or women’s aid services, or to other services on the front line, that comes from the increased funding that we provide—we are providing not less, but more funding in this area—can get to those organisations only if the budget is passed and members support it. I will leave that thought there: if members do not vote for a budget that provides additional funding for tackling violence against women, that puts at risk the funding for all those organisations.

We will look at what the proportion of funding is. I do not know whether Kaukab Stewart is aware of the distribution of the Rape Crisis Scotland funding.

I am not unsympathetic to the point that you are making. We have discussions with just about every sector, and my Cabinet colleagues have the same discussions. I take your point about the value of the uplift compared with the overall budget, but you could have those discussions hundreds of times over with the various organisations that work in our communities, particularly our third sector partners.

We have tried to bring as much stability and certainty as we can to those organisations. I recognise the point that you make about how some organisations in the third sector have moved towards working together to share resources and to make the economies of scale and efficiencies that need to be made. However, the bottom line is that we can only provide what we can provide.

We will continue to have those discussions with those organisations, and we will take away a commitment to monitor the position with regard to organisations’ ability to deliver within the financial envelope that they have.

The description of “exceptional” does not mean that we are saying that all the delivery and the outcomes are exceptional but that the budget line is exceptionally important because of its disproportionate impact on and benefit for the priority groups that will be most affected by it. It means that the funding line not being there would have a major impact on those affected. There is a whole debate around societal pressures and issues that impact on the safety of women and girls—from misogyny to social media. The funding in the budget lines will not in itself be able to tackle all those societal challenges. However, the impact of not having those budget lines would be disproportionately negative on those priority groups in particular. For that line of funding, the priority groups are women and girls; for another, the priority group could be those who benefit from employability services. The term is used not to describe the outcomes as exceptional but to describe the importance of the budget line for those groups.