Seòmar agus comataidhean

We oversee it through the organisation that the minister has just referred to, which does the work because it is closer to the organisations and has knowledge of the detail. If there were any concerns to be flagged, they would of course be flagged. Organisations have to meet all the criteria that every single organisation is required to meet when receiving public money.

It is possible not to like an organisation for your own reasons, but still to recognise the important work that it carries out in supporting young people who are suicidal and could potentially take their own lives. It is possible to separate out those two issues and to recognise that, without those services, young people would be much more vulnerable and, potentially, at risk. I think it is possible to do that.

That is not what was said at all. What was said is that any concerns would be flagged with ministers, and that could put the funding in jeopardy.

I am sure that we will appreciate that but, as you will be aware, we have very robust mechanisms in place that would flag any concerns about an organisation that would require us to revisit funding, for instance.

Nobody said that it was a good thing that domestic abuse cases were rising. Domestic abuse is a scourge on our society and has been for many years, and the reason that cases are rising is that misogyny is rising and men think that it is okay to be violent towards women and girls. That is a global phenomenon—it is not happening only in Scotland—and it should deeply concern us. The rise in domestic abuse cases is a symptom of that.

There are also more women coming forward. Back in my day, when I was growing up, women did not come forward because they were scared to do so, there was no support and their issues were not taken seriously by law enforcement. Thankfully, that has changed.

The reason that I referred earlier to the number of cases coming through the courts—there has been a huge exponential growth in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault—is that more cases are coming forward and are being prosecuted by the authorities. As I said earlier, the Lord Advocate has been very active in this area. That in itself sends out a message to women that they should come forward. We also have a range of support organisations that, back in the day, were just not there.

On the funding that we provide, there is—as the minister said—more funding to support those organisations to support women. Even with all the improvements that have been made to the reporting and court processes, that experience can still be very challenging for women. The organisations that provide that absolutely critical support now have more funding, and multiyear funding through the fairer Scotland fund.

Is there more to do? Absolutely. I started my answer to this area of questioning by saying that the Parliament has done a lot of very good work, on a cross-party basis, to ensure that the law has changed. Just recently, there has been support for women who are fleeing domestic violence. That has turned on its head the attitude that meant that women were the ones who had to leave the home. There has been a sea change in attitudes to all that.

At the same time, however, we see a rise in misogyny, through all the ways that we fully understand. I am proud that we have a Parliament that has taken the issue of domestic abuse so seriously. The money that we provide is important, but it is only one part of the answer. As I said, this is one of the very important areas of the budget that has been given more money. The organisations that provide support have been given the certainty of multiyear funding and, as a result, they are able to plan more effectively for the work that they do.

What do you mean by that?

Yes, we will take that away and make sure that that happens.

I will bring in officials to give you a little bit more detail, but, as I said earlier, the thing that has changed is ensuring that, at decision-making points, ministers have information on the impacts and the tagging in front of them so that they can influence the decisions that are being made before they are made. It is a fair point, though, and I guess that we have to ensure that we can record where ministers might have made one decision, and then make another on the basis of evidence that is now part of their decision-making process but which was not there before. After all, the decision is not going to be changed after the event—it will be changed during the decision-making process.

Simon, are we capturing that sort of thing? Are there examples of ministers making decisions based on what is in front of them?

We will certainly take that away. Kaukab, did you want to comment?

Of course, work is the best way out of poverty, and the supports that are provided through Social Security Scotland are there to support people. Of course, many people in work get the supports, too, because they are all about lifting children out of poverty. Had we not put in place the Scottish child payment and the other family supports that children receive, we would not be the only part of the United Kingdom to see falling child poverty rates.

That has not happened by accident; it has happened because we have put funding into measures such as the Scottish child payment and the other family benefits that are actively supporting families and helping to put food on the family table. If we took those benefits away, we would not be heading towards meeting our child poverty statutory targets, which we need to do by 2030—something, of course, that the whole Parliament signed up to. The Scottish child payment is an absolutely key part of that.

We also provide funding to employability services for the very reason that we want to get parents back into work. The draft budget, which will pass only if people vote for it, protects the Government’s investment in employability services at £90 million for 2026-27. That will enable local employability partnerships to continue to support people who are experiencing barriers to employment and it will support up to 7,500 people, including parents, into work, as well as supporting many more to achieve positive outcomes. According to our analysis, the £270 million of employability funding available over the course of the spending review period is expected to help more than 22,000 people into work and to support many more to progress towards employment.

In addition, we have a new £8 million fund that colleges in Scotland bid for to support parents who need such support to get back into the labour market. After all, colleges are good places that do not have certain barriers associated with them, and they provide a non-threatening and supportive environment in which parents can access skills and training in order to get back into work.

We also have the no one left behind plan, which provides a range of employability support to 8,532 parents, including single parents, who are predominantly women. We therefore have a good track record of supporting people into employment, and members will be able to support those resources at the budget process.

11:15

I have just outlined the programmes and the funding that we have put in place to support 22,000 people into work. There is good evidence that the employability programmes are working to support people. Of course, wraparound childcare, extending the school day and all the other elements in the budget that members can vote for are there to make sure that parents are supported to be able to take on employment or, indeed, additional hours because of the supports around the school day.

The examples that are being quoted are from a report that contains the anecdotal examples that Pam Gosal has just repeated. I will write to the committee to confirm my understanding that that report did not find evidence that social security supports are systematic barriers to people going into work. Although the report contained some anecdotal examples, its overall conclusions did not support the contention that Pam Gosal is making, that there is a systematic problem in that, because people are getting the Scottish child payment, they are not going into work. Many people who get the Scottish child payment are already in work, and we should remember that.

We do not eradicate child poverty and lift children out of poverty by making it more difficult for them to access supports and by putting in place a two-child cap, which I know Pam Gosal supports. The evidence shows that that would turn around our success in reducing child poverty—we are the only part of the UK to do so—and that we would see increasing levels of child poverty. That is the complete opposite of what our Government wants to see. At the end of the day, we are talking about supporting kids, and that is the most important thing.