Seòmar agus comataidhean

You would be raising expectations in people who do not have records—because the records do not exist.

Obviously, any legal advice that anyone receives needs to be independent legal advice about potential litigation. There are some on-going litigation cases against Glasgow City Council, which I cannot comment on because they are live. Similarly, there is a live criminal case that I cannot comment on either. That route is open.

On the support that the Government provides, I have talked about the support that is provided through Future Pathways to help survivors, and I have talked about the support that is given in looking for case records. The Government provides about £2.4 million, I think, to help survivors to get records. One of the reasons we did the piece of research was to address that issue, because of the importance of records for Redress Scotland. So, there is support available to help survivors who have been in long-term care and have had difficulty in accessing records, because of the importance of having that evidence to present to Redress Scotland. That is the situation.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the eligibility criteria have been set with the exceptions clearly set out. Technically, those exceptions could be changed, but I have said why I do not think that it would be the right approach. As was laid out in Parliament at the time and agreed unanimously, the focus is on those who were in long-term care having been removed from parental responsibility.

The point that I am making about the independence of Redress Scotland is that it is quite right that decision making around awards is independent of the Government. It would not be right for us to interfere in Redress Scotland’s determination in individual cases. As a panel, Redress Scotland looks at individual cases on the basis of the evidence that is required, which is set out in guidance. That is the relationship.

Barry McCaffrey, do you want to come in?

I have not made a decision about that. I am optimistic that all the funding will be utilised for its intended purpose. We have not made decisions about how remaining funding will be distributed.

We have given the SNIB the vast bulk of the financial transactions that we have available to us. However, remember that, as we have discussed previously, UK Government financial transactions have gone off a cliff. That is unfortunate, because the two areas of spend for financial transactions have traditionally been the affordable housing supply programme and the SNIB. We have prioritised the SNIB for the financial transactions that are available to us. That means that the affordable housing supply programme has less available to it in financial transactions.

The supplementary estimates that I referred to indicate a £64 million reduction in financial transactions that we will have flexibility to manage in 2024-25. That will heap pressure on the areas of the Government that use financial transactions. The additional pressure of managing that further reduction in financial transactions is now in the pot. We will have to assess that once we see the full picture in the spring budget on 6 March.

I make the point that FTs are a useful source of funding. We have traditionally utilised them well in the two areas of spend to which I referred. When they are significantly reduced, that has an impact. Because of the capital position—a 10 per cent reduction in capital availability—we are not able to supplement the reduction in FTs with traditional capital. Those things have an impact, and that is the impact that they are having. If the position changes in the spring budget, we will want to revisit it, because we recognise the importance of the SNIB.

I am not sure that I would put it in those terms. Social security funding is a key priority and an investment for us. It has clearly been an area of growth, as we introduce new benefits and make changes to existing ones. As you are well aware, that has led to significant expenditure and commitment beyond the block grant adjustment from the UK Government.

Important work is being undertaken on longer-term sustainability to ensure that social security funding can continue to deliver what it needs to deliver. That will mean ensuring that there is efficiency, that measures are effective, that the decision-making processes are as good as and as effective as they can be, and that the new benefits, in particular, are delivered in a way that is fair to everybody. We need to scrutinise delivery of social security, and we need to ensure efficiency and effectiveness within the system.

Is there an open cheque book? If that is what you are asking me, the answer is no. Social security funding is a priority, but we need to ensure that it is sustainable in the long term, so a lot of work is being undertaken in that respect. As we recognise, and as you and external organisations will point out to me, the future growth of that requirement is a key pressure on the Scottish budget, and we need to be aware of that.

There have been none.

I agree with that.

Of course.

That happens more now, but there is still room for improvement. There has been a more thorough deep dive into each portfolio and each public sector body to look at what they do, what they should do and where there is overlap or duplication. There is still, without a doubt, scope to do more in that territory and question which public bodies are best placed to take forward particular areas of policy.

As for your point about Creative Scotland, I concede that we probably could do more in that area as part of the public service reform agenda. I am really keen to explore not just who does what, but whether more can be extracted from organisations working more closely together. At the end of the day, it is all public money, and we need to make sure that organisations, including Government departments, come out of their silos to work together more effectively. I think that there is more that we can do in that space.