Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I said in my previous answer, the definition of women is based on what is in the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. That is the legislative basis of the definition, which we will refer to for the workings of the act.

The main and, indeed, only purpose of the bill is to remove that redundant definition. As I said in my opening remarks, following the court’s action, the definition does not have any legal standing, but we gave a commitment to the court that we would remove the definition, so it is important that we do so.

In many ways, there would be no legal effect. I will clarify that: there would be no legal effect. In no way is there a legal necessity for us to carry this through. This is a tidying-up exercise, but, if the definition remains on the statute book, it could be confusing even though it has no legal effect. People with wider knowledge could read something in the 2018 act that they know that the court judgment has dealt with, and that could lead to confusion, so it is important that we tidy it up.

Thank you, convener. I congratulate you on your new role.

It is a pleasure to be before the committee to speak about the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to remove the section 2 definition of “woman” from the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The bill follows decisions of the inner house of the Court of Session, which were effective from 19 April 2022. The court decided that the section 2 definition was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and was, accordingly, not law. The court decided that the section 2 definition has no legal effect, and that has been the position since 19 April 2022. At that time, our counsel told the court that we would remove the definition. The bill, if passed, will provide clarity by removing the redundant definition from the statute book.

I appreciate that introducing such a small bill is very unusual. We have looked at other planned legislation, but we did not find a suitable vehicle for making the change. Furthermore, the change needs to be made through primary legislation rather than through secondary legislation.

This short bill therefore simply makes a small technical fix to the statute book by removing the redundant definition, which will ensure that no one is misled. The bill does not change the policy intention of the 2018 act; we still need the boards of public bodies to better represent and reflect the population of Scotland. As I have said, the bill simply clears up the statute book to ensure that it is not misleading. Removing the definition from the statute book will eliminate the possibility of any confusion for readers of the 2018 act who are unaware of the court orders in 2022.

As Meghan Gallacher rightly points out, there was no formal consultation. The bill is a technical fix to fulfil a commitment that we made in court, so the Government did not feel that we needed to go through a full consultation process. In the time that has elapsed since the court ruling, the Government has had discussions with a variety of stakeholders who have differing opinions on various equalities issues. If those stakeholders wished to bring the matter up, we would have had those discussions with them. In the context of the bill, we felt that there was no need to have a formal consultation, given that it is a technical fix.

Yes.

The Government has no intention of amending the bill. It is short enough and has only one purpose, and we intend to carry on with the bill as introduced. Of course, the legal definition of women stands as it is in the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The legal definitions are there for all to see. There will now be no definition in the 2018 act.

You raise an interesting point. The process of introducing a bill to Parliament can be time consuming, but it is the process that we have to go through. This is an example of the way that it has to be done for a very small technical fix.

That raises another interesting point. When we all consider what should be in primary legislation and what should be in secondary legislation, a discussion about getting specific details in a bill is quite rightly sometimes had. I am not saying that that is the case for this bill, but Mr Stewart raises a wider point about how quickly we can make changes. Obviously, changes to adapt to circumstances, events and so on can be made more quickly if they are made through secondary legislation.

However, as I say, that is not the case with this bill. The bill deals with a specific issue that originated in the courts and needed, rightly, to be dealt with through primary legislation. I will ensure that colleagues are made aware of that wider point.

I touched on that point briefly. It was important that we considered whether we could use another legislative vehicle, such as another bill that was going through Parliament. In many ways, that would have been an easier process than introducing a whole bill to do just this one thing, but that was not possible. We were very aware that we had made that commitment as a Government, so it was therefore important to move forward with it. We endeavoured to find another way, but, once we found that no other routes were open to us through primary legislation, I felt that it was important that we took the decision—unusual though it is to have such a small bill—to do it this way, rather than continue to wait to see whether the change could be attached to another bill.

Thank you, convener, and good morning.

The budget-setting process has been challenging, given the backdrop of continued austerity at Westminster and catastrophic cuts to Scotland’s block grant.? Our Barnett funding, which is driven by UK spending choices, has fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since the 2022-23 budget was presented.?? The UK Government did not inflation-proof its capital budget, which has resulted in an almost 10 per cent real-terms fall in our UK capital funding over the medium term. As a result, this Government has had to take some difficult decisions, but I am confident that we have prioritised our resources to deliver on our three missions of equality, opportunity and community.

At the heart of this budget is the social contract between the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland, in which people’s tax contribution is based on their ability to pay and strong public services are understood as enabling a strong society and a growing economy. Those services include free prescriptions, free access to higher education, the baby box and the Scottish child payment.

That is why, in the coming year, the draft budget allocates more than £3 billion to policies to tackle poverty and to protect people, as far as possible, during the on-going cost of living crisis.?? Those policies include supporting households by providing 1,140 hours of funded childcare for all three and four-year-olds and for eligible two-year-olds; providing free bus travel for more than 2 million people; and offering free school meals to all children in primaries 1 to 5, as well as to eligible children in other school years.

We continue to build a Scottish social security system that has dignity, fairness and respect at its heart. In line with Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts, we are investing a record £6.3 billion for benefits expenditure in 2024-25, providing support to more than 1.2 million people.? That money will go directly to those who need it most. We are investing just over £1 billion more than in 2023-24 and are supporting disabled people, supporting older people to heat their homes in winter and helping low-income families with their living costs. That investment is £1.1 billion more than the level of funding forecast to be received from the UK Government through the social security block grant adjustments.

We are also increasing our unique benefit, the Scottish child payment, in line with inflation, to £26.70 a week, giving more support to the more than 329,000 under-16s who receive it. That investment continues to underline our commitment to do everything within the scope of our powers and budget to be relentless in our focus on meeting our statutory child poverty targets.

I am pleased to announce that, alongside that significant investment, there will be additional funding this financial year of more than £0.5 million for local projects to tackle poverty and inequality. In 2023-24, our cash first fund and child poverty practice accelerator fund will support a total of 17 projects across the country to, respectively, improve flexible local access to cash in a crisis and develop new approaches to tackling child poverty. The Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2024-25 will enable those partnerships to continue providing vital evidence that can help to shape future policy and practice.

In housing, inflationary pressures, the impacts of Brexit and wider market conditions have combined to trigger various issues, including rising construction costs and workforce challenges. The housing sector has done incredible work to deliver homes in those circumstances, and we continue to work with partners to mitigate the impacts. One of the most difficult choices that we have taken is to reduce funding for affordable housing. However, I can confirm that more £555 million will be made available in 2024-25, despite the failure of the UK Government to inflation-proof the capital budget.

We have also maintained our homelessness and housing support resource budget at broadly similar levels to those in 2023-24, with £35 million allocated to specific action to end homelessness and reduce the number of households living in temporary accommodation.? That is in addition to homelessness funding provided through the local government settlement and an investment in discretionary housing payments of more than £90 million—an increase of more than £6 million—to mitigate the worst impacts of UK Government welfare reform.

We are investing £45 million in Ukrainian resettlement, including £5 million of capital through a Ukraine long-term resettlement fund. Working to the principles of the “A Warm Scots Future” strategy, the Government will continue its partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Refugee Council and the volunteer community.

The budget also includes a £41 million investment in the cladding remediation programme.

We are committed to delivering fairer funding for the third sector. Therefore, in 2024-25, we will ensure prompt notification of grant awards to third sector bodies, increasing the number of multiyear awards, and review grant conditions. The agenda recognises the critical role that the third sector plays.

The UK Government’s autumn statement was the worst-case scenario for Scotland following a decade of austerity, a hard Brexit and disastrous economic mismanagement at Westminster. Despite those challenges, I am pleased with the overall package of support in my portfolio and its contribution to the equality mission.

I thank the committee for its pre-budget scrutiny and look forward to taking your questions.