Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I could not get involved in an evidence session on kinship care without putting on record my thanks to campaigners whom I first met in 2006, ahead of the 2007 election, at a hustings in the constituency that I now serve, and to Adam Ingram for his challenging work on kinship care payments as Minister for Children and Early Years. I also record my thanks to Glasgow City Council, which I met back in those early days and which, after meeting me, agreed to a £50-a-week kinship care allowance. That seems tiny now, but at the time it was groundbreaking. That shows how far we have come, although we obviously need to go further.

I am sorry, convener, for putting that on the record. Institutional memory is sometimes important in sessions such as this.

I have a supplementary to Mr Mason’s question, which I will ask before my substantive question. Mr Mason asked about the wider support that kinship carers receive. The wider support that they want is often for the young people whom they are looking after. Many of those young people have emotional and mental health and wellbeing issues, have experienced significant trauma and have to wait for child and adolescent mental health services and other services, which are often delivered by the national health service rather than by local authorities.

In my constituency, there is the Notre Dame Centre, which is a centre of excellence for dealing with such situations. It takes specific referrals on kinship care. It has a very delicate funding framework to ensure that it can continue to do that. To what extent, minister, do you assure yourself that the wider support for the emotional wellbeing of young people in kinship care and for the trauma that they have experienced is adequate and consistent across Scotland?

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 will not come back in, convener, but Mr Scott will appreciate why I have to ask such a question, given that we are doing budget scrutiny.

I will be brief. My question is for Bill Scott. I know that it is hard to choose what to prioritise and what to deprioritise. You have suggested a £20 million increase for the winter heating payment. There is also a suggestion that the Scottish child payment should increase from £25 per week. I note that 40 per cent of children who live in poverty have a disabled person in the household, which means that the Scottish child payment disproportionately supports disabled families. That is lost a little, sometimes.

If you had a choice, Mr Scott, would you increase the winter heating payment or the Scottish child payment? Those are the invidious choices that the Government has to make. What is your view on that?

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?

I am only cutting you off because I know that the convener needs to move on. I am trying to elicit from you whether we should maintain the current budget lines and use that money to continue to help that group, irrespective of the terms of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

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?