Seòmar agus comataidhean

Am I correct, then, in understanding that what is being considered is the track in Scotland, not the wider ownership or racing of dogs by those resident in Scotland?

I think so. Thank you.

On the licensing approach that is being considered, can the minister say more about the aims of such regulation?

Is it not harder for the Scottish Government to try to prevent something when it has already begun? Going back to the minister’s comments around something already being part of the fabric of the community or preventing someone from carrying on something that they currently have a right to do, would it not be easier to say that there should be no more tracks in Scotland above what is currently in operation?

The amendment provides much needed clarification for those producing crops for the uses listed. I will press it, and I encourage colleagues to vote for it.

Amendment 140 is a clarification amendment. Whereas the bill refers only to “fruit growing” and “seed growing”, the new wording in the amendment would clarify and reassure our industry that, in Scotland, we grow crops not just for food but for other purposes.

Specifically, the amendment highlights the fast-developing energy crop sector. We must be explicit in the bill that we recognise those future opportunities for our agricultural sector, and including

“crops ... for the production of energy”

in the schedule of eligible agricultural activities enables that aspect to be supported in the future, should ministers choose to do so. By including growing crops for other non-food purposes, we ensure that the bill provides future flexibility as our producers adapt to climate change and new market opportunities that might open, and so I ask the committee to support this amendment in the name of Kate Forbes.

I move amendment 140.

Until 5 May 2022, I was a councillor at Highland Council.

Thank you very much, convener. I congratulate you on your appointment as convener of the committee. I look forward to working with you and to your leading the scrutiny of work across my portfolio.

First of all, I want to emphasise the positive spend and the commitment to delivering equality and fairness in the budget. I point to the increased spend on the Scottish child payment, the reopening of the independent living fund, and the increase in the equality, inclusion and human rights budget.

We are committed to improving participation in the budget process, and we know that it is important to make sure that every consideration that should be taken is taken and that people can feel that the budget is relevant to them. It was very insightful to hear the committee’s previous budget scrutiny session. I was pleased to note the continued improvement that is reported every year in this area of work. There was shared recognition on the part of those who provided evidence of the significant changes that we made to the internal process for the budget last year. Those changes included our new case-study approach for the “Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement 2024-25” and the first ministerial workshop, which looked specifically at that statement.

We acknowledge that there is still a lot of work to do, but I want to remain mindful of the considerable progress that is being made along the way. We are providing accessible and inclusive forms of communication and documentation to support public understanding of the budget. I appreciate fully that more work needs to be done to increase public engagement in the budget and to support better understanding, and I know that the committee is also keen to ensure that.

The financial year is extremely challenging—it is the most challenging environment for a budget since devolution. On top of United Kingdom Government underinvestment for more than a decade, our Barnett funding, which is driven by UK Government spending choices, has fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since the 2022-23 budget was presented.

Because the UK Government did not inflation proof its capital budget, that has resulted in a real-terms fall of nearly 10 per cent in our capital funding over the medium term. UK Government decisions such as that to prioritise national insurance cuts rather than public service investment have made it difficult for us to deliver a budget that reflects our priorities, but that is what we have done. We have taken every opportunity that we have had to mitigate the worst impacts of those cuts.

We have invested in public services, we have put money where it will have the greatest impact on the delivery of our priorities of equality, opportunity and community, and we have put money directly into the pockets of those who are experiencing poverty. We have put money into the realisation of, and the upholding and protecting of, human rights, which is in stark contrast to the £240 million that the UK Government has spent down south on its policy of deportation to Rwanda and the further £50 million that it has already committed to doing the opposite and allowing human rights breaches.

We have funded human rights and tackling poverty regardless of who is responsible for the difficult situations that many people find themselves in. For example, we are looking at how we will spend money that is allocated to refugee integration in the light of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and its potential impacts. We know that many people who are benefiting from our social security programme have had to turn to that programme only because of the cost of living crisis, which has been pushed on Scotland and the rest of the UK by economic mismanagement elsewhere.

Our approach to considering equalities in the budget has involved extensive engagement with experts and our stakeholders. We published our response to the equality and human rights budget advisory group, and I will join the group to discuss that further on Thursday. I was the first minister to attend a meeting of the group, and I plan to continue that engagement throughout the year. The Deputy First Minister will also join me at a meeting of the group later in the year.

I hope that the fact that improvements were made during the budget process has been evident to the committee through the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement. Alongside changes to the document itself, we held a ministerial workshop with a case-study approach, which involved challenging ministers across Government to show their working on decisions that they had used equalities and human rights budgeting to achieve.

We want to ensure that the wider mainstreaming agenda is reflected in everything that we do, and that the impact of the mainstreaming strategy, the public sector equality duty improvement activity and our forthcoming human rights bill can be seen throughout Government processes. I work closely with colleagues across Government to advance equality and the progressive realisation of rights for people in Scotland, thereby ensuring that that is a priority that can be seen in every portfolio.

I look forward to taking questions on the budget.

The increase in the human rights budget is a reflection of the activity that we are doing to invest in the progressive realisation of human rights. The 2 per cent change in the equalities budget is due to project delivery review—that is, things coming to an end and the timings of the delivery of particular projects being slightly different from what we had anticipated.

That is a fair question, and there is probably quite a lot that we could look into on that topic.

We feel the impact of cuts by the UK Government on protected groups in Scotland every day, and every day there is a need for us to put more of our budget into social security—the Scottish child payment and into other such schemes that are, as I mentioned, being accessed by people who require to do so only because of the direct impact of UK cuts. I would, therefore, be very interested to see such impact assessments.

The Scottish Government needs to check its own work first: that has to be our priority. However, I will always highlight why we are in this situation and why people are so reliant on our budget spend.