Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will raise an issue that Kevin Stewart promised that I would raise with you, which is about the use of self-directed support budgets. That was brought to the attention of the committee during our evidence session.

Concern was raised because some disabled people were being encouraged by local authorities to use their self-directed support budgets to undertake placements. It has been suggested that that is done to plug funding gaps that are caused by pressures on the availability of traditional grant support to organisations. It has also been suggested to the committee that, in effect, that amounted to unpaid work. One witness said that it was a “potential misuse” of self-directed support funds, and another said that it was a case of people “paying to be volunteers”. Is the Government aware of that?

That would certainly be helpful, minister, because some witnesses suggested that there was almost an unintended consequence of the use of that support—for example, there was less scrutiny of those funds. When an organisation receives a direct grant, it has to report back to the funder on its meeting of the objectives of that grant, but that is not the case with self-directed support, the use of which is ultimately up to the individual.

The second concern was that there was almost an incentive for an organisation to hold on to somebody for longer because they were funded through self-directed support. If that person left—for example, to go into employment—they would take the funding with them. That was an unintended consequence. Will you absolutely investigate those issues?

It is important to recognise that the bill was passed by Parliament unanimously and that it stipulated that the regulations should come before us within two years. It is helpful that the minister has confirmed that the delay was entirely due to unsuccessful legal challenges by a number of big pub companies that sought to thwart the will of Parliament. It is also important to recognise that, as a result of those challenges, publicans are missing out on the rights that their counterparts in England and Wales have had since 2016.

I understand that, prior to the regulations coming before the committee, you received representations from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, which highlighted that the code, as it is currently drafted, does not adequately protect tied pub tenants or reflect what was stated in the act. I appreciate that you have noted that larger changes may necessitate further consultation, but the SLTA outlined four areas, including market-rent-only leases, gaming machines and flow-monitoring devices, in which amendments could be made now, given that there was sufficient focus on those areas in the original consultation.

Have you given consideration to those proposed changes? Why have you opted not to make amendments to the regulations before us or, at least, to publish—before today—regulations that would have dealt with those particular concerns?

That is helpful.

I have a final question on NSET. You say that it is clear, but one of Audit Scotland’s criticisms was that

“it is not clear how directorates are working together to agree funding priorities”

and that the level of investment needed to deliver NSET is unknown. It also said:

“There is a gap in collective political leadership”.

You were obviously the finance secretary at the time of its publication. How do you respond to the criticism that there is a lack of understanding about the level of investment that is needed to deliver NSET? What is the budget to deliver NSET?

What is the budget line across all departments?

What is the level of investment that is needed to deliver NSET, though?

It says:

“The Scottish Government has not determined how much investment is needed to deliver the NSET. This creates a risk to financial management and public accountability.”

Is Audit Scotland wrong when it says that?

I may have to wait until the beginning of July to get my answer to my question. In your opening comments, you reminded us that you were the finance secretary when NSET was launched with a key aim of addressing our weak productivity compared with that of international competitors. The Audit Scotland report of a couple of months ago said:

“Scotland’s productivity has remained ranked 16 out of 38 comparator economies over the last decade.”

Why has there been no progress on what was a key Scottish Government target to improve relative productivity?

So there is not only a productivity gap but a delivery gap from the Government. We have not made a lot of progress.

Your comment earlier that we have too many strategies and plans was right. There are around 60 plans and strategies relating to the economy, and quite a few were published on your watch. We need fewer strategies and more action, which you just said, but that is what you said when you launched NSET in the first place. You said that there would be

“a ruthless focus on delivery”.

Why has there not been that ruthless focus on delivery? Why are you talking now about the fact that we need more action and a lot fewer strategies?