Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to follow up on that theme, turning to the enterprise agencies. What is it that you will not be able to do? You talked about having to change the way in which you work in order to deal with substantial budget reductions, but I am still not entirely clear about what you will not be doing. I suppose the best way to put it is this: if you had more money, what would you like to do that you will not be able to do next year as a direct result of the budget savings? The enterprise agencies have had very substantial reductions in capital and other areas. What will you not be able to do next year as a result of those budget reductions?

When it comes to that balance, with what proportion of your budget next year will you employ staff? As I mentioned, there has been a 13 per cent increase in the wage bill. What proportion of the budget will be your running costs, if you like, and what proportion will be direct grants from SOSE next year, compared with this year?

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.

You have indicated that, as a result of that, the pubs code will not come in in October 2024, and that that is now likely to happen in early 2025. The SLTA raised concerns that that delay could result in pubcos seeking to end tied pub tenancies prior to the code taking effect next year, in order to avoid being tied to some of the provisions that are currently in the code and those that could be included as a result of further consultation. Do you recognise that point, and is there any action that you can take—other than seeking to bring in the code as quickly as possible—to avoid such unreasonable action?

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?

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?