Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will pick up on a comment that you made, Professor Steven, about floating charges, which are not addressed in the bill. As you said, this type of law reform happens once in probably four generations. Was any thought given to opening up floating charges to individuals and partnerships? If not, why was it decided not to go down that route?

It is helpful that we have that.

The bill would reform the rules on delivery for possessory pledges. What practical impact will that have? Will there be continuing demand for possessory pledges, beyond that of pawnbrokers?

Thank you for clarifying that.

Just before we come to an end, I would like to ask something. We have discussed the highlights of the bill, on which there have perhaps been most responses both in your initial consultation and in the one carried out by the committee. Are there other areas—perhaps small ones—in which the bill needs to be amended or which need to be considered to make the bill even better than it is at the moment? Rather than list them all now, you might want to write to us after you have come away from the meeting. The next stage in the Parliament’s bill process will involve the lodging of amendments. From your perspective, are there any areas—however small they might be—that require examination?

We are—yes.

Good morning, panel. I find your answers so far very interesting, and they lead me to two questions. I will start with Dr Hosie for my first question.

In any human rights-based budgeting with a fixed budget, somebody loses out. If I give more money to people with disabilities, am I not taking money away from, for example, people with gender issues? How do you balance that in practice? Are you simply looking for information on how we came to our decisions? How do we not end up always discriminating against somebody because of the way we have set our budget?

My second question is about the specific cut that has been announced by the Scottish Government with regard to employability and getting people back into employment, which will take place during this financial year. Have you done any work on what effect that cut will have in relation to disability and employability? Is it your understanding that it will affect front-line services such as the third sector organisations that do a lot of work in my area? Where do you think those cuts will be made?

I asked you to speculate about whether that could, in the future, lead to legal cases against budgets.

The convener said that we have a fixed budget, which is true to some extent, but we also have tax-raising powers and we can raise tax by 3 per cent.

The Deputy First Minister is due to give a statement before the October recess on his response to the budget that will be announced at Westminster tomorrow. I am interested to know whether the three organisations before us would like John Swinney to announce a tax increase. That could not come into effect until next year, but if that were his direction of travel would each organisation want that to happen to mitigate some of the issues that have been raised?

That leads me nicely to my next question. First, somebody could listen to today’s evidence and think, “That’s all very well, but impact assessment is a paper exercise and what difference does it make to a disabled person in Inverness or to somebody from an ethnic minority in Dumfries?”. Will you give me a bit more on how it makes a difference to the average person?

Secondly—this is asking you to speculate—if, as the Scottish Government intends, we incorporate human rights treaties into Scots law, would that mean that individuals could challenge the budget in court if their equality characteristics have not been properly defined? Do you envisage it ending up with legal cases against the Scottish budget?