Chamber and committees

That feels a little intergenerational, if it relates to young people who were perhaps just born or were not yet born at that point.

Mairi, you spoke about not understanding the data sets associated with that. How many of those people who are now on ADP are in work, as opposed to not in work or claiming other benefits? How do we ensure that we have the fullest picture, so that we can fully understand the trends?

The spend on ADP in 2024-25 was £96 million lower than anticipated, but it is not looking as though that will be projected in the long term. The spend is set to rise, so the reduction was just a little blip.

Are there devolved policy decisions that will lead to that increase in spend? You spoke previously about the review process not giving the results that were perhaps anticipated and that that is being looked at again. Are there any other drivers in the devolved space that might lead to that increase in case load and spend?

I will, but, first, as someone who used to be a member of a valuation joint board, I would say that, if there was going to be a full-scale revaluation right across the country, the resources to carry out that work would need to be made available.

David Phillips touched on the growth in disability benefit case load and spending, and several others have mentioned it. I want to revisit that issue to get more evidence from you all. David Phillips, will you expand on your earlier contribution with regard to what progress has been made in understanding the reason for the increase across the whole of the UK in the number of people who are on disability benefits? You said that you looked comparatively at other countries and that you did not see the same significant growth. Can you or Tom Wernham talk about that?

Perhaps the rapid onset of that change has caught everybody on the hop a bit with regard to the need for adequate resourcing to deal with the rise across the board in mental ill health, as opposed to being mentally unwell.

I have found this part of the conversation fascinating. The principle of early intervention and prevention is one of the key reasons why I am in this place—it is something that drives me. It is very interesting to hear what Tom Wernham has said, and I am interested to see the paper that is coming out on the two-child limit in England.

Is there space for researchers to come out of the siloed thinking as well? If we ask only certain questions, we will be looking only at one part of the issue. In terms of short-termism, how do you quantify that when you are looking at studies in the States that have thrown money at families but then not given a lengthy period to actually see the outcome? Alternatively, the services might not be the wraparound ones that we need, such as the sure start centres. I made good use of those when I was first a mum way back in the early 2000s.

I think that we need both. We cannot look at things in the short term with a cash-first approach without considering everything that comes out of the siloed approach. I am thinking off the cuff, but I feel as though you have introduced some interesting concepts this morning that we really need to explore a little bit more. I do not know whether anybody has anything further to say.

Do our local authorities provide a lot of that information in the returns that they submit? Do we know what is happening in the area through the national performance framework? How can we gather that data better, although not in a way that is more onerous, and take account of the data that we already have?

That was going to be my follow-up question. Where was that paper looking at? Did your paper on ill health look across the UK?

My heart is sore for the families and communities who have lost loved ones to entirely preventable drug deaths. It is imperative that we remain focused, given the rise in the number of suspected drug deaths in this current year, in part due to the increasingly toxic supply.

One of the most powerful yet underused tools that we have is advocacy, which is an essential part of the MAT standards. It takes a human rights-based approach that gives people a voice, support and a fighting chance. People knowing their rights and exercising them will be absolutely key to the success of that mission. Organisations such as Reach Advocacy Scotland have been leading the way in delivering high-quality advocacy training in that field. People need to know their rights, and they need to be supported to claim them. Does the minister agree that advocacy must remain non-negotiable as part of Scotland’s drug policy? Will she update us on the support that the Government has given?

I, too, thank the committee for its dogged investigation into the matter. Proper spending of public money is of the utmost importance. The principle is not optional or aspirational; it is fundamental to public trust in Government and public bodies. The financial governance that we have seen at WICS was, to be frank, gobsmacking.

The findings laid out in the Public Audit Committee’s report paint a scandalous picture—one of serious failures in financial management, in board oversight and in culture at the very top of a public body. As has already been rehearsed today, all the lavish spendings that we have heard about are not appropriate uses of public funds—they do not reflect public sector values, they fail to deliver value for money and they absolutely erode public confidence.

The failures in governance were just as stark. The report found that the WICS board did not exercise the oversight that was expected of it. Any of us who are or have been members of boards must absolutely understand the responsibility that comes with it when it involves careful management of public resources. Decisions in this case were taken without any due process, without any challenge and without reference to value. The culture that developed within the organisation, which was described by staff as “toxic”, further compounded those governance breakdowns.

My thoughts are with the staff who endured the reported toxic environment, as I know how damaging it can be, especially when there appears to be no clear path to challenge or change it.

Acknowledging those failures is only part of the response. The Scottish Government must expect the highest standards from its public bodies. In the light of the issues raised, action has now been taken. The Government commissioned and published and is now implementing the findings of both internal and independent reviews, which have led to concrete changes in how WICS is governed, in how the Scottish Government exercises its sponsorship responsibilities and in how whistleblowers are supported.

We have seen some progress. WICS has accepted responsibility and has begun the hard work of reform, by tightening financial controls, strengthening internal assurances and refocusing its leadership on transparency and accountability. The Scottish Government, for its part, has taken steps to ensure that its oversight of all public bodies, WICS included, is stronger, clearer and more robust. It is good to hear from the cabinet minister today that reliance on one person’s reporting and sponsorship arrangements will no longer happen.

Public money must always be treated with respect. The reforms are not just about process but about trust—trust that public bodies are acting in the public interest, trust that decisions are taken with integrity, and trust that, where there has been a failure, there is accountability.

Going forward, the focus must now be on embedding a culture of compliance in WICS—one that values scrutiny, upholds standards and earns public confidence.

I echo the calls for a focus on the future of Scottish Water. As it is a beloved institution, we need to make sure that it is fit for purpose. On the operations of other quangos out there, we need certainty that we can have confidence in our public bodies and how they use public funds.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the recently published NatWest Group and Beauhurst’s “New Startup Index”, indicating that Scotland has one of the fastest growing start-up economies in the UK. (S6O-04869)