Chamber and committees

The act that we are looking at dates from 2010, so this is the third extension to it. I accept that we need to do something, as having some process is better than having no process, so can you give us some assurance to convince us that this is not just a holy grail and that we are not going to keep renewing it while seeing no material change?

In 2011, the Christie report said:

“It is estimated that as much as 40 per cent of all spending on public services is accounted for by interventions that could have been avoided by prioritising a preventative approach.”

You are now talking again about the need for a preventative approach when the Christie report, which was commissioned by John Swinney, came to that estimate of 40 per cent back in 2011. Roll forward 14 years, do you have any basis on which to assess what that percentage is now? Have you made any positive impact in relation to that?

Finally, the Auditor General said in the same report that the Government

“has not provided enough leadership to help public sector bodies deliver change.”

You had the summit recently, and you are leading the charge, so is your neck on the line in relation to delivering that holy grail?

Good morning, Mr Ross. A fair few of the questions that I might have dwelt on have already been asked, but perhaps I can help out Mr Mason a little bit with regard to costs.

On the alcohol side of the equation, the alcohol and drinks industry is already committed to significant expenditure on combating alcohol harm and on community alcohol partnerships, and there is also money that it puts into self-regulation and so on. Have you had any discussions with that industry about how money that is already being spent could be repurposed for such a programme, or how, say, some of the revenues from minimum unit pricing—which, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, are approximately £32 million a year—could be used to meet some of the costs of what I think is a worthwhile bill?

Regardless of what happens next with parliamentary time or Government support for the bill, the bill has raised awareness of the need for rehab and the scale of Scotland’s alcohol and drug deaths. It has also led to more data and transparency around that data. How much further do you think we have to go before we have an accurate picture of the trends and the costs? I know that some of them will always be unknown, but one of the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation is that we are starting to compile that data, which is useful to public policy more generally.

If the bill is passed, until the systems are in place, will it make it more difficult for the Scottish Government in the short to medium term to cut budgets as it has in the past, because there will be an increased focus on this area?

Finally, on the problem of alcohol misuse, in its submission, SHAAP called for

“a new robust national needs assessment to be carried out”,

followed by

“a full calculation ... to estimate the costs of upscaling provision to meet the currently unmet need”

in relation to alcohol dependence. Do you sense that there is agreement to extend the scope of the bill to cover all people with alcohol-use disorder, as SHAAP has suggested, or would you want to look at that further down the line?

Thank you very much.

Given that we are again talking about preventative spending, it would probably be good to see on what basis it was assessed and whether any progress has been made.

Jumping forward to last autumn, Audit Scotland took up a similar position, in which it said that there is still

“no evidence of large-scale change on the ground”

and that the Government

“does not know what additional funding is required to support reform”.

You have put £30 million in the budget this year for invest to save. Can you give the Auditor General some assurance that you are working towards getting an actual figure that you will work towards to leverage in the reforms that ultimately might meet the initial objectives of the act?

Finally, finally—sorry, convener—you identified the concept of the single authority model in relation to health boards and councils. Is that a lesson that you should roll out through Government more widely, given that you say that it is quite difficult for you as the minister in charge to drive reform? Do you need to consider coherence in relation to the number of public bodies that are out there?

I go back to the social justice portfolio and, in particular, the two benefits that the convener identified: adult disability payment, the figure for which is £100 million lower than you anticipated, and child disability payment, the figure for which is £70 million more than you anticipated. I think that you said that you would follow up on that point when you write to the committee.

Is the relationship between those benefits affected by the ways in which they are promoted? In 2023, there was a big push in relation to them in billboard, radio and television advertising. Is there a causal link between the promotional work that you do and the take-up of those benefits?

Will you also look into the breakdown of child disability payment between payments in relation to neurodiversity and payments in relation to other disabilities? It may well be that the change is an effect of the child and adolescent mental health services waiting list going down, as there are more diagnoses in one column as a result of people being put forward. I am interested in knowing whether the change is a result of catching up on delays in waiting lists or whether it is a structural trend in the Scottish budget, particularly in relation to child disability payment. It would be helpful if you would undertake to look into that.

In relation to the social security programme, there have been £11.3 million of savings, which you identify as being

“driven by staff cost savings.”

It is not clear whether that has happened through reductions in posts or some other mechanism. Have you managed to ascertain what drove that?