Chamber and committees

You referred to IJBs. The briefing states:

“The Scottish Government has requested that some funding which is currently allocated for Covid-19 in integration authority reserves is now used for wider Covid-19 purposes.”

Is it appropriate for the Scottish Government to seek to influence how integration authorities use their reserves? Do you have examples of how that money is being used in other areas?

You mentioned health and social care. The creation of a national care service is attracting significant attention both in Parliament and in the care sector. When we have discussed it previously, you have said that you would not wait until after the event to provide commentary and critique of the national care service. I also note that you said earlier that there is going to be a balance between short-term necessities and longer-term priorities.

Looking at social care and what the Government has brought forward in relation to a national care service, including the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill, is the creation of such a service a short-term necessity or should it be categorised as a longer-term priority? Should we be targeting resource towards the necessity of tackling the crisis in care today?

In paragraphs 72 and 73 of your briefing, you note that the Scottish Government has set up a new public spending portfolio board and a public spending analytical unit to help to drive the required changes and reforms. Are you confident that those organisations will be effective? Could they just further clutter what is already quite a crowded stage?

On the point about the lessons that were learned from Covid, the pandemic precipitated significant changes in the way that certain services were delivered with, for example, drive-through testing and vaccinations and greater use of digital. Are you picking up that those lessons and the capabilities that they could bring to public sector reform are being embraced within and across the public sector?

Paragraphs 70 and 71 of the briefing were the two that drew media attention. In paragraph 70, you state:

“In the face of the financial challenges, the pace and scale of reform needs to increase, and this will require a sense of urgency from the Scottish Government, at a time when it is also pressing to resolve short-term issues facing the budget.”

You go on to state in paragraph 71:

“If this does not happen, it will become increasingly difficult for the Scottish Government to manage the pressures on the budget, meaning that the cuts to spending necessary to balance the budget will become larger, and the quality of public services delivered will worsen.”

To move to that point, there will have to be some radical action on the pace and scale of public sector reform, which will have to start relatively quickly.

You will have seen the report about NHS managers discussing some quite radical potential solutions to the problems in the NHS, including charging for prescriptions or scaling back free prescriptions. Are those discussions happening throughout the public sector? Has the Government charged the public sector with an opportunity to look radically at the basis on which public services are operating in Scotland?

Page 22 of the briefing states that

“The public should be fully involved in the key decisions about how public services need to change”

and how they are reformed. What evidence have you seen that the Scottish Government and other public bodies are engaging with the public? Is there a risk that there may sometimes be a difference between public opinion on a stated public policy objective, such as the creation of a national care service, and the actual deliverability and practical roll-out of that?

For example, the minister said today that the reason why the Government will press ahead with an NCS is that the public support it, but we have stakeholders such as unions, the national health service and those who are involved in care saying that they do not support the model. Is there a risk that public opinion and the reality on the ground may be divergent?

I will bring in the Auditor General first and then branch out from there.

Auditor General, your briefing says that, overall,

“£3.3 billion was spent on tackling child poverty between 2018/19 and 2021/22”.

By my very basic—and often flawed—maths, that works out at about £3,400 per child who is living in or experiencing poverty. Will you give us some insight into how that money is being tracked? Is the measurement to which Bill Scott referred in the evaluation sufficient, bearing in mind that your briefing says that

“child poverty has not reduced”

and that there is “no evidence”—admittedly, that was at the mid-point when the assessment was made—to suggest that the actions in the delivery plan have reduced child poverty? How is the money tracked and how effectively is it being spent?

No—that was helpful.

In relation to the Scottish Government’s perspective, I note that, when Joe Griffin appeared before us, we discussed the pupil attainment gap and the £1 billion that has been spent on tackling that, but we were left with the impression that he was not sure whether the money had been effective or whether it was spent in a way that would close that gap. Should we have similar concerns in relation to child poverty? It is clear that there is a will to tackle child poverty, but are we likely to repeat the same mistakes by spending the money in a way that is not proving to be as effective as it could be?

I would like to open up the discussion to other stakeholders. There is an issue around the ring fencing of funds for local government, which limits local authorities’ ability to target child poverty in their areas with a laser-like focus, but there is also an issue in relation to the way in which funds are allocated to third sector organisations.

Ryan, will you say a bit about the way in which funds come to you? In a fast-moving situation such as the Covid pandemic or the cost of living crisis, the funds that you apply for are often for specific projects, which limits your ability to spend those funds on other projects. Would more flexibility in how you can spend the funds that you get from Government and other organisations allow you to target your work in a more innovative way?

It strikes me that some of those barriers are going back up again. I see that Bruce Adamson wants to comment.