Chamber and committees

To follow up on Mr Marra’s point, the ScotWind moneys have been a hokey-cokey reserve, with moneys going in and out of the account. Do you now have a clear policy on them that says that they should not be used to make up for what are, in effect, forecasting errors on the part of the Scottish Government?

Do you think that, in year, we will see some metrics? In the past, we have asked about the savings and whether you could plot them against budget increases. Are you confident that both will be heading south?

You are patting yourself on the back and saying that you have managed to balance the budget yet again, but what conversation would you have been having with us today if you did not have the £2 billion that your crystal ball correctly said was going to come? You criticised your political opponents. The Scottish Conservatives suggested tax cuts, which you said would lead to public expenditure cuts, but that is not necessarily axiomatic. What conversation would you be having with us today if you had not got that £2 billion?

Good morning. My questions will continue Mr Marra’s line of questioning. The committee has expressed concerns about the Scottish budget’s long-term sustainability, but is the truth not that, this year, all the cards fell in your favour? You got £2 billion more than you would otherwise have got, and therefore you got lucky this year. It was not that your modelling was correct; it was more about the nature of the transfers that you got through the Barnett consequentials.

In the past, we have talked about your efforts to make Government more efficient, to reduce the contingent workforce head count and cost and to reduce the expenditure on the workforce more generally. Shona Robison helpfully responded to my written question about the contingent workforce, and her answer shows that, on 31 March 2022, the contingent workforce across all directorates was 989 and on 30 September 2024 it was 668, which represents a reduction of 321. Over precisely the same period, the number of senior-grade civil servants increased by 500, which is significantly more than the reduction in the contingent workforce.

Are you in a position to provide figures on the net saving from reducing those contingent workers versus the senior civil servants that have replaced them? Do you have an idea, as you progress through this year, of where those figures will be at the end of the financial year, for both the contingent workforce and the senior civil service workforce?

Do you share my concern about the way that these things sometimes work? Although you may be focused on reducing the contingent workforce, at the same time, there has been a pay and grade escalation in the full-time equivalent civil service, particularly among the cohort of senior civil servants. The number of senior civil servants seems to be growing inexorably and to a greater degree than the contingent workforce.

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?

We discussed the money that is being held back in the local government portfolio and that is being rolled forward in the health portfolio. Through your conversations with local government and health boards, you will be aware that, this year, there is a real in-year problem in relation to integration joint boards, with some not making the cost savings that they anticipated, others potentially having to look at reserves and others scratching their heads in disbelief as to how they will roll the money forward into next year. Is there anything that you can do in year to look at the specific health boards, such as those in Aberdeenshire and Edinburgh, that seem to be grappling with a real issue in relation to their IJB liabilities?

Okay—fine. One concern on that issue is that it would be quite easy to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, so it is probably one of those areas that the Government, through its strategy, should be more aware of.

Let us turn to national insurance. Cabinet secretary, you are on record as criticising the UK Government for giving you only a Barnettised sum in relation to employer national insurance contributions. Do you accept that your stated public policy of having a larger public sector with a heavier wage bill is the root cause of the fact that Labour’s jobs tax is now having a disproportionately negative effect on the Scottish public finances?

But you would concede that you also have more senior civil servants now and that the number has grown significantly in the past two years.