Chamber and committees

I will ask my official, Lucy O’Carroll, to come in on ADT.

In practice, it would be highly unlikely that we would move forward with that under the current arrangements. I have said that before. I will have a look at the wording but, for the avoidance of doubt, it is neither our intention, nor that of the UK Government, to move forward with that because of the inability to resolve the risks. If the wording does not properly reflect that, we will have a look at it.

We will set out the position on that at the budget, but I have pointed to the framework and the principles around that.

When the Scottish child payment was introduced, it was important that we were able to get agreement from the UK Government Department for Work and Pensions that there would be no erosion of the support that people were receiving elsewhere—it had to be additionality. All the evidence points to that payment being the single most important intervention to ensure that Scotland has falling rates of child poverty compared to those anywhere else in the UK. There is cross-party support and understanding of that.

It is important that there are no cliff edges. For example, I am thinking about calls to increase the Scottish child payment. There is a balance to be struck there. As long as the payment continues to increase with inflation, I think that it is at about the right level. It is one of the pillars of support, but getting people into work is the best route out of poverty. We need to make sure that the Scottish child payment continues to lift children out of poverty, I think that it is at about the right level to do that.

If it were much higher, there would be a question about whether it would become a barrier to work. However, I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that it is a barrier at present.

Let me say a few things. We have explored that at length—I know that, when Shirley-Anne Somerville gave evidence to the committee, she explored some of the issues. It is worth bearing in mind that the system that has been set up in Scotland was based on cross-party support for the secondary legislation that set out the eligibility methods for social security. All the parties in the Parliament wanted the principles of fairness, dignity and respect and there was cross-party consensus on the criteria for assessment and so on. The system did not emerge out of nowhere—quite rightly, people wanted it to look and feel different from the system south of the border.

That said, it is important that we have a system that works for those receiving the benefits and for the taxpayer. For example—again, we have explored this at length—the difference between the reviews and assessments by the DWP and those by Social Security Scotland is not as black and white as the figures suggest. Shirley-Anne Somerville made the point that getting it right first time means that there are less likely to be successful appeals. If I remember correctly, the figure is reduced to about 9 per cent if you consider the number of people who win their appeal under the DWP system. Although there is still a difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK, it is markedly narrower because of the number of cases that are won on appeal.

You probably heard from Shirley-Anne Somerville that Social Security Scotland is looking at the reviews. To be fair to Social Security Scotland, the focus has been on safe and secure transfer of existing cases. Given that the number of cases is about 350,000, it was important to ensure that that was done properly. Social Security Scotland is now looking at how the review system can ensure that people receive the money that they should receive and that their needs are as they were previously, because some people’s needs change.

Shirley-Anne Somerville also put on record an important point, which is that the proportion of the resource budget that the Scottish Government has chosen to invest in enhancing social security in Scotland compared with England and Wales is projected to increase by less than 1 per cent by 2029-30, compared with the current financial year. As I said earlier, there are some moving parts around welfare reform—U-turns and the two-child cap—so that figure might reduce even further, because the forecasts have not been adjusted—

I will check and come back to the committee—I do not remember what the figure was, but there was a lot of interest.

I have two things to say about that. First, those bodies might have been further advanced in their thinking to be able to put in the proposition, which had to be quite detailed and robust. Secondly, no part of the public sector is going to be able to stand back and say, “This is not for me.”

We are trying to build on the progress that we have made previously. We are keen to hear ideas and have discussions about where there might be landing space for support for the budget. There are relationships to build on from last year’s budget, when we secured the support of Liberal Democrat and Green colleagues, but we will continue to have discussions with others.

I am mindful that Mr Hoy’s colleague Liz Smith will be keen to get support for her Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, for example, so that may bring a different approach to the budget.

We will have to have an honest conversation with local government. I am conscious of the conversation that we have just had about the fiscal framework and about there being no surprises. The shared service space is a massive opportunity for local government, so there is a discussion to be had about what lies best where. Some activities might be best done on a regional basis, and some might be best done on a once-for-Scotland basis.

The same issues apply to planning, although that is a little more complex because of planning authority rules. We have developed the national hub to supplement the role of local government in planning decisions, because local authorities are all battling for the same people and fishing in the same pond of a small number of individuals. You see people moving between authorities.

To be honest, it would get me into some difficulty under the Verity house agreement if I said to local government, “You have to share services here,” but councils really need to begin to think about shared services. There are good examples, including waste management services that are provided by one authority to others, which has saved a lot of money. However, that needs to happen by default. Local authorities need to look at whether they can provide a service on a regional basis, because the fiscal position requires them to consider that.

We will continue to have such discussions. Trading standards is a good example of where we might be coming to the point at which there is no choice but to share the service, but we need to do it on a planned basis rather than as a result of service failure.

I am keen to continue to have those discussions and to look at ways of encouraging and incentivising such thinking.

We have had deep dives within each of the portfolios, looking at line-by-line spending decisions, including in the culture space. Those discussions are very active. Although there is an increasing profile of investment in culture, those organisations absolutely need to ensure that they are fiscally sustainable and are delivering value for money. For example, could they be looking at whether something could be done in the shared service space? Could the national performance companies share personnel? They need to look at all that in the same way as any other organisation would.

Creative Scotland is going through its review. It needs to be active on fiscal sustainability. A lot of organisations could be more effective at attracting private sector funding, for example, and it could support them to have the means to go about that. Some organisations are very effective in that area, while others are not. It could look at sharing best practice in attracting investment from elsewhere, as well as in organisations using the core funding that they receive. So, the short answer is yes; organisations should absolutely look at all of that.