Chamber and committees

Do you have the numbers, Richard?

I am certainly happy to look at what others have done, whether it be Lithuania or Finland. If you have all the levers—

Or changing the direction of the spend. Let us take employability, for example, which we have talked about quite often. There are some good programmes in employability, but is that area of work as focused as it could be? Is it reaching and supporting those families that we need it to reach and support? Third sector spend has had quite a lot of success in reaching and supporting families. Is that being sustained in areas where there is evidence that it is working? Both are true: we need to interrogate spend to ensure that it is delivering but, where spend is delivering, we need to ensure that it continues and that there is not a disconnect, for example where something that works well ends up not receiving third sector funding.

We rely on the data that is provided, which we can then interrogate, on what is being delivered through third sector grant funding, the outcomes from the employability funding, some of which also goes to the third sector, and the outcomes from the Scottish child payment. There is less clear data in some areas—for example, do we have the data from the huge investment in childcare to show which families are benefiting most from it and which families are not benefiting because it is not flexible enough? Those are the areas that we need to get into. Do the mental health services that we provide reach the folk they need to reach to get people back into work and, importantly, to avoid people falling out of work? I am not sure that we have the data set on that that we want.

There is always a balance to be struck around what is universal provision and what is more targeted. When finance is constrained, how do you make sure that the available resources point in the direction to eradicate child poverty? That is what lay behind the free-school-meal decision.

We may well be looking through that lens at other areas, and it might be about the approach to rolling out. Going back to childcare, we need to look at whether that policy—which, incidentally, has been, in many ways, a big success of the early years offer, and is a very important support to families—is reaching and supporting the families who need it most. We are at a good point to ask ourselves that question. If it is not, what is it about the childcare system that is not able to do that? Is it too rigid? Is it not flexible enough? It was set up in a certain way, understandably, because there was an agreement with local government, and that is what has been provided.

Some of those things will not happen overnight; we will not say, “As of a week on Tuesday, it will be provided in a different way.” Some of those things take time to change, but my very strong view is that we need to have discussions about all areas of policy. Childcare is such an important tool in eradicating child poverty—for example, some families struggle to get consistent childcare throughout the day. If a mum is either not in work or is in low-paid or part-time work, what works for her and her family is a good starting point.

If what we have is not working, we need to look at how we can shift resources in order to be more effective in that space.

We have discussed the small business bonus scheme before. I hope that I have not given you the impression that it should stay as it is for ever and a day. Every area of policy should constantly be looked at in terms of whether it meets the objectives that it was set to meet. As I said last time, I am mindful of the current climate and environment for small businesses, which is very difficult. Certainty, in terms of knowing what the landscape and support look like, is important.

We are open to looking at whether the businesses that are supported are helping to meet the ambition of economic growth and to sustain town centres. In some cases, they will be helping, because some of the very small businesses tend to be located on our high streets, which we want to maintain and enhance.

Given the other difficulties that businesses are facing, I am mindful that it might not be the best time to create uncertainty about something that they rely on. However, if you are asking me whether it should stay the same for ever and a day, I say no. It clearly should not and will not.

“Discarded” is a strong word. I am not sure that it was discarded.

I am up for thinking about whether earlier that week could be a compromise. That would give us that first few days back just to finalise things. I am not wedded to its being a Thursday, for sure; I guess that it is about trying to meet in the middle, where we can reach—

I am not unsympathetic to the point that you are making, Mr Mason. We need to ensure that the reforms that we bring forward are consistent with the direction of travel. Clearly, a new minister is in charge of that bill, and he will want to look at its scope, its ambition and so on.

I have been thinking quite a lot about our approach to the 131 public bodies in Scotland and to public service reform. We need to avoid the trap of tinkering around the edges. Perhaps we should take a step back and ask ourselves what Scotland needs from the public body landscape.

The tertiary education and training bill has some good aspects—not least on governance, which is very important—but we need to think about whether it is optimal to be moving things around or whether we should take a step back and ask ourselves what we need and which organisation would be best to do what. A new minister is getting his head around the bill and will have his own thoughts about the direction of travel.

We need to ensure that the delivery of apprenticeships is functioning well and that careers services are in the right space. I want to avoid duplication, and there are many organisations that provide careers advice. There is a lot of important stuff in the bill but, in general, I think that we need to step back and think about what we need. That comment is not particular to the bill; I am not convinced that we need the 131 public bodies—some that are in the Government and some outwith it—that have emerged for a whole variety of reasons over the years. It feels as though it is time to take a step back and have a proper look at the landscape.

I will take that away and speak to Ben Macpherson about the financial memorandum.