I welcome Justine Riccomini, who has also been nominated as commissioner to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. As before, we will move straight to questions.

You really will be going in at the deep end here. Just a few days ago, we found out that the UK budget will be on 26 November, which is probably later than was envisaged. Many of us thought that it might have been a couple of weeks earlier. What does that challenge mean to you? How do you feel that you and your colleagues will respond to it, if you are appointed?

How might such a late date for a budget impact on scrutiny, not just by this committee but more widely?

Thank you. Colleagues are keen to come in.

Dry? I find it thrilling.

Amen.

Of course, we are all assuming that productivity is not going to somehow leap forward in the next few years but, if it did, that would certainly make a big difference.

One of the things that you have talked about in your update is the need for clear budget information to aid scrutiny. The Scottish Government is taking some steps towards that, no doubt because of the relentless nagging by you and the committee. Can you talk us through what you feel has been done that has been positive in terms of transparency, and what more the Government needs to do to further increase transparency?

Yes, it is reductions to disability payments and so on that have been reversed.

I have one final point on social security, although it is not all about that. On page 10 of the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, you say:

“Social Security Scotland will continue to pursue initiatives which increase its ability to tackle fraud and error where it does occur, including the recovery of overpayments. Fraud is often carried out by sophisticated and dynamic criminal actors.”

However, a number of members of the committee were concerned by a piece that appeared in The Scotsman a few weeks ago, in which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice said that the Government would not pursue overpayments and indeed money that was fraudulently claimed. The figure of £36 million was mentioned. Alarm bells rang for many of us, I think. Can you clarify the Scottish Government’s position? If it is accurate, that statement seems to contradict what is being said in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan.

If I may stop you there, that work is having good results, but those organisations are also struggling to get additional funding from the Government. For example, on page 62 of the MTFS, it says that employability support has been provided for almost 72,000 people between April 2022 and September 2024. I am a big supporter of employability measures, because, frankly, having a job is the best way out of poverty. The more economically inactive people we can get into work, the better, and we need to understand that more than 100,000 economically inactive people actually want to work.

However, there is no information on the success rate of those measures—whether it is 5, 10 or 30 per cent—which projects work, what does not work, and how we can replicate successful projects and discontinue spend on unsuccessful projects. With regard to fiscal sustainability, you can sometimes get the best of all worlds if you invest efficiently and effectively in projects that have been proven to deliver. There are remarkably successful projects in my area, which Tom Arthur visited just a few months ago, when he was the Minister for Employment and Investment. However, there are issues with regard to whether the local authority, which is the primary funder of those projects, is able to sustain that funding.

It is about outcomes and whether there is an increase in dependency culture. Social security assistance is increasing from £6.8 billion to £8.8 billion, so that is £2 billion that is not being spent on other programmes. My understanding is that local authorities are having to reduce non-statutory expenditure, which includes a lot of the things that would work to help reduce poverty. For example, in education, school assistants, community workers, youth workers and campus cops are all having to fall by the wayside. I believe that all members got an email saying that 61 per cent of 240 organisations said that they would have to either close or reduce their workforce. One very prominent third sector organisation in my area that helps people through debt advice, support for rent and advice on alcohol and gambling is having to reduce its workforce by 40 per cent.

Although money is going into poverty reduction, that can look two-dimensional compared with the big picture. If the money went to other organisations, that might help people get into employment, for example, or it might help them educationally or with debt and other difficulties. Is there not an issue with focusing on benefits? Of course, we are well aware that people need benefits, but the additional funding that has gone into that is in effect not available for other areas.

If areas are being prioritised, there must be areas that are not being prioritised. Are there specific areas in any particular portfolio that are no longer being prioritised? Will you give an example?