Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to get a view from around the table, and particularly from Dr Elliott. We get the impression that, sometimes, civil servants hide behind ministers and ministers hide behind civil servants. Let us bear in mind that there are accountable officers in the civil service and that the permanent secretary is the principal accountable officer. I served on the Public Audit Committee, and when civil servants came before us, there was sometimes exasperation that a number of civil servants seem to move around between interim posts, particularly in sponsored agencies and departments such as Transport Scotland. When we dug into problems around, let us say, ferry procurement, there had been quite clear failures by civil servants. Ministers—let us not let them off the hook—often take the flak for that and, on occasion, try to blame civil servants, when it might have been a political decision that has gone wrong.

Civil servants are accountable to Parliament through the principal accountable officer model. To what extent do we need to raise awareness of civil servants’ accountability to Parliament? Do we need to look at the model again, so that, ultimately, ministers are responsible for what is done in their name in the civil service?

On that point about local authorities, you have presented it both here and in the chamber as if local authorities are buying into the Government’s line that this is a reasonable deal for them. However, Western Isles Council has announced today a council tax increase of, I think, 9.5 per cent. We are seeing councils come in towards the upper end of what I think people’s expectations are for council tax. If it was a reasonable settlement, they would not be forced to go down that road, would they?

I want to ask about something that falls within your portfolio. The invest-to-save fund has reduced by £12.4 million, reflecting several projects that are less delivery-ready than initially anticipated. My understanding is that that fund was £30 million for the previous year. That means that about 50 per cent of that fund was not spent. What does that tell you about the Government’s capability to reform at speed, if half of that fund has not been spent?

I have a final question. In the transport portfolio, £15.3 million in additional funding is being provided, of which £10 million relates to an increase in the forecast cost of concessionary fares. Do you have any understanding as to why that cost has risen by £10 million in a year?

I will come in at the end, after the cabinet secretary.

You have referred to—and the Scottish Government repeatedly refers to—the importance of preventative spend. In other words, prevention—whether of social or healthcare ills—is better than cure, and it is significantly cheaper than cure. To what extent does the Government need to get smarter at identifying actual elements of preventative spend, rather than just badging the latest project of the day as preventative when it could still lead to greater expenditure and acuity of problems further down the line?

Convener, I have been playing a bit of budget bingo, ticking off things that other colleagues have brought up. I will dip in and out of some of them, if I may.

Minister, I accept that the reductions in ADP are as against the forecast that was independently created. An FOI request that was published in January showed Social Security Scotland’s expenditure on benefits advertising: in 2024, there was advertising of the adult disability payment; in 2025, there was advertising of the Scottish child payment. Have you done any work as part of the public service reform programme to see whether there is any linkage between advertising a benefit and its take-up against the forecast? Why, for example, would you stop advertising the adult disability payment now, given that, presumably, people are coming into adulthood with disabilities? If you wanted to promote uptake of the benefit now and into the future, Social Security would, presumably, sustain that expenditure—unless it is having a detrimental impact on take-up, making it ahead of and above expectations.

Good morning. In your submission, you seem to place a lot of strategic importance on the national performance framework, which is subject to review at this point. We expect the new framework and outcomes to emerge early in the next session of Parliament. If that is going to be the centrepiece of how we hold the public administration to account in Scotland, or one of the central pillars of that, what does that framework need to look like?

The criticism that has been made on a cross-party basis, including from ministers, is that the framework has not been fit for purpose and has been far too woolly. If it is going to be a fundamental pillar of the way in which we hold the public administration to account, what does it need to look like and what should be the outcomes? By common consent, they are too nebulous at the moment.

I will come in at the end.

The paper that I am looking at says,

“While application volumes have remained relatively stable, the authorisation rate has been lower than forecast”.

Has there been any change to the authorisation methodology that might mean that more people are being refused the benefit, or taken off it at annual review?