Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will we come back to that, Richard? Is there anything that you want to say?

Yes. There is a good example that I can give you, but I am not sure whether it is in the public domain. Is Granton in the public domain?

Yes, we have our rules, but perhaps Richard McCallum can remind me of them. My brain has gone to mush. Is the limit £300 million?

As of yesterday, we have a new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am a little concerned that we have already talked all these things through. It is good that, at official level, we have a really good working relationship so that we understand the detail, and a lot of the discussions should remain the same, because officials provide continuity. I am writing a letter to the new CST to welcome him to the job and to set out where we have got to, because I do not want to go back to the starting blocks on these issues. I know that the Welsh and the Northern Irish will be doing the same. We want to bank the progress that has been made and start the discussion from there, rather than going back to first base.

In practice, through our taxation system, we require those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more, which has helped us to fund things such as the Scottish child payment. We have taken steps to reduce inequalities, and we are the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. We should be proud of that track record.

Let me repeat something that I said earlier, because it merits repeating. The context to this is that, although you are right that the Scottish Government anticipates spending around £8.8 billion on social security assistance by 2029-30, more than 80 per cent of that £8.8 billion comes from the UK Government through the block grant. I am not saying that that is not an issue—it is an issue—but UK Government spending on social security is increasing and 80 per cent of that £8.8 billion will essentially come through the block grant. That leaves us with choices about what we do on investment on top of that and what we do on policy choices within that.

You have referenced ADP and PIP. Let me say a couple of things about that. We all—I think that it was unanimous—signed up to the idea that we wanted a social security system that was based on the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. The emphasis was always that our social security system should look and feel different from the UK system, because of concerns about stigmatisation and all of that. That is what everybody signed up to. It is therefore no surprise that Social Security Scotland takes those principles through to decision making and the way in which people are supported. However, that does not mean that we should not be making sure that our systems are as robust as they can be.

Earlier, we had a bit of a discussion about the recovery of overpayments, particularly where there has been criminality. Payments should also be delivered as efficiently as possible, so some of the efficiency drives will apply to Social Security Scotland as well as to the work that it does. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice is looking at the processes for reviewing ADP awards, to make sure that, when people’s circumstances have changed, for example, that might impact on eligibility.

The committee raised with the previous panel the point that 2 per cent of ADP awards in Scotland were ended or reduced compared to 16 per cent of PIP awards. Let me say something about that, because we have done a bit of work to get underneath that figure and it is important to share this. Over the past five years, nearly 40 per cent of PIP review decisions that ended or reduced the award were changed following challenge. That means that, although 14 per cent of PIP awards were initially reduced or ended, the figure was closer to 9 per cent once final decisions were reached. There is still a difference there, but it is important to recognise that getting it right the first time is not a bad thing either.

It is important that we always apply rigour to all our systems, challenge them and make sure that they are fit for purpose. We have made a very conscious decision to invest in the social security system to support people. We should remember that the adult disability payment is a benefit that is paid to people who have essentially been determined to be unable to work. It is important to make sure that we are helping and supporting people upstream before they fall out of work and end up in the position of applying for the adult disability payment, because we know that, with the right support earlier on, people can be kept in, and supported in, work. There is an issue of too many people falling out of work due to health conditions that eventually leave them unable to work, so there is something to be done upstream.

I will be blunt about this. We sometimes talk around these issues, but nobody ever comes forward and says, “You should cut ADP,” or—

The envelopes will, in essence, set out the spending priorities and spending plans of the Government. The Scottish Fiscal Commission also said that it would encourage the Opposition to do likewise. The SFC seems to be saying clearly, for example, that if, given that we are heading towards an election, there are views that those spending plans are not correct and that some of that money should be shifted, that would be an opportunity for others to set out different spending plans. That is absolutely right.

I do not think that we got a good deal out of the comprehensive spending review, either on resource, with the 0.8 per cent increase, or on capital, with the 0.3 per cent increase—even compared to other devolved nations. There is an opportunity cost in the £1.1 billion of resource that we could otherwise have had. Those small margins of difference matter to the budget. That brings us back to the point about some of the difficult decisions, because having that resource would mean that there would be £1.1 billion less that we would have to find in the sustainability plan, which would make the spending review a lot easier.

This is about the fiscal framework. FPAC, which includes you, has produced a report that puts some questions about the limitations and the constraints of the fiscal framework. That is probably an area that we could all agree on.

If there is a requirement for an increase in funding to do more in that space, that will, of course, be a key priority for the Government, but it is all about what is being done and ensuring that the money is spent on effective interventions. All that I am saying is that those effective interventions are in a better place than perhaps they were a few years ago in having an evidence base.

If you have suggestions, Michael, of things that we are not doing at the moment and which you say would work, I would be very happy to hear them, and I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care would be willing to hear them, too. However, I think that we know where the effective interventions are, and we need to ensure that they are happening everywhere, that people can get assistance when they ask for it, and that we tackle the wider poverty issues that we know drive addiction not just to drugs but to alcohol.

I am all for having that discussion. If you want to follow up with some suggestions and discuss the matter in a very constructive space, I am all for that.