Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you had previously raised those issues, I went away and did a bit of digging before I came back here today. Some of the issues and questions that you have raised are absolutely legitimate.

First, I reassure you and others that Social Security Scotland carefully reviews the cases of all adult disability payment clients to ensure that the right decisions are made. Parliament unanimously agreed that it was to be a light-touch process, which meant that clients would not be asked for unnecessary information or for details that were already available. We all agreed to that—there was no dissent.

Despite its light-touch approach, Social Security Scotland seeks additional information from sources, including medical professionals and its clients, when required. An important point that I want to put on record is that the majority of cases that have been reviewed since the adult disability payment was introduced have been the cases of clients whose awards had been transferred to Social Security Scotland from the Department for Work and Pensions. In most cases, their existing awards accurately reflected their needs. However, it is worth noting that many of those reviews were for people who were not due for a scheduled review, but who had reported that their needs had increased, which triggered the transfer of the award to Social Security Scotland and a review by it. That makes a comparison between the two groups a bit misleading. I am happy to come back to the committee with further information on that.

With regard to the suggestion that more people might be coming forward for such benefits in Scotland, rather than the issue being to do with the review point, Parliament unanimously agreed that we would have a benefits take-up strategy to promote the take-up of benefits. As the DWP does not do that, of course that will lead to more people coming forward and claiming.

The evidence that we drew on in the early ministerial discussions was the evidence that was available at that point, which was from third-party organisations that we had met. They gave us evidence that mitigation of the two-child cap would have the biggest impact on child poverty reduction.

COSLA did its calculations again and came back with a figure of £240 million—that is the reason. We asked it to do that because there were various figures around—COSLA’s figures and the Fraser of Allander Institute’s figures—and some councils had included things that others had not. COSLA went back and did a baseline study across the 32 local authorities, which came back with the figure of £240 million.

Good morning, everyone. I thank the committee for its budget scrutiny report, which I have considered carefully.

The Government has engaged widely across the Parliament to try to build consensus for a spending programme that will deliver for all of Scotland. The budget has been enhanced by the agreements with the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Greens and the further action that we will take in supporting neonates who are affected by drugs; in investment in free school meals and nature restoration; in the introduction of a bus fare cap pilot; and in provision of targeted support for hospices and colleges. That approach of parties working together demonstrates how the Scottish Parliament was designed to work.

I look forward to consideration of amendments on the bill’s measures and to members’ questions in advance of that in this scrutiny session.

First, it is important that we are able to set out the pipeline for capital allocations that will draw on the spending review that will be published in June. Although we have a line of sight on immediate capital availability—which, for 2025-26, is all committed—we need a longer line of sight in order to give certainty on projects. Therefore, the capital envelopes that we will get an indication of at the spending review in June will be important in respect of our setting out what projects can be progressed and when.

I am keen to engage with the committee on that. The certainty of multiyear funding for our infrastructure build will be important.

As I have said, the evidence to date shows that more people across all tax bands are still coming to live and work in Scotland. It is important to say that. It is also important that we continue to monitor the emergence of any such direction of travel as you have articulated, and we will do that. Lucy O’Carroll, do you want to come in with any further thoughts?

The six proposed amendments will update the bill to reflect the changes that I communicated to the committee in my letter of 28 January 2025. The changes arise from the Scottish Government’s having reached separate agreements with the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Green Party on supporting the budget, which will deliver on shared priorities and ensure stability for Scotland’s public services.

Taken together, amendments 1 to 4 will amend schedule 1 to increase the maximum spend across four ministerial portfolios. They will authorise a combined total of £16.7 million of additional funding for the health and social care portfolio, the education and skills portfolio, the transport portfolio and the net zero and energy portfolio.

Amendment 1 will increase the health and social care portfolio allocation by £3.5 million. That will provide £2.5 million for drug and neonatal services and a further £1 million for hospice investment.

Amendment 2 will increase the education and skills portfolio allocation by £7.2 million. That will provide the college sector with £3.5 million for the offshore wind skills programme and the college care skills programme. It will also provide £0.7 million for continuation of support for Corseford College and £3 million for the extension of free school meals eligibility in secondary schools, with a test-of-change phase for secondary 1 to 3 pupils who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment in eight local authority areas.

Amendment 3 will increase the transport portfolio allocation by £3 million to establish a £2 bus fare cap pilot in a regional transport partnership area.

Amendment 4 will increase the net zero and energy portfolio allocation by £3 million to provide further investment in nature restoration activities.

To take account of that additional authorised spend, amendment 5 will amend schedule 1 to increase by £16.7 million the total amount of resources that the Scottish Administration will be authorised to use.

Finally, amendment 6 will amend section 4 as a consequence of amendments 1 to 5. It will increase the Scottish Administration’s overall cash authorisation by £16.7 million so that the Government can draw down the necessary funds to cover the additional spend that I have set out.

I urge members to support the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 1.

I reassure you that a lot of work will be done between those meetings. Work has been commissioned since the first meeting, back in December, which I attended. We looked at a number of areas that we need to focus on across a number of portfolios, and we commissioned a lot of work to be done in advance of the meeting in the spring. The meetings are, if you like, check-in or gateway points to ensure that the work that we have commissioned to ensure that we are focusing on what we need to focus on is happening at the pace that we expect.

I hope that that gives you some reassurance that it is not the case that nothing happens in between the meetings. Work does indeed happen, and it is the most important work that is going on.

That work has been kicked off to ensure that the strategies that are the key reference points are clear and that, where strategies are perhaps more historical and have been overtaken by events, that is made clear through the work that is going on. I think that we were going to return with the outcome of that by the end of June. That is the deadline—the work will be brought back to the committee before the end of this session.

We do not need 100 per cent agreement on council tax reform and we do not have to run off into the sunset holding hands. I am realistic enough to sense that that is unlikely. However, we might be able to agree on elements of reform. If we could build enough consensus around those elements, that would enable us, following the election, to get on with work in those areas where we agree.

Previous attempts at reform have fallen at the hurdles because of a lack of consensus about what the overall replacement for council tax should be. Rather than trying to get everyone to agree on the optimum change, we should be realistic and try instead to get agreement on pillars of change that could lead to improvements.