Seòmar agus comataidhean

You touch on a real tension. I will have to watch that I do not go back to speaking as a home care organiser, which I was in my former years, because I feel very passionate about this area. Without a doubt, huge improvements need to be made.

Clearly, as you have described, the debate on the national care service became focused on territory, powers and disagreement rather than the areas of extensive and broad agreement. What service users and their carers want to see from social care services should have been at the heart of it, but that was lost somewhat both in the broader debate and in the debate in the Parliament.

There is now an opportunity to work outside Scottish Government and local government silos and to focus on how we will improve social care, not just in the here and now. The demographics show that there will be a huge increase in the over-80 age group in the not-too-distant future. There will be a requirement for us to take a root-and-branch look at how we provide social care and ensure that the budgets will work. Silos do not help; the health and social care integration joint boards were established with the intention of moving away from siloed budgets but, in my opinion, there is still far too much siloed working.

We all have to take a step back and think about how we will transform social care in a way that will meet people’s needs both now and in the future. Human rights are at the heart of that, because the rights of those who are often the most vulnerable in our society need to be considered first and foremost. If we keep that at the heart of our discussions perhaps we can avoid falling back into what you described as the territory and powers issues.

I could talk all day about that area, but I will stop myself there because I think that we need to have a very long and hard look at it.

I agree with the point that you made about local government and health boards. There is scrutiny there, and it is a difficult job. Councillors are working in a very challenging environment—given everything that we understand about the political environment, we know that the work of councillors is very difficult and can sometimes be a thankless task. I recognise the work that they do.

On the point about citizen involvement in the budget, we have worked to improve people’s understanding of how it works: how we reach a budget and its development. We have heard a wide range of views from stakeholders across Scotland, from diverse communities, and we have heard the priorities of the third sector, public sector, business sector and communities at large.

We have produced public-facing information: following a review of international best practice on citizens’ budgets, we enhanced our guide to the Scottish budget, “Your Scotland, Your Finances”. That is now produced alongside the draft Scottish budget publication and is updated to reflect the finalised Scottish budget agreed by the Parliament. It is also updated on budget revisions agreed in-year by the Parliament. It is a complicated system. There are in-year revisions in spring and autumn—it is not a straightforward process. However, through that publication and the updating of it, we have tried to set out how the process works in straightforward terms.

I recognise that there is more to do. We want to make those improvements, which is why last year’s budget document signposted the 27 supporting documents and associated publications that accompanied the 2025-26 budget. I do not expect that there will be many folk who have read every one of those from cover to cover—present company excepted—but we try to go from that to “Your Scotland, Your Finances” to provide a much snappier way of producing information about something that is very complex.

Those are the attempts that we have made. It is work in progress. There is more to do, but we have recognised that we need to try. We want people to think about the budget. We want people to be involved as much as they can be and to give their views on process and outcome.

We are delivering against our commitment to develop what we described as a fairer funding approach by providing more multiyear funding to third sector organisations that are delivering front-line services and, in particular, that are tackling child poverty. As part of the 2025-26 programme for government, we committed to what was described as a fairer funding pilot that provided multiyear funding to a range of third sector organisations, totalling about £130 million over 2025-26 and 2026-27. That supports projects in areas including health, education, justice, poverty and culture.

That is the first step towards what you described as mainstreaming multiyear funding agreements. I hear all the time from the third sector that certainty is sometimes as important—or more important—than quantity. It is important that organisations have line of sight and know what they are getting, because they can then hold on to staff and do not have to work on a year-to-year budget.

To be fair to the Scottish Government, we had been subject to single-year budgets for many years, and it is difficult to guarantee funding to other organisations when we do not know what funding we will have. There has now been a multiyear spending review by the United Kingdom Government. That is why we set out that we will have a spending review alongside the 2026-27 budget, which will allow us to, as much as possible, look at providing that line of sight, which is only fair in relation to the spending review. I am keen to go further—this is really important, particularly when money is tight. We know that multiyear funding will help the third sector to hold on to key people who deliver vital services.

I hope that that gives you some reassurance.

The quality assurance of making sure that any funding that goes to any organisation is spent on the services that it is supposed to provide will be done by the intermediaries that are paid to do that job, and that is what they will do. If an organisation is not spending the money on what it is supposed to spend it on, that would be relayed to ministers, and that is when ministers would become involved. That is how the process works.

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.