Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will come to that if you give me a minute. According to the SFC’s estimates of median incomes, which were published alongside the budget, more than half are set to pay less after deductions in 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27. As I have said before, accounted-for deductions, such as pension contributions, are required to reflect the tax that is actually paid by taxpayers.

On your question about the level—

There is no evidence that there is a cliff edge for people who are on disability benefits. You need to remember that some of these people are already in work. We have not seen any evidence that there is a cliff edge that prevents people from getting into work because they are on benefits. The latest figures show that the number of people who successfully claim adult disability payment through Social Security Scotland is quite modest. We need to consider everything in the round before making judgments.

No, but I am sure that I could get those figures for you.

I hope that you would accept that the need for mental health support has increased, particularly in the post-Covid era, not just in Scotland but in other jurisdictions. We need to support those people, and we also need to support people to avoid falling out of work. That is why it is important that people get the right support when they need it, including when they return to work. We need to support people back into work, which is why we are funding our employability programmes and providing £8 million for colleges to work with parents and help those who are furthest from the labour market to get back into work.

Nobody disagrees that work is the best way out of poverty, but I believe that Scotland has a compassionate and fair system for people who need support. Those who want to change that system need to set out how they would do that and who would lose support.

First, on the point about the level of detail, we have provided level 4 detail for health and local government. Have we provided it at that level for social security?

SPICe is also an expert organisation that provides support to parliamentarians, and, every year, it compares the local government settlement from budget to budget, because of in-year transfers. I am not disputing anything that anybody has said; all that I am saying is that there are good reasons why we do not compare local government funding to the ABR, which I have tried to set out as clearly as I can.

I will bring in colleagues, but at no point in our discussions with the Scottish Fiscal Commission has concern been raised with us that the information is hazy or not transparent. Any information that the Fiscal Commission provides is helpful. If it is able to provide additional clarity, that is not a bad thing.

We have a process with the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

I am keen to hear what the SFC has to say about pay. I have seen its comments and reflections.

There will be a number of factors, including what the potential transformation and reform will mean for the delivery of workforce reductions. There is a clear relationship between head count and pay, and what organisations can deliver via efficiency savings will be important and will play into future pay rounds.

Inflation will also be important. If it comes down to 2 per cent, as desired, that will be a factor in pay negotiations for 2027-28. Given the pressures on the budget for that year, we will need pay constraint. It will be a very tight year indeed, and we must set reasonable expectations. I believe that pay increases have been fairly generous so far, but they have also allowed us to avoid costly strike action. We must look at these things in the round.

I would say that the two-year deals mean that we are in a good place on pay. The alternative would be industrial disruption in many sectors, which we have managed to avoid by having two-year deals. Those are affordable and would not have been agreed if they were not so.

The robust work that has been led by Ivan McKee will have to deliver workforce reductions. We have set out what those reductions will be in every area. Cabinet secretaries and organisations, including health boards and other front-line services, will be required to deliver those reductions and will be tracked as they do so. We are not working on a wing and a prayer: there will be tracking, requirements, accountability and transparency in the delivery of all of that.

The final piece of the pay policy will be to revisit it in 2027-28 to see what is possible in the light of budgetary constraints, where inflation is and what the efficiencies have delivered by then. Head count and pay are absolutely interlinked.

That is not perfect, but you know as much as I do about the cost of industrial action—not just the cost in pounds and pence but the cost through the disruption to and impact on public services—and we have managed to avoid that.

I do not accept that characterisation. Work has been done at a very detailed level to deliver reasonable workforce reductions, which now have to be delivered. Essentially, they are baked into the assumptions that are being made about funding. Workforce reduction has to be delivered; it is not a nice-to-do.