Seòmar agus comataidhean

The figure is accurate, but to describe it as a black hole and saying that the Scottish Government is not looking to recover some of it is inaccurate. I have no issue with the figure; I have an issue with the interpretation that that somehow meant that the Scottish Government was just going to leave that to one side and not do anything about it.

I again point to the fact that we need to look at two aspects of the increases in the level of social security expenditure. One aspect is down to changes that are happening across the UK and will therefore be covered by BGA, and the other is the additional investment that we make.

I appreciate that, just because we get the money in from social security block grant adjustments, it does not necessarily have to be spent on social security. It is up to the Scottish Government to consider entirely different aspects around that.

My second point is that the increase in expenditure is not due to any changes to eligibility that the Scottish Government is bringing in. It is about the eligibility that is currently in the system, which has been passed by this Parliament, and those policy decisions following through to an increase in social security expenditure.

I totally appreciate that there is, quite rightly, both in this committee and in Government, an analysis of the increasing levels of social security. Those are conscious decisions that have been taken by this Government to protect disabled people, carers and people on low incomes. The changes and the forthcoming increase are not happening because we are due to make any further changes to eligibility that Parliament has not already voted on.

I am not trying to be obtuse, convener, but some of the cases that David Wallace is referring to are still in process, because the agency is still very young.

For example, if the agency is working through a voluntary recovery of an overpayment but that does not prove successful, it can move to the next step in the process. We will continue to see that number change.

We are always very open within the Government about looking at different approaches if something more can be done.

Again, I go back to first principles. We always have to ensure that, if people are entitled to a benefit they get it, and if they are not entitled to that benefit they do not get it. The other way to make savings is by changing eligibility. Those are the types of decisions that we will make. When it comes to targets, I go back to the point that, if we want to see a reduction in welfare spending, we have to target people and make changes to eligibility.

The other aspect is to ensure that the system is as robust as it possibly can be. One pillar that you have mentioned is the review process. Rather than that being a process where we have to wait until its end to see whether changes can be made, if issues are identified during its initial steps we can take steps to deal with them immediately. The agency has an iterative process of learning and continuous improvement. There are also other aspects, outwith the review section, where we continuously ensure, through the directorate and the agency, that the system is as robust and efficient as it can be and we make the changes that we are able to.

The aspects around whether there will be a saving will be dealt with by the learning that comes out of work within the agency, and the wider Government, that demonstrates that changes need to be made to policies, practices and procedures. The budget process and spending review process are exactly where those types of learning points will materialise in changes to budgets. Those will be demonstrated in the publications that will come out in due course.

One point on which we will be happy to provide further details is the operating costs of the agency compared with, for example, those of the DWP. Those costs, which we continually challenge to ensure that the agency is as effective as possible, are very good in comparison with those of the DWP. There is no issue around the operating costs of the agency.

I ask David Wallace to come in on that.

I do not think that the level of social security payments is unsustainable. As a Government, we have to work out—these matters will come to Parliament to discuss and make decisions on—the choices that we will set out in our budget and in the spending review about the decisions that we have made on investing in social security. Others might wish to suggest that we should disinvest from social security and that we should take money away from people. It is fair and right for us to discuss that but, internally, the Government has discussed the importance that we attach to social security as one way of alleviating poverty and supporting disabled people and carers. Those choices will be laid bare.

I fully recognise that there is an increase in social security expenditure. One way of tackling that is to look to reduce it by making changes to eligibility. The UK Government has attempted to do that. After looking at the increases in social security expenditure, it attempted to make changes to reduce eligibility, but it has now backtracked on some of those. It is right and proper for us to discuss who should be eligible for benefits and whether we think that benefits are going to people from whom we, as a Parliament, would be comfortable taking them away.

I am happy to provide information on how that is not a particularly large issue.