Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a question—it is not to declare an interest, although I will say that I had to go to Cardiff to see Bruce Springsteen, because he is not playing in Scotland on his European tour.

A few months ago, in a debate in Parliament, I raised the idea of a £1 levy on tickets that are above a certain value for events in Scotland. If 50,000 people are going to see Scotland playing Finland at Hampden or 50,000 people are going to see Taylor Swift, the money from that levy could be used to provide high-quality public transport. If someone is paying £100 for a ticket, £101 would not be much different, but just think what we could do with that pound. I raised the idea in the debate that you led, cabinet secretary. How could that idea be developed further?

That was very helpful. Speaking from my position as someone who is involved in the committee’s scrutiny of the matter as well as being the constituency MSP, I suppose that we should start to ask some of those questions when it is appropriate. No doubt we will return to the matter, so I will not ask more about it, at present.

No, convener—you have just given me the assurance that I need. As convener, you had suggested that we had sorted out what was happening with the A9, because the petitions committee had sorted it out. However, we clearly have to take this committee’s own view on that. You have put that on the record, convener, so that is fine.

That would be helpful, cabinet secretary. What I did not ask about, because I did not want to go down that road either, was that a lot of the talk with regard to the bill was about specifying pan-UK routes, pricing and fare regimes, but with caveats for Scotland and Wales. The question is this: how strong were those caveats? I will leave that sitting there, though, until we see what an incoming Government does.

I was just checking, and the best start foods grant is extended to those without recourse to public funds. That connects my earlier suggestions on targeting with Mr Sinclair’s points.

No matter what your answer is, Mr Evans, I will not have a follow-up question after this, so the last word will be yours.

If you had a choice—and please make one on this occasion if you can—between meeting the interim target of 18 per cent or missing it by a whisker and taking the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to lift a huge number of people out of deep and enduring poverty—including those who are just on the artificial line of not being technically in poverty—would you rather meet the target or move a huge number of people away from enduring poverty?

This is an interesting evidence session. I will rewind ever so slightly. Mr Balfour mentioned a deficit in social security in Scotland. For clarity, there is not a deficit—the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland spend £1.2 billion more on doing the right thing and protecting the most vulnerable people in society than they would have done had they stuck to UK Westminster policies. That is the policy choice in Scotland, and it should not be portrayed as a deficit. It is important to put that on the record, given the exchange that we are having with witnesses today about political priorities and policy choices.

I have made that point now, convener, but we have to make policy choices in Scotland—of course we do. Some of the questions on targeting that I was going to ask have been mopped up by Mr Mason. I am conscious that putting the Scottish child payment up to £30 would cost around an additional £60 million. If we then increased it to £40, that would cost £170 million on top of that. It is quite reasonable to ask not about how we would raise the revenue but about whether this Parliament would need to identify £50 million, £100 million or £150 million. My goodness, Mr Sinclair—I am afraid that I do not have any of those amounts of money available to me. If we did identify it, how would it be best spent? I know that the answer is not an either/or, but our committee needs a steer when we scrutinise the budgets for these things.

Mr Evans spoke about early years and children. We have best start foods and the best start grant. We could, in theory, give a Scottish child payment supplement to families in receipt of that suite of benefits. We hope that we know the ages of young people who are getting the Scottish child payment, so we could have a supplement for teenagers. Mr Sinclair was perhaps suggesting that. Many families tell me that summer is the most expensive time of year, so I have suggested that there could be a June payment, which would be a double payment—a summer supplement—to help out at that difficult time of year.

There are lots of policy choices that the Scottish Government has to consider, and the witnesses we have here today are experts whose opinions we value. Can I twist your arms and get you to say where you would target money as and when it becomes available?

Mr Sinclair, that answer was helpful, but do you or do you not support a supplement to the Scottish child payment for certain targeted groups that might be more likely to be at risk of deep and enduring poverty? I am not sure what your position is.

I am pleased to see this affirmative instrument, which seems to fall in line with the Government’s approach, as it is ambitious in its intent but cautious and careful in the roll-out. The £60 million of additional money that is being spent on carers in Scotland is evidence of that ambition.

You mentioned a backdating protocol that exists so that individuals do not lose out, and you alluded to an individual moving from a local authority that is part of the pilot to one that is not, or vice versa. How will that be identified by Social Security Scotland, and how will people be encouraged to fill in the appropriate forms in order to get that backdating of benefit?

That is helpful. Thank you.