Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am supportive of the comments that have been made, but I just put on the record that the Government has told us that its air quality strategy—cleaner air for Scotland 2—will expire in July 2026, and a planned review has already been bolted into the system, in which all of this will be considered. I commend the petitioner for drawing attention to the issue, but it is reasonable to point out that the Government was already on the ball in considering the matter.

It is also reasonable for us to go back to the Government and say that we, as a committee, will continue to watch the issue, and our successor committee, too, will continue to look at the issue and plot a pathway to higher air quality standards. After all, why would the Government and Parliament not wish to do that?

I fully take on board Kevin Stewart’s point that, sometimes, there can be technical barriers, difficulties and delays in getting to targets, so perhaps there should be a bit of nuance in our correspondence to the Government. However, based on the evidence that I have in front of me, the Government appears to be already on the ball in looking at these issues as part of its on-going and planned review.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2025 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have apologies from our convener, Collette Stevenson, and from Michael Marra. Unfortunately, neither of them can be with us this morning.

The committee dealt with its first agenda item in private. We now move to agenda item 2, which is a decision on taking business in private. Does the committee agree to take agenda item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. Disability payments were mentioned, so it would be appropriate to bring in Edel Harris next. I have no doubt that she will have something meaningful to say.

What evidence do we have that such investment is making a real difference, Edel? We know that there are gaps, because at last week’s committee session we learned that it was not clear how many people who claim ADP are in work and how many are out of work. We got some evidence on that from Emma Jackson, but where are the gaps? It would be quite helpful to have more information.

I will bring in Emma Jackson and will ask what will be my last question. Jeremy Balfour has a supplementary question and my other colleagues want to come in with a whole range of questions.

Are there any payments that are not value for money? I am sorry, Emma—you can swerve that if you like.

Who is that question for, Jeremy?

I apologise—it is just that that might enable us to end the meeting at the appropriate time.

Jeremy Balfour, I believe that you are going to lead on the next theme.

I apologise for waiting until the very end to ask this question, which is about what you would ask for if more money became available. Chris Birt might remember that I asked a similar question last year.

The Scottish Government has invested £1.3 billion in positive policy initiatives, such as the Scottish child payment and adult disability payments, for the purpose of mitigation. That additional investment is now locked into the system. If I said, “I have just found £100 million! Where did that come from?”, would you use it to take a cash-first approach? Would you provide other services? Childcare was mentioned, for example. How would you direct the money? What would your priorities be?

I know that you want to say all of the above, but that is not how it works. I know that such questions are for politicians, but you are here today, so what would your main ask be? Ask one thing, if possible.

Agenda item 3 is the committee’s second evidence session on pre-budget scrutiny. I welcome our witnesses. In the room, we are joined by Chris Birt, associate director for Scotland, Joseph Rowntree Foundation; Stephen Sinclair, chair, Poverty and Inequality Commission; and Emma Jackson, head of social justice, Citizens Advice Scotland. Edel Harris OBE, chair of the independent review of adult disability payments, joins us online. Thank you all for the support that you will give us this morning with our budget scrutiny.

A significant amount of money has been invested in social security in Scotland, and the budget is dramatically increasing. However, that is happening in a controlled fashion, if you like, as a result of policy intentions. For example, there will be an additional £489 million for the Scottish child payment next year, and disability benefits payments will be £452 million above the block grant adjustment. There will also be an additional £123 million for carers allowance, £100 million for mitigating United Kingdom policies in relation to discretionary housing payments, and spend of £155 million on the forthcoming mitigation of the two-child benefit cap.

We can quickly see how that all stacks up to a huge amount more money than the block grant adjustment. Although that significant investment is welcome, we must have the evidence to show that it is having the impact that we want it to have. I ask the witnesses to say—perhaps by referring to one or another of those measures—where the evidence is that the additional investment is having the impact that we would like to see. Where the evidence is not there, does that mean that there is a gap and that we need to collect data, or do we have to do something else? There is quite a lot in that question to start off our evidence session.

That is very helpful.

Does the spend have a positive impact? Yes. Is it a massive investment? Yes. However, is it value for money? That is the next question that we have to ask. It is clear that spending huge amounts of money to tackle child poverty and support disabled people and carers will have a positive impact, but we have to ask whether it is value for money. If the policy intent is to tackle poverty and support disabled people and carers, is that suite of measures good value for money?