Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I understand that. I have no problem with the accounting, as I said—that is not the issue. The issue is that many people in various regions have concerns about their own specific projects and would like to know what the numbers are—not least for planning purposes, especially if there is infrastructure involved, for which it takes a long time to procure some resources. It would be helpful if we could get some more information on that reprofiling.

The “Scottish Government Guide to the Autumn Budget Revision” makes it clear that there is no change in the overall funding situation—that is fine. However, somebody in Perth or Dunfermline might want to know when the reprofiling will happen. Are you able to give us any guidance on that?

Right. I do not think that I have seen that information, and nor have some of my colleagues. If you could provide it, that would be very helpful.

Am I right in thinking that the separate £6 million that the guide highlights relates to very specific projects within some of the deals? Is that correct? I am looking at paragraph 59 of the Scottish Government’s guide, which says that there are

“Separately £6 million of project specific City Deal transfers”.

I presume that, if we take away the £6 million from the £43.7 million, we get the £37.7 million. Is that correct?

I will finish with a specific question and a suggestion. I have asked this question of you before, and of Shirley-Anne Somerville, in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. There have been significant increases in adult disability payments and child disability payments. I have been trying to drill down into why that is. It seems that the Scottish Government’s argument is that the case load is considerably greater in Scotland than it is in other parts of the UK. Are you comfortable with that?

Forgive me, but the Scottish Government has already made its choices. Michael Marra asked you when we would get an options paper. The key point here, which I have already questioned you and Shirley-Anne Somerville on in the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, is that, if there is evidence that proves that various social security policies would provide better outcomes than other policies when it comes to child poverty, surely it is the duty of the Scottish Government to provide that evidence, in line with the questions that the committee is asking. For example, what specific evidence have you found to show that the delivery of mitigation of the two-child cap would provide better outcomes than, say, an increase in the Scottish child payment? Where is that evidence?

The committee asked for an options paper because making such interventions is a very expensive business and, given the state of the public finances at the moment, we cannot afford to do everything that we would like to do, so big choices must be made. The Scottish Government will argue that the choices on its social contract with the people of Scotland are its number 1 priority. However, that social contract can come about only if we have the money coming in to deliver it.

I would argue strongly—as, I think, would the committee—that the public finances are under considerable strain. Therefore, if choices must be made, surely we need an options paper to show where you think the outcomes will be most effective. That is why the committee asked for that.

I do not think that that explains the difference between the DWP and Social Security Scotland.

I do not doubt that ministers have had discussions on the matter. Our job as the Finance and Public Administration Committee is to look at the effective spend of our public finances and to ensure that the evidence is there to support the choices that are made. My colleague Michael Marra asked for a specific options paper that we could scrutinise to look at what you call investments when it comes to various policies. A good investment will have good results. Therefore, if there are various options that involve different kinds of investment, you will want to weigh up the balance of the effective outcomes, particularly when it comes to action on child poverty, which is the Scottish Government’s number 1 priority. I do not think that we have had that information.

That would be helpful.

Let us assume that action on child poverty is the number 1 priority for the Scottish Government—which, as I understand it, it is. Given the state of the public finances, particularly with the considerable uplift in the social security budget—it is a huge increase, especially in a single budget—we cannot afford all the commitments that the Scottish Government has made without finding an awful lot of extra money.

There are two parts to my question. First, where is that extra money coming from? Secondly, on what basis is the Scottish Government making decisions on where the outcomes will be best when it comes to the delivery of social security?