Chamber and committees

Yes, I do.

Nonetheless, you will be aware that, from time to time, the committee has made the point that, in order to measure the effectiveness of the delivery of a specific policy, it is helpful to understand the rationale behind the decision to move money around. Do you think that the Scottish Government is getting better at increasing transparency in that regard? Some of the answers to Mr Marra’s questions suggested that there is a bit of a cloud over why decisions have been made and on what basis it has been decided that such a repurposing of spend will help the priorities of the Scottish Government, which is what Michelle Thomson was referring to.

The demand-led scenario in something such as social security is a big, moving feast, however.

To go back to Michelle Thomson’s point about the priorities that the Scottish Government has set out, how easy is it to reflect what the spending priorities are in relation to those policy commitments? I think that the committee would like to be able to understand that a bit better and to see the evidence about why specific choices have been made and how effective they have been in delivering those commitments.

I go back to, for example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s September report, which, as you know, was very supportive of actions to reduce child poverty but made a specific point that the evidence to show how successful that policy had been was pretty thin. In order to ensure the committee’s overseeing the best possible spending of public money—and the probity that goes with it—the more transparency we can get, the more helpful it is.

Does the £12 million all relate to staffing costs, or does it include a set-up cost as well? It seems quite a high figure.

I really want to ask about the transparency angle. Ms Hughes helpfully told us that a lot of work has been done to improve transparency through things such as better comparators.

Mr Maidment will remember a discussion that we had in the equivalent meeting at this time last year, when there was a bit of back and forth about whether the £31 million that was taken out of the rural affairs budget was ring fenced or not. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that Mr Maidment said that £14 million of that £31 million was ring fenced, but we had a bit of a debate about what ring fencing was taking place and what was being repurposed in other areas of the budget.

Are we any clearer about the decision making that goes on in relation to what is ring fenced and what is not? In relation to Michelle Thomson’s questions, it would help our understanding of transparency if we could get a bit more detail on the reasons—the rationale—behind the Scottish Government’s decisions to repurpose spending or to ensure that it is ring fenced, especially if it has been taken out of a particular budget and is supposed to be put back.

When it comes to the public’s understanding of why Government makes a choice about what the money that they pay in tax will be used for and, more important, on what basis such decisions are made, it is an important principle that we should ensure that there is greater transparency for the public so that they can understand on what basis a specific decision has been made.

I cannot speak for the committee, but I think that we sometimes feel that it is not very easy for the committee to understand why a specific policy was put in place, given the other possible choices that could have been made. I would like to hear your thoughts on what we can do to improve that situation.

Good try, Mr Greer.

I seek clarification on the £160 million that is being removed from social security. Of that amount, £148 million is a result of the UK Government changing eligibility criteria. The implication is that the remaining £12 million is to do with funding for staff and so on. Can you clarify that that is the case, because it seems to be quite a high figure?

That was very helpful, because this is a huge area. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s predictions with regard to fiscal spend over the next 50 years, whether it be in social security, social care or health, paint a pretty alarming picture. To ensure greater fiscal probity, we need to understand where the money is best spent, and that means that we—and this committee in particular—have to be able to assess where the impact is being felt and ensure that the data underlying all that is as accurate as possible. Any efforts that the Scottish Government can make to inform the committee of any gaps in the data would therefore be very helpful.

I do not disagree with you, cabinet secretary, but I note that, in its most recent report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation makes the point that it is quite difficult to measure a policy—one that it entirely approves of, as does the committee—its impact, whether it is delivering a better outcome and whether it is good management of public finances. That is quite important as the committee deliberates various social security policies.

I have no issues with the instrument whatsoever; the Conservatives are very happy with it. However, cabinet secretary, I would like to probe a little bit further into some of the issues that arise from this kind of situation. In doing so, I go back to what you said at stage 1 of the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill and, indeed, what the committee convener said at that time, which is that we have to ensure value for money. We get value for money if we have an effective impact assessment of the changes that we make to any of these things, and that, in turn, is determined by the data that is available.

You will be aware that, this morning, the Finance and Public Administration Committee has put out a very robust report on the need for much greater transparency and fiscal probity in the public finances. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the measurement of the impacts of changes that are made in the social security brief helps those most in need and that we have the right data to assess that?