³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Some of the changes that Mr Johnson puts to me will arise from the changes in the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Government. For example, in 2020, we were in the foothills of establishing Social Security Scotland. In fact, I am not sure whether were even there.

That remains the Government's intention. It has largely driven a number of my responses, which have been designed to set out to the committee that, in the budget arrangements, there will be consequences that will have an impact on the size and scale of the workforce.

Returning to a point that I made in response to Mr Greer’s questions, I note that the shape of the financial outlook in the years to come does not encourage a view about expansion. Comparatively speaking, we are facing two less challenging years in the first two years of the spending period and two tough years in the latter part of it. That is a different shape to what was envisaged in the resource spending review, but it remains relevant in that, previously, it looked as though we would be facing two years of acute challenge and two easier years. That position has been reversed, but we will still have to face those realities and budget provision will dictate a large measure of that.

There is obviously scope for us to explore many of these questions. Prior to the budget, there was a call from some—not all—stakeholders for the Government to use its powers effectively and comprehensively. I believe that we have done so; I also believe that we have done so in a context that is credible, deliverable and in balance. Some of the other proposals that I have seen would have had quite a negative effect on the Scottish tax base, on the Scottish economy and on Scottish society, and some of them I quite simply could not take forward—it was not in my gift to do so.

I am confident that I have taken the steps that are necessary to the maximum of the scope that is available to me to take such steps.

Ìý

John Swinney has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 54, paragraph 1—

Original text—

The first thing that I would say is that I do not consider our position to have a discernible effect on middle-income earners in Scotland. Essentially, the steps that we are taking are affecting individuals who are in the top two quartiles of the population in terms of earnings. We are concentrating the measures that we are taking on the top two quartiles—we are not discernibly affecting middle-income earners.

Corrected text—

The total uplift for the health and social care portfolio is approximately £1 billion. My recollection is that the Barnett consequential that arose was of the order of £300 million. The Scottish Government is passing that on in full, but we are going much further in the allocation of resources that we are making.

There are three key points there, convener. First, the way in which I have presented the economic argument in the budget document is essentially to say that our economic ambitions must be realised through the delivery of a just transition to net zero. That will involve the channelling of our economic activity to ensure that, out of the transition to net zero, Scotland realises the economic opportunities that will be available to us principally through the delivery of the national strategy for economic transformation. As the committee can see in the detail in the budget document, I have set out clearly the measures through which we are depending on the success of the national strategy for economic transformation to realise that economic transformation.

Secondly, social security expenditure, which you raised, is a matter of political choice. The Government has opted to make political choices on welfare that are in stark contrast to the decisions of the United Kingdom Government. We have decided to take measures to support individuals who face significant challenges. A particular illustration of that is the Scottish child payment, which accounts for a substantial part of the divergence in expenditure to which you have referred. That is an active political choice.

Thirdly, we will have to pay for all that from our success in boosting productivity and earnings within the Scottish economy, which is the focus of the national strategy for economic transformation. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s estimate of earnings growth in the next few years indicates that it has a level of confidence that the measures and priorities that have been put in place will provide the foundations for achieving the increase in earnings growth that the Fiscal Commission has predicted and which underpins the budget announcements that I have made.

I reiterate to the committee what I said to the convener: steps are being taken constantly to reform public services. I want to debunk for the committee the idea that we are waiting for something to happen to undertake public sector reform, because we are constantly changing the way in which public services are delivered in order to live within the financial restraints that we all face.

The Government agreed with local government an approach to public service reform through the Covid recovery strategy work, which laid heavy emphasis on the design of person-centred public services. That is about learning some of the important lessons of Covid and applying them to the delivery of public services. For example, we undertake less transactional activity between different aspects of public service, and undertake more delivery of services around individuals to assist them in meeting the challenges that we face.

Work that is under way in the Dundee pathfinder project, with which Mr Lumsden may be familiar from his constituency interest, is exploring how that can be best undertaken by a collaboration involving Social Security Scotland, the Department for Work and Pensions, Dundee City Council and a variety of other organisations, including those in the third sector, to better meet the needs of individuals and support them. Reform work is under way.

The challenge that public organisations face is that they have to live within the reality of the financial settlements that I can make available to them. We have provided, in the Covid recovery strategy, for example, the means and mechanisms by which organisations can do that.

Inevitably, as a consequence of the budget, there will be a need to put into practice some of the provisions that were set out in the resource spending review. For example, the size of the public sector workforce will be affected by the scale of the budget. Organisations will be taking those decisions based on the financial settlement that the Government has made available.

Yes.

We plan to spend more next year on employability than we will spend this year, so there is an increase in the projected expenditure on employability. However, in the emergency budget review, I removed around £54 million-worth of expenditure that was planned to be undertaken on employability in this year.

If we had spent that £54 million this year and I had set the budget that I have set for next year, there would have been a reduction, but we did not do that. We took the money out this year for a reason that I think I explained to this committee; I certainly explained it to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.

At the moment in the financial year, which was quite advanced, when I had to take the emergency budget review decisions, I had a limited range of sources of expenditure that were not legally committed, and those employability resources were not legally committed. I had to take a set of difficult and abrupt decisions to free up money to be able to afford increased public sector pay bills during this financial year. I reassure Mr Lumsden that there is incremental growth from this year’s actual expenditure into next year on employability programmes to support the child poverty reduction activity.

The other factor that allowed me to remove the expenditure that was planned to be undertaken on employability in this financial year was that we still had capacity in the existing programmes for individuals to enter employability activity. That money could be removed because there was still adequate capacity to enable our child poverty measures to be supported; it is just that we were not expanding the programmes to the extent that we had predicted.

It is undeniable that that could be done, but I have to make a judgment about what resources are available. That is a key point about the Dundee pathfinder in which we are looking closely at what works in supporting people out of economic inactivity and into productive economic activity. Some good learning is coming out of that programme that will influence how we deploy employability expenditure in future.

I come back to my point on capacity. In essence, these are demand-led programmes, so if I, or the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, who should be here doing this, find in the course of the next year that there is the need for more investment because the capacity is being used up already, that is obviously an issue for substantial consideration.