���˿���

Yes, I think that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations said that retrofitting homes for energy efficiency would cost about £6 billion. It is one of the long-term issues that we will have to deal with.

I am keen to let members ask their questions, and I am aware that, with a panel of four witnesses, it is often hard to make sure that everybody gets an equal chance to respond, so my final question is for Polly Tolley.

In your submission, you talk about non-repayable grants and council tax rebates being popular. I suppose that giving people additional funds is always popular. You also talk about the need for advice provision to be protected and, if possible, enhanced as a preventative measure. Again, prevention seems to be a fundamental part of what we are hearing.

You have set out your position in your paper but, for the record, will you give a bit more detail about how much additional advice provision you would like there to be? You have talked about a £16 return for every £1 that is invested in core services.

You touched on the removal of the £20 a week increase in universal credit that was brought in during the pandemic. Will you say a little bit more about the impact that that will have?

On the point that Mr Robertson made about planning, I once read an article by a retiring chief executive of West Lothian Council, in which he was asked how the council was able to attract a disproportionate amount of investment, given that, post-mining, it had been one of the poorest authorities. He said that the council had a strong focus on turning round planning applications—saying yea or nay to them—within four weeks, which gave it a competitive advantage over other local authorities. Therefore, the point is well made.

I have one final question. If additional resources are to be invested in advice services, what is the optimum additional sum that you would seek to provide the maximum benefit? Obviously funds are not unlimited and you will get diminishing returns, so what is a realistic increase in advice services that would bring the most return with regard to the assistance that you provide?

My last question is for Kevin Robertson. Compulsory sales orders were a Scottish National Party manifesto commitment in 2016, but it was not delivered in the previous session of Parliament, partly because of the Covid pandemic. I asked a written question about the issue and was referred to a question submitted by Paul Sweeney. When I looked at that, it said that the question had not yet been answered, so that was a body swerve there.

Does the Scottish Property Federation support compulsory sales orders? A lot of high streets and other streets have been blighted by buildings that have been left empty for 15 or 20 years and that have been difficult to get moved on. In the previous session of Parliament, there was cross-party support for the measure.

We are straying a wee bit from budget scrutiny here, Douglas.

In your submission, you suggest that the tax system should include

“simplicity ... certainty”

and

“A fair balance”.

You go on to talk about the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group’s

“seven principles for the tax system”,

which are that it should be

“Clear and up to date ... Simple ... Equitable ... Just ... Accessible and responsive ... Joined up”

and

���Գ����ܲ�������”.

Given the current on-going discussions about national insurance, is that a tax that you feel meets those seven principles?

I have further questions that I will leave to the end if there is time. I am keen to let other members in.

Sorry, can I just interrupt you there? Age Scotland did not make that suggestion in a vacuum—the point was that the money could be reinvested in aids and adaptations for older people. The money would still remain with older people, but it would be spent on something different as part of the preventative spend.

Age Scotland was saying that, if we did not spend money on concessionary travel for those aged between 60 and 65, we could invest it on improvements for them. The organisation got a bit of a win, in fact, because, although Mr Swinney did not remove the concessionary fare, he increased investment in that area by 25 per cent in that particular financial year. Suggesting something to disinvest in and something better to invest in gave him food for thought.

That was the background, just in case you think that your predecessor was suggesting that older people should be disadvantaged in some way. I apologise—I should have said that initially.

Assuming that we all accept that—I think that you made a very good argument for that in your paper—how do we do it if we have a very tight financial situation? Everyone will suggest, and has suggested in all their submissions, that additional money should be spent in their particular area. Where can we disinvest? Where is money being spent in the Scottish budget? CPAG has said that money could perhaps be moved into that area. I understand that doubling the child payment would cost about £163 million, which would have to come directly from Scottish resources. It will not come from Barnett consequentials or anything of that nature.

That has always been the difficulty. Where do we disinvest in order to invest more effectively in the areas that you and others are suggesting today? Should we increase taxation? If so, who would pay the additional tax, and how much would it be? We are trying to present a report to ministers with strong arguments, rather than just an argument that says, “This is really important. More money should be spent.” Everyone is going to say that.

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2021 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The first item on our agenda is to take evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny of Scotland’s public finances in 2022-23 and the impact of Covid-19. We will hear from two separate sets of witnesses.

The first panel consists of Polly Tolley, director of impact, Citizens Advice Scotland; Laura Mahon, deputy chief executive, Alcohol Focus Scotland; Adam Stachura, head of policy and communications, Age Scotland; and John Dickie, director, Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland. I am delighted that John Dickie is able to be in the room with us today.

The majority of our witnesses for this session are joining us remotely so, if members wish to ask a specific witness a question, they should make that clear, please, and allow for a brief pause so that the broadcasting team can activate their microphones. I aim to give each witness a chance to respond to questions, but if any of you wish to reply to a specific point, please indicate that to me and the clerks by raising your hand and typing R in the chat function in the BlueJeans software package. Not everyone has to answer every question, of course, and some questions might be directed only to specific witnesses.

I intend to allow 75 minutes for the evidence session. Members have received copies of the written submissions that our witnesses have provided, along with a summary of evidence from the financial scrutiny unit in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. As John Dickie is here, he will get the first question. When you have heard the question, you might not think that that is a good thing. The quality of the submissions has been first class and there is lots of detail in them, but there are one or two additional things that I would like to have seen in them, which I will touch on now.

In answer to question 1, the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland said in its excellent submission:

“children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience chronic ill health, poor mental health, or behavioural and emotional problems, and do less well at school than their more affluent peers.”

The need for preventative spend is talked about.

Over many years, this committee has looked at prevention, and many excellent ideas have come forward; indeed, in your paper, you mentioned a number of them. SPICe has also made a submission for this evidence session, which quotes Professor Graeme Roy, who is dean of external engagement at the University of Glasgow. He stated:

“It is clear that budgets are going to be tight, not just in 2022-23 but for the rest of the Parliament, with demand likely to outstrip the funding available.”

The SPICe submission goes on to say that

“tough spending and taxation choices await as the extremely high levels of debt undertaken by the UK Government are addressed.”

How will we deliver the priorities that the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland wants to see? How will we deliver that prevention? For example, the difficulty that we had previously was not to do with thinking about how we could spend money on prevention; it was to do with how and where we could disinvest in other areas that are perhaps not delivering on the targets that you would like to see. We will also ask other witnesses similar questions soon.