Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes—if you could. Equally, I do not have a detailed understanding of it, but one operator has told me that they are compensated fully for one of the two schemes, but a fixed amount is provided for the other scheme. I do not know whether that relates to the under-22s scheme or the over-60s scheme, but there may be a similar overspend that has to be absorbed by bus companies. Mr Harvie might be aware of how it operates. It would be interesting to see whether that relates to one specific scheme or whether it is just a general oversubscription against forecast.

This question is for Paul Cairney. Recently, the Scottish Government has made great play of co-creation in policy making and working closely with those with lived experience. In your submission, you say:

“Avoid power hoarding at the ‘centre’. Co-produce policy with citizens.”

That was meant to happen with the national care service, the establishment of which was meant to be a collaborative effort involving all stakeholders, including those with lived experience. However, basically, that crashed against a wall.

I am mindful of the old Henry Ford adage that, if you asked your customers what they wanted, they would say, “Faster horses.” Could the result of such co-production be policy inertia, because it involves outsourcing difficult decision making to citizens? Ultimately, people want their Government to come up with solutions, not to keep asking them question after question in order to avoid taking tough decisions on—in the case of the example that I mentioned—social care.

I will follow up on the point about data and outcomes. Often, the way in which the Scottish Government puts it to the committee in relation to, for example, the Scottish child payment, is to ask, “Who could argue with seeking to eradicate child poverty?”. Huge amounts of money are being spent on concessionary travel, for example, but, as you have rightly identified, that does not mean that somebody in Dumfriesshire has any greater access to a bus, despite the fact they would have the freedom to travel without paying if they had a bus service. What needs to be done to pivot away from chasing the headlines with national developments and towards pointing out to the public and the Parliament that there is always an opportunity cost—often, a significant one—in pursuing free bus travel but disinvesting in rural bus services. Another example would be extolling the virtues of the Scottish child payment without pointing out that that £500 million could be spent on reducing child poverty in other ways, such as through employment or better housing for families. What needs to be done to re-engineer that conversation, not only internally but externally, with the public?

Recently, it was put to the committee that not everything can be a priority. The Government makes great virtue of the fact that it is prioritising eradicating and reducing child poverty at the same time that it is potentially making real-terms cuts to councils. Is the Government being honest enough with the country and saying that, if it has a major policy priority, it has to deprioritise something else when it has a fixed budget?

I want to get a view from around the table, and particularly from Dr Elliott. We get the impression that, sometimes, civil servants hide behind ministers and ministers hide behind civil servants. Let us bear in mind that there are accountable officers in the civil service and that the permanent secretary is the principal accountable officer. I served on the Public Audit Committee, and when civil servants came before us, there was sometimes exasperation that a number of civil servants seem to move around between interim posts, particularly in sponsored agencies and departments such as Transport Scotland. When we dug into problems around, let us say, ferry procurement, there had been quite clear failures by civil servants. Ministers—let us not let them off the hook—often take the flak for that and, on occasion, try to blame civil servants, when it might have been a political decision that has gone wrong.

Civil servants are accountable to Parliament through the principal accountable officer model. To what extent do we need to raise awareness of civil servants’ accountability to Parliament? Do we need to look at the model again, so that, ultimately, ministers are responsible for what is done in their name in the civil service?

On that point about local authorities, you have presented it both here and in the chamber as if local authorities are buying into the Government’s line that this is a reasonable deal for them. However, Western Isles Council has announced today a council tax increase of, I think, 9.5 per cent. We are seeing councils come in towards the upper end of what I think people’s expectations are for council tax. If it was a reasonable settlement, they would not be forced to go down that road, would they?

I want to ask about something that falls within your portfolio. The invest-to-save fund has reduced by £12.4 million, reflecting several projects that are less delivery-ready than initially anticipated. My understanding is that that fund was £30 million for the previous year. That means that about 50 per cent of that fund was not spent. What does that tell you about the Government’s capability to reform at speed, if half of that fund has not been spent?

I have a final question. In the transport portfolio, £15.3 million in additional funding is being provided, of which £10 million relates to an increase in the forecast cost of concessionary fares. Do you have any understanding as to why that cost has risen by £10 million in a year?

Looking at these amendments, I would say, as I said in the chamber last week, that we are very unhappy with the budget in its totality. It is hard to argue against these measures, cabinet secretary, but the risk that you are now running in many respects—for example, in relation to social care—is that, although you have found additional money at this stage in the budget process, it is rather like the burglar who robbed you blind two years ago returning to offer you some of your goods back and expecting you to be grateful.

The ultimate issue in relation to the budget—I am thinking of rates relief, for example—is that this is, in many respects, too little, too late. If we look at this year’s local government settlement, although we welcome additional funding for social care, which will deal with some of the crises that we are seeing in health and social care partnerships and integration joint boards, we think that it will be insufficient to deal with the challenge that councils face in delivering social care. As we have just been discussing in relation to preventative spend, many of the problems that we are seeing throughout, say, the health service, which also faces issues in this budget, are being made worse by the crisis in social care. We question whether the prioritisation in the budget is sufficient.

Overall, I repeat what I said last week in the chamber. We do not object to these individual measures, but the budget in its totality still does not pursue the right priorities for Scotland, and it contains misplaced priorities.

I will come in at the end, after the cabinet secretary.