Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, convener—you have just given me the assurance that I need. As convener, you had suggested that we had sorted out what was happening with the A9, because the petitions committee had sorted it out. However, we clearly have to take this committee’s own view on that. You have put that on the record, convener, so that is fine.

That would be helpful, cabinet secretary. What I did not ask about, because I did not want to go down that road either, was that a lot of the talk with regard to the bill was about specifying pan-UK routes, pricing and fare regimes, but with caveats for Scotland and Wales. The question is this: how strong were those caveats? I will leave that sitting there, though, until we see what an incoming Government does.

That is helpful, cabinet secretary.

I want to move on to the new train procurement programme and the plans to decarbonise the network by 2035. Before I do so, I declare an interest. I am delighted to say that Gibson’s Engineering Ltd has bought the previously closed Caley rail works at St Rollox, in my constituency. It hopes to employ thousands of workers there in the years ahead, should it be successful in growing the business. I have every confidence that it can do so.

My questions are in relation to procurement—I do not wish to ask questions about any individual company that is part of any process—but I wanted to put that on the record for transparency purposes. My understanding is that the new train procurement programme was put on the Public Contracts Scotland website in 2022, looking for expressions of interest. The ambition is to have 675 new carriages, with 65 per cent of the fleet being replaced.

What I am not sure about is how our committee can track—no pun intended, cabinet secretary—against benchmarks along the way to see where the Scottish Government is in that process, so that we can carry out our scrutiny role.

That is helpful, cabinet secretary. I acknowledge that ScotRail is a well-performing and well-run railway, but clearly we still want to drive improvements where we can. The committee would welcome correspondence from you, following that meeting, to update us on what work is being done to address the matters that you have just put on the record. That would be quite helpful.

I am pleased to see this affirmative instrument, which seems to fall in line with the Government’s approach, as it is ambitious in its intent but cautious and careful in the roll-out. The £60 million of additional money that is being spent on carers in Scotland is evidence of that ambition.

You mentioned a backdating protocol that exists so that individuals do not lose out, and you alluded to an individual moving from a local authority that is part of the pilot to one that is not, or vice versa. How will that be identified by Social Security Scotland, and how will people be encouraged to fill in the appropriate forms in order to get that backdating of benefit?

That is helpful. Thank you.

No matter what your answer is, Mr Evans, I will not have a follow-up question after this, so the last word will be yours.

If you had a choice—and please make one on this occasion if you can—between meeting the interim target of 18 per cent or missing it by a whisker and taking the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to lift a huge number of people out of deep and enduring poverty—including those who are just on the artificial line of not being technically in poverty—would you rather meet the target or move a huge number of people away from enduring poverty?

This is an interesting evidence session. I will rewind ever so slightly. Mr Balfour mentioned a deficit in social security in Scotland. For clarity, there is not a deficit—the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland spend £1.2 billion more on doing the right thing and protecting the most vulnerable people in society than they would have done had they stuck to UK Westminster policies. That is the policy choice in Scotland, and it should not be portrayed as a deficit. It is important to put that on the record, given the exchange that we are having with witnesses today about political priorities and policy choices.

I have made that point now, convener, but we have to make policy choices in Scotland—of course we do. Some of the questions on targeting that I was going to ask have been mopped up by Mr Mason. I am conscious that putting the Scottish child payment up to £30 would cost around an additional £60 million. If we then increased it to £40, that would cost £170 million on top of that. It is quite reasonable to ask not about how we would raise the revenue but about whether this Parliament would need to identify £50 million, £100 million or £150 million. My goodness, Mr Sinclair—I am afraid that I do not have any of those amounts of money available to me. If we did identify it, how would it be best spent? I know that the answer is not an either/or, but our committee needs a steer when we scrutinise the budgets for these things.

Mr Evans spoke about early years and children. We have best start foods and the best start grant. We could, in theory, give a Scottish child payment supplement to families in receipt of that suite of benefits. We hope that we know the ages of young people who are getting the Scottish child payment, so we could have a supplement for teenagers. Mr Sinclair was perhaps suggesting that. Many families tell me that summer is the most expensive time of year, so I have suggested that there could be a June payment, which would be a double payment—a summer supplement—to help out at that difficult time of year.

There are lots of policy choices that the Scottish Government has to consider, and the witnesses we have here today are experts whose opinions we value. Can I twist your arms and get you to say where you would target money as and when it becomes available?

Mr Sinclair, that answer was helpful, but do you or do you not support a supplement to the Scottish child payment for certain targeted groups that might be more likely to be at risk of deep and enduring poverty? I am not sure what your position is.

I was just checking, and the best start foods grant is extended to those without recourse to public funds. That connects my earlier suggestions on targeting with Mr Sinclair’s points.