This blog is part of our series focused on scrutiny of the Scottish Budget 2025-26, and repeats analysis carried out for the 2024-25 Budget.
In December we published an overview of common themes found across Scottish Parliament committees’ pre-Budget scrutiny letters for the 2025-26 Scottish Budget.
This explored not only where themes connect across committees, but where there are longer term trends and issues which reappear year after year. In last years’ post-Budget analysis, we identified that though there were some ‘wins’ for committees, calls for clarity and transparency had gone unanswered, and it remained difficult for committees to see where they had an impact.
Each year, a committee budget debate is held before the Stage 1 debate for the Budget Bill. One aim of our analysis work is to support that debate. As we reflected in our pre-Budget blog, last years’ debate was noticeably more connected. This years’ debate will take place on Thursday 30 January, with this blog intended to provide useful context.
Because of the length of this blog post, we’ve added a table of contents to aid in navigation.
Key themes from pre-budget scrutiny
This year, pre-Budget scrutiny conclusion and recommendations made by committees focused increasingly on accountability. In Human Rights budgeting, accountability means that Budgets should be subject to oversight and scrutiny that ensures accountability for budget decisions and the impact these have on human rights. A perennial ask of committees is that the Scottish Government demonstrate accountability by moving towards multi-year budgeting and preventative spending approaches, with calls for policy reform and more effective mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues like equalities and climate change.
Unlike recent years, which have shown some topical focuses based on wider events such as the cost-of-living crisis, committees emphasised the lack of action over previous recommendations and long-standing concerns. These often related to the Budget as a whole as opposed to issues within specific portfolio areas. The increasingly strong language used by committees in their pre-Budget reports may reflect their impatience and frustration at seeing little progress in some areas, and the overwhelming message was that committees are looking to the Scottish Government to show leadership and a clear strategic direction.
The focus on transparency in the Budget process had moved from past calls relating to data and fiscal policy, towards a desire from committees for the Government to give more clarity on policies, and on the decision-making process underpinning them.
So, has the Scottish Government responded to committees’ requests?
SPICe has reviewed Scottish Government letters to committees, as well as any post-budget evidence taken so far, with the aim of understanding:
- Has the Scottish Government responded positively and tangibly to recommendations?
- Are there things committees have been asking about for years that still have no progress?
- Has any past progress been either built upon, or regressed?
- Does the wording of responses make it clear what impact committees have had?
Tone and depth of response
Most Ministers chose to structure their responses against committee recommendations which is a useful approach. Several responses used tables which help with navigation. The remainder used broad themes with minimal reference to committee recommendations – in parts these read less like a response, and more like a policy or manifesto statement. The language used in responses is typically one suggesting that the Scottish Government welcomes and is receptive to the work of committees, and that recommendations have been acknowledged. However, a common theme, even where recommendations are used as a structure, is an underlying lack of clarity and detail as to what action is being taken as a result.
The Economy and Fair Work Committee, for example, asked for an update on reform of the economic development landscape. The Government outlined its three broad priorities but no further detail on reform was provided, such as progress to date, expected timelines, or measurable outcomes. Similarly, on the four clear recommendations (as opposed to conclusions or requests for detail) made by the Net-Zero and Energy Committee, all were given responses suggesting the Government is already doing as asked, or is committed to doing so. However, there is no evidence of progress or change and requests for further information have resulted in only top-level detail, or only partially answered questions. A request from the Finance and Public Administration Committee that the Government provide more information in its six-monthly updates on the upfront costs allocated to public service reform and cumulative savings was not referenced at all in the response to the Committee.
In post-Budget oral evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, there were no less than eight assurances from the Cabinet Secretary that he would write to the Committee with detail that the Committee felt was missing or unclear from the Budget documents. This might raise some eyebrows about the transparency and level of detail in the Budget documentation. In past responses to the Committee, the Scottish Government has agreed that “…it is important that there is a clear link between spending plans and commitments.” However, this year’s Budget document does not reflect that commitment to clarity. There are also instances where it is hard to see how some of the commitments stated in the budget document are consistent with reductions in budget lines.
There was, in comparison to some other boldly confident responses, an acceptance of a need for improvement in the Minister for Equalities’ response to the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee:
“The Scottish Government recognises the importance of coherence across its policies, but I acknowledge that we must develop our approaches further to ensure better alignment of policy.”
This response also stands out for the use of the first-person tense, with the Minister outlining the actions that she, rather than the Government, has taken. This is a rare show of personal accountability, and, as the Minister herself highlights, reflects her experience from the other end of the table as a former convener of the same committee. She explained:
“My approach to this role has been informed by learning, and experience, gained throughout my career and that includes, but is not limited to, my time as Convener of the EHRCJ Committee.”.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government also uses the first person, but her minimal reference to committee recommendations lessens the sense of accountability. This language is at the other end of the spectrum to, say, the response from the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, which uses ‘we’ and ‘our’ throughout, and highlights against several recommendations that issues lie beyond her remit.
Long standing issues
Preventative spend has been a long-term focus of several committees, and some took this further in pre-Budget letters by suggesting that this be a distinct category of spending. This was, however, rejected within the response to the Health Committee, with the Cabinet Secretary explaining:
“the Scottish Government’s budget figures as currently presented align with the HM Treasury Control aggregate totals being: Resource, Capital, FTs, AME and Non-Cash. There’s no scope to deviate from this presentation in the main table given the fiscal framework requirements to align the presentation with these key aggregates.”
Interestingly, a similar recommendation from the Finance and Public Administration Committee was met with a more open response, showing a lack of consistency across portfolios. The response to the Finance Committee explained that the:
“Scottish Government is taking forward work on preventative spend as part of the PSR programme and will update the Committee in due course. This work will include developing case studies examining post devolution examples of prevention that have resulted in improved outcomes, cost savings and / or reduced demand.”
On single-year budgets, the Scottish Government once again firmly place responsibility on the UK Government, for instance in replying to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee about funding for Creative Scotland. It did, however, suggest that this may be a more likely possibility in future, in light of the new UK Government’s intention to hold a Multi-Year Spending Review.
Progress on aligning the Budget with the National Performance Framework also seems to be lacking, although the Government has stated that it is working to align the Budget with strategic priorities. Requests for more clear links made by the Health, Sport and Social Care Committee are not reflected in the presentation of the Budget and accompanying documents. Similarly, the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s calls for clearer links between the Budget and the National Strategy for Economic Transformation (NSET) led to only a vague response from the Government and small pockets of funding.
Where issues come up on an annual basis, such as concerns raised by the college sector to the Education, Children and Young People Committee about a lack of clarity over what it should prioritise at a time of declining resource, it should not come as a surprise to the Government. It may be disappointing to both the Committee and to stakeholders, therefore, that key concerns remain unaddressed with nothing more than the repetition of an existing timeline in the Government’s response to the Committee.
There were instances relating to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s work which show both a lack of accountability on long-standing issues, and a disconnect between the Scottish Government’s language and the detail it is presenting. Witnesses to the Committee highlighted that issues within the third sector had been present for decades. Despite this, the Government brought in the relatively recent sectoral challenge, outside of its control, of increases to National Insurance contributions as reason for a lack of progress on Fairer Funding. Another area in which witnesses sought to see improvements was the late notification of funding. In its letter, the Government states that 58% of third sector grants were notified by the end of March which “presents a positive starting point”. The unspoken converse to this is that it would mean that 42% of organisations began the financial year not knowing if they had funding.
Progress, or regression?
In some areas, backward steps seem to have been made. This is especially true where transparency is concerned, for instance on funding for Integration Joint Boards where previously published information is no longer available (Health, Social Care and Sport Committee).
As has been the case in the past, there are some areas where committees asked for further funding, and this has been granted, albeit not always at the level requested (for example, within the Criminal Justice portfolio, and work on the Pathways Fund and affordable housing as requested by the Economy Committee). In other cases, such as with the funding for employability support services, funding has been protected in real terms. It’s not clear, however, whether the committees’ calls for funding were what led to increases – they may have occurred regardless, as the Scottish Government’s letters do not mention what impact committees have had.
There were areas where committees welcomed progress, but deemed that it has been too slow, particularly on Government-planned reforms. These include reforms of the public sector, criminal justice system and the post-school sector, as well as the funding settlement for colleges and universities. Responses on these areas tended to ‘note’ views of committees and to be placating, with assurance of strong track records and commitment to making progress.
On a more positive note, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee were provided with further detail of the recently announced review of Creative Scotland (CS), including a scope and timeframe. This was a rare instance across letters where a committee was given some credit:
“The Scottish Government has adopted the Committee’s recommendation that the Review of CS be undertaken independently of SG and CS, and I hope to be able to inform the Committee about the appointment of the Chair shortly. The Chair will take up their role early next year and we aim for them to publish their recommendations by the summer of 2025.”
Progress on this review, and on action following the review, will undoubtedly be an area to watch.
Conclusions
The sense that the Government is making positive noises but taking little action has been reflected by others. For instance, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) welcomed the Scottish Government’s intention not to introduce any new tax bands for the remainder of the Parliamentary session. However, it also suggested that:
“The Tax Strategy provides little sense of direction on tax policy beyond income tax. On council tax and business rates, for example, there is merely an intention to continue dialogue and engagement. It does not inspire confidence that much-needed reform will actually happen. There is welcome recognition of the value of more systematic evaluation of the effects of tax policy and plans to improve the administration of the tax system and taxpayers’ understanding of it. It remains to be seen what will be achieved in practice.”
On first read, it often seems that the Government is agreeing to do what committees want, or rather, is already doing it. However, this positive language often glosses over a lack of detail or clear response and doesn’t give a sense that the Government is engaging directly with committee recommendations. It also creates something of a vacuum of substantive material for committees to scrutinise, as Audit Scotland’s work on fiscal sustainability and reform highlights.
Across the Scottish Government’s responses to committees, we found no less than fifty-six times where the Government used the word ‘committed’ in reference to itself (with eleven instances each in the letters to the Equalities and Net-Zero Committees). However, there was little meaningful detail on how or by when the Government intends to meet those commitments.
The committee debate will give a sense of the extent to which conveners have felt listened to. However, the Convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s remarks following the Deputy First Minister’s written response that “the section of the response on reform was not impressive”, suggests that not all are satisfied.