The Scottish Government will publish its final Budget of Session 6 of the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday 13th January. In the run-up, committees have been sharing the findings of their pre-Budget scrutiny in reports and letters.
This blog looks at key themes across pre-Budget scrutiny. It also considers the changes in key themes and narrative over the four years of carrying out this cross-committee analysis. A follow-up blog looking at the Scottish Government’s responses to committees will be published after the Budget.
Impact of cross-committee analysis
As we noted in the equivalent blog from the last Budget, carrying out cross-committee analysis means we’re starting to understand not only what the overarching themes in pre-budget scrutiny over recent years have been, but also how themes and scrutiny approaches have evolved.
We previously highlighted the impact that the work had had on budget scrutiny, and particularly on the committee budget debate held every year in advance of the Stage 1 debate on the Budget Bill. This impact has progressed – following last year’s post-Budget key themes blog, the analysis was used or quoted by five conveners in the debate, and the understanding of shared experiences was clear.
The context of themes in pre-Budget recommendations
To understand the key themes in pre-Budget scrutiny, it is useful to understand both the wider Parliamentary context, and the data underlying the conclusions and recommendations drawn by committees. Because committees’ approaches to scrutiny, outputs and style vary, our analysis is intended to be illustrative. This applies to both our qualitative thematic analysis, and statistical analysis.
In 2024, the Budget timetable was affected by knock-on effects from the UK Election and an earlier Budget date than has been typical in recent years. This led to a shorter period for pre-Budget scrutiny for many committees. This year, on the face of it, those challenges haven’t been there – the Budget is being released 5.5 weeks later than it was last year. However, this has coincided with the busiest months of the Parliamentary session as committees work to scrutinise legislation before the pre-election period begins in late March. This is likely to be one of the reasons why there has been a session low in the number of committees carrying out scrutiny (10) and holding calls for views (5), and a significant fall in the amount of written evidence gathered.
Interestingly, despite these pressures, more oral evidence panels took place, and more committees have chosen to write a report rather than a letter than in any other year this session. This can be explained to some extent by seven committees either building on a session-long approach to scrutiny or looking back over themes in their past pre-Budget scrutiny to consider change over time.
This has naturally impacted on the witness base. We have noted before that high levels of submissions are often driven by one or two committees each year. With less than half the number of submissions this year than last year, the diversity in organisations contributing to committees has naturally fallen, with a higher proportion of organisations giving evidence to multiple committees or making more than one contribution. The makeup of the witness base has also shifted this year – for the first time this session, it is professional bodies and member organisations that make up the greatest proportion of organisations contributing to scrutiny.
We now have a session-long picture of budget scrutiny. Early in the session, committees seek to establish the key areas of interest, build stakeholder relationships, and set baselines. In the middle years, they will broaden their reach and diversify their evidence-base, and more organisations will try to get their issues aired before a committee.
At this final stage in the session, committees know their themes and the concerns they most wish to impress on the Government and seem to return to their long-term stakeholders to test progress and solutions. That doesn’t mean they cease to innovate – this year the Finance and Public Administration Committee went on a factfinding visit to Lithuania, and the Equalities Human Rights and Civil Justice and Health and Sport Committees both explored alternative framework analysis approaches to spending. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee also co-produced recommendations with citizens, a Parliament first.
Thematic analysis over time
The evolution of committees’ approaches to scrutiny across the session may well have impacted on the themes found in their recommendations. This could have knock-on effects for thematic analysis over time.
Our approach to thematic analysis this session has centred on the three principles of human rights budgeting – transparency, participation and accountability. We have noted in past blogs that committees have shifted their focus from transparency, and towards accountability, and that there has been a reduction in considering topical issues. This trend holds this year, but there are also sub-trends – questions around data in earlier years were typically about data gaps and understanding context, so clearly linked to transparency. This year, data questions are more likely to relate to the accountability process and understanding impact.
Again, there is a possibility that these trends may be cyclical – as committees progress through a session, they shift from factfinding mode across their broad remit, towards a more focused approach which centres on seeing clarity on spending outcomes and holding the Government accountable for its decisions.
Common themes
Accountability
Committees placed accountability at the centre of scrutiny again this year, asking the Government to link budget choices to tangible outcomes and credible medium‑term plans. For example, the Finance and Public Administration Committee said:
We do not share the Scottish Government’s view that the [Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the Fiscal Sustainability Delivery Plan] ‘set out a credible plan’ to ensure it can continue to deliver its priorities. In future iterations, we seek more detail on the cumulative impact the measures will have in closing the fiscal gaps set out in the [Medium-Term Financial Strategy] along with a timetable for implementation to allow monitoring of progress.
We also see accountability framed through sector-specific lenses. For example, the Economy and Fair Work Committee called for clearer performance targets, stronger evidence of additionality, and greater independent scrutiny. The Education, Children and Young People Committee reiterates the need for the Scottish Government to set out priorities for the college sector and ensure resources match those priorities. The Net‑Zero, Energy and Transport Committee asks how spending classifications can better reflect activities and measurable emissions impacts, while the Social Justice and Social Security Committeeseeks analysis of how social security spending interacts with services to reduce poverty and improve wellbeing.
Across committees, there is a shared expectation that accountability should extend beyond explanations of spend to include clarity on impact and delivery.
Transparency
Transparency is also featured strongly again across Committees, reflecting concerns about whether the information provided genuinely enables scrutiny. This is a noticeable shift from transparency meaning the publication of information, to transparency meaning the useability of information. Some of these issues are not new – once again the Finance and Public Administration Committee highlighted ongoing issues around the coherence and scheduling of key fiscal publications, including the MTFS and Budget.
Data, analysis, and evidence-based scrutiny appearrepeatedly in Committee’s pre-budget publications. Although Committees are still interested in identifying data gaps, they now know their sectoral datasets well, and there is an added ask for evidence to be analysed and used in decision making.
For instance, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee explored the use of Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) by health boards and integration authorities, and questioned why this has not been more systematically applied to support prioritisation in health.
The NetZero, Energy and Transport Committee welcomed the development of net zero assessments, but asked how the findings of those assessments will be taken forward, how they will influence funding decisions, and how they will translate into the Scottish Budget and associated documents. This reflects a broader expectation that analysis should not sit alongside the Budget but should be visibly embedded within it.
Other committees echo data concerns in their own policy areas and emphasise the need for stronger evidence to support prioritisation, monitor performance and assess the impact of spending decisions. In each case, data is framed as a tool for making difficult choices more transparent and defensible, rather than as an end in itself.
Policy Clarity
Under the transparency umbrella, policy clarity remains a prominent theme across Committee’s pre-Budget publications. It is often linked to calls for review, reform or new approaches, as seen in the Finance and Public Administration Committee recommendation:
As the Scottish Government now has a baseline figure for the number of live strategies it has in place, the Committee asks it to report annually on what steps it is taking to monitor and reduce this number wherever possible to minimise overlap and ensure alignment.
Similar concerns surface across other committees’ scrutiny, albeit through different policy lenses. Committees also highlight process issues, noting that overlapping strategies, timelines and documentation can hinder effective scrutiny. Several committees ask the Scottish Government for updates, more information, or clarity on how a policy is working in practice.
This all points to an appetite for a simpler, more integrated approach to fiscal and policy planning that improves traceability, explains change over time, and supports meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.
Funding prioritisation
Committees reflected their shared concerns about how choices are being made within constrained budgets, rather than simply the adequacy of overall funding. Across portfolios, scrutiny increasingly focuses on whether prioritisation is clearly stated, justified and aligned with stated objectives.
For example, the Criminal Justice Committee was explicit that evidence suggests that the justice system has reached a critical funding limit and that further efficiencies alone are unlikely to be sustainable. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee raised concerns about the lack of clarity over how mental health funding is being prioritised, and what that implies for delivery.
Other committees approach prioritisation more broadly through questions about how scarce resources are being directed and whether trade-offs are being made transparently. Taken together, their scrutiny tests whether the Scottish Government is maintaining clarity about what it is choosing to protect, where pressures are being absorbed, and how priorities align with longer term objectives.
Participation
Participation, a past theme we have sought to track, features very minimally in recommendations, however as we have explored in past analysis, this is in part due to an understanding that it is largely a role of committees themselves to involve citizens in the Budget process. The work of the Equalities Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee over the long term is the primary example of participation being referenced in this year’s scrutiny work.
Mainstreamed and topical issues
In last year’s analysis, we noted that whilst there were common themes, these focused less on topical issues than in previous years. This year, there has been a return to some clear topical issues.
Skills
Skills and the sustainability of the education system was raised in several contexts, with the perspective being less about individual programmes and more about whether the Budget provides a coherent, long‑term approach to skills that aligns education funding with economic strategy. The Economy and Fair Work Committee suggested, for instance, that the priorities in the National Strategy for Economic Transformation could be clearer and could benefit from a focus on intermediate skills and how Scottish Government tax policy supports it.
At the same time, the Education, Children and Young People Committee focused on the long-term financial sustainability of colleges and universities. The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee added a further dimension by asking how investment is being targeted to address skills shortages and seeking updates on skills planning through the Skills Investment Plan.
Finally, the Finance and Public Administration Committee also picked up on the need for aligning skills with the needs of the economy including supporting “fit for future” models for colleges and universities.
Climate change and net-zero
The Net‑Zero, Energy and Transport Committee naturally remains central to scrutiny of climate change and net-zero, but from a cross-cutting perspective. Its recommendations focused on whether the Scottish Government can link spending decisions clearly and consistently to emissions reductions, using the Budget to demonstrate how action across portfolios contributes to statutory climate targets.
We see similar climate‑related issues surface in the work of other committees. The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee recommends that the role of the culture sector in shaping public understanding of climate change be recognised explicitly within the Scottish Government’s Climate Change Plan.
The Criminal Justice Committee linked climate change to service resilience and operational risk and positioned climate change as a front‑line pressure rather than a long‑term abstraction. Elsewhere, climate and net‑zero considerations intersect more indirectly with scrutiny on economic development, infrastructure and local delivery. Committees are concerned with economic transformation, housing, planning and local government finance and raise questions about long‑term funding certainty, capital investment and delivery capacity which have implications for the achievement of climate targets, even where climate change is not the primary focus of recommendations.
Taken together, the cross-committee evidence suggests that climate change has become a litmus test for how well the Budget aligns long‑term ambition with short‑term decisions, and for whether spending choices across very different policy areas collectively support net‑zero delivery.
Social security
Social security is one of the clearest examples this year of two committees scrutinising the same area of spend from different perspectives. The Finance and Public Administration Committee focused squarely on fiscal sustainability and budgetary risk. Its concerns centre on the scale, volatility and unpredictability of devolved social security spending, and the pressures this places on the wider Scottish resource budget. It concludes that:
“The Committee is not convinced that the Scottish Government has set out sufficient evidence to support its argument that the future social security budget is sustainable.”
By contrast, the Social Justice and Social Security Committeedid not frame social security primarily as a sustainability problem. Instead, it emphasised social security as an investment in people, focusing on take‑up, adequacy, language, and how benefits interact with services to improve long‑term outcomes and reduce future need.
The Committee did engage with sustainability, but more obliquely – rather than articulating a clear committee position, the report largely contrasts the Cabinet Secretary’s view on sustainability with Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns, without fully reconciling the two. Together, the two reports illustrate the tension at the heart of budget scrutiny: balancing short‑term fiscal constraints with longer‑term ambitions to invest in people and reduce future demand on public spending.
Language matters
Our cross-committee analysis over time has touched on aspects of language. This year, we carried out additional analysis on the language used in committee letters and reports with some help from MS Copilot.
In last year’s analysis, we noted that the language used by committees was becoming stronger and more forceful. In our Copilot analysis, we found that the sense of urgency remains in many conclusions and recommendations, albeit within the boundaries of parliamentary language, where the forceful language remains both un-emotive and clearly evidence led.
We also found, however, that the average reading ease score across committee letters and reports was classed as difficult, and falling at what would be classed as a high-secondary or early-university reading age. Although there are often accessible structures and layouts, the language used often falls beyond what a lay reader would find easy to digest. Given the role of committees in involving citizens in the Budget process, there may need to be some future trade-offs to rebalance the need for clear, evidenced and actionable recommendations with communicating in a way which is more accessible to the public.
When is a recommendation not a recommendation?
Tracking impact has become a growing theme in scrutiny. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, when exploring Committee Effectiveness, looked at how committees might measure their impact. It seems the Parliament isn’t alone in grappling with such fundamental questions. The Committee heard from Audit Scotland about its approach to tracking impact. Gemma Diamond explained:
When we looked back at some of our recommendations, we said to ourselves, “Goodness. Even we don’t know how to follow that up. What did we mean?” That work has led to really clear guidance for our teams on ensuring that recommendations are specific and measurable, and on the priority that is given to them and the time that we would expect something to happen by.
We have noted before that each committee uses a different style, and that in practice, committees’ ‘recommendations’ for the Scottish Government are just as often, if not more often, conclusions drawn by committees, or questions put to the Government. In our 2024 post-Budget blog, we considered whether committees needed to be more direct with recommendations, and the SPPA Committee has highlighted the importance of clear and measurable recommendations.
In our Copilot analysis of this year’s committee recommendations, as well as exploring language, we looked at how actionable recommendations were. We found that the recommendations that were most actionable were those which stated clearly what committees expected the Scottish Government to do, and in some cases, how. There were two key themes in the recommendations that were most actionable – they either related to a clear ask around setting out clear plans and detail around data and assessments, or they related to the need for a specific funding model or policy approach.
The evidence base and analysis on recommendations combined suggests that the more able committees are to identify solutions, the more direct and actionable their recommendations will be. The evidence-taking approach, depth of knowledge and stakeholder relationships committees have will undoubtedly impact on their ability to make actionable recommendations, and to track their impact – something that committees may wish to consider when they scope out budget scrutiny in Session 7.
We now have a clear, session long picture of cross-committee budget scrutiny, and see more confidence in committees articulating what they want to see. What remains to be seen is to what extent to Government has been able to anticipate and react to these growing expectations when the Budget is announced next week.
Ailsa Burn-Murdoch and Kelly Eagle, both Senior Researchers, SPICe