Seòmar agus comataidhean

The local government settlement overall is challenging. We have already set out clearly that we have prioritised social security spend. You have a pot of money and you cannot spend it twice. Having said that, it is worth reiterating that many of the measures to support people through the cost of living crisis, such as discretionary housing payments or the welfare fund, are routed through local government.

As, I am sure, Kate Forbes would hasten to add, additional money was added at stage 2 of the Budget (Scotland) Bill—£120 million—but final decisions on the annual local government settlement and the level of funding provided for policies such as early learning and childcare expansion are taken through the annual budget process. The RSR sets out the framework, but the budget sets out the actual money that will be allocated. That is the top-line answer to your question.

We currently invest more than £1 billion a year in delivering the 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare. That is a big commitment. As members will be aware, we committed in the programme for government to building a system of school-age childcare to support children and families and to developing a new offer for early learning and childcare for one and two-year-olds, starting with those who would benefit most from that. That very much links back to the child poverty plan by supporting those families who need it most.

That is a big financial commitment and a big priority, because we know, to go back to parental employability, that affordable childcare is key in that regard.

I hope that that answers your question.

We have not kept the modelling secret—it was laid out in a fully transparent way as part of the plan, so that everybody could see the modelling and the way in which it was used to get to the figure of 17 per cent. It was driven, by and large, by the increase in the Scottish child payment, which is going up to £25 by the end of this year. It was also supported by the work around parental employability and all the other areas that we are investing in. We are mitigating the benefit cap with up to £10 million of investment each year, which will help around 4,000 Scottish households—mainly single parents and those who are really struggling.

We are investing at least £500 million over this session of Parliament in the whole family wellbeing funding, to give families access to the help that they need, where and when they need it. Again, that is more bespoke support.

In addition, there are all the other aspects. As Kate Forbes rightly pointed out, it is not just for me and my portfolio interests to tackle child poverty; it is about early learning and childcare support, skills support and all the other elements across the Government that can help to support families and drive down poverty levels.

We will continue to look at what more we can do. Work to identify whether there are other levers that we need to use is going on across the Government as we speak, and we will remain open to that.

Miles Briggs mentioned free school meals. We have prioritised the expansion of free school meals, which we see as vital support. The policy was expanded to include primary 4 and 5 pupils during 2021 and 2022, and it is supported in this financial year with £40.2 million of additional funding. We will work with local government and other partners on the delivery and implementation of the further expansion. There might be many criticisms in this area, but I am not sure that a fair one could be the provision of free school meals.

We are keen to work in partnership with local government on a new fiscal framework. We want to get the balance of flexibilities right, and we want much more discussion with Parliament on what that would look like. We are keen to take that forward, and we have started to have positive discussions with the new COSLA presidential team.

It is lucky that there were a couple of questions left that had not been asked.

You raise an important point. On digital exclusion, the Scottish Government is in the process of identifying priority groups to support over the next four years. Initially, that will focus on the six child poverty family types. The user research on the initial phases of the connecting Scotland programme will assist us in that approach. We are trying to ensure that the resources and support offered through the connecting Scotland programme reach those who need them most.

You are right to point out that, for a variety of reasons, the digital world is difficult for some people. It is important that there is a balance.

In the session earlier this morning, I mentioned that the new social security advocacy service, which was launched back in January, is supporting people with disabilities to access and apply for social security assistance, and offering space for face-to-face support to take people through the process, whether that is online or on paper. Most people now will access their support online, but it is important to have those other options of non-digital support. The work of the social security advocacy service will be very important in that space. I would be happy to furnish the committee with more details about that if that would be helpful.

It is important to note that, for 2022-23, the Scottish Government is investing more than £12 million to support advice services in the provision of free income maximisation and welfare and debt advice. At the same time, we would want to acknowledge that, like every other sector, the advice sector is under pressure due to the cost of living crisis and the impact of Covid, which is still being felt.

The cost of living crisis and the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty require a framework for Scottish Government-funded advice services that goes beyond debt advice to the provision of accessible holistic services that will help people to maximise their incomes and provide the support that they require. We are therefore committed to reviewing the way in which the Scottish Government funds advice, and we await advice on a refreshed approach later this year that will take account of, for example, the Improvement Service’s work on funding models for the debt advice levy and other models—for example, we are looking at the Welsh single advice fund.

We understand the pressures, and we are looking at how best we can address those. Funding is just one component of that. We are aware of the issues, and I put on record my thanks to the advice services for all the work that they are doing at this time.

That has to be part of the discussions with the third sector, which are not just about multiyear funding; they are also about some of the reviews and the way that we will deliver services. There are discussions to be had about ensuring that the third sector is working collaboratively and avoiding duplication. The multiyear funding discussions need to be part of that wider discussion with the third sector. We will continue those discussions with third sector representatives, and I would be happy to keep the committee apprised of how they are going.

I refer back to the point that local authorities have discretion in individual cases. On your point about writing off public sector debt, in whatever sphere that is, if the Scottish Government was to use resources to do that, those resources would not be available for other things in a tight financial environment. That is the first thing to state. It might be an obvious point, but it is one to state anyway.

The second point is that we have to be careful about what that signals. If we were to write off an entire council tax debt, what signal would that send to people about the relative priority of paying council tax, which funds local services? We could end up in a spiral, which would undermine council tax as an important contributor to public finances.

Having said that, in individual cases, we would encourage local authorities and Social Security Scotland to take a sympathetic view of particular circumstances where there is no likelihood of repayment. Local authorities already have that discretion, and they use it in cases of council tax and school meal debt. It is right to consider cases on an individual basis rather than making a decision across the board.

Similarly, Social Security Scotland, when recovering an overpayment of devolved assistance, for example, is very careful not to push people into hardship as a result. It will work with the person and look at their wider financial situation to consider the affordability of any repayments. There is a recognition across services, whether it be local Government or Social Security Scotland that people are struggling, and services want to be as helpful as they can be. That has to be done on the basis of individual circumstances rather than by taking a blanket approach.

The fund is important, as you said. Many local authorities top it up, which is making a big difference in these difficult times.

The independent review, which was externally contracted, is under way. The first phase of research is nearly complete and the second phase will begin next month. The aim is to develop a credible evidence base that can inform future policy improvements, including any decisions about the level of funding, the delivery of the fund and the criteria and guidance for it.

There is a keenness to get it done as quickly as possible, but it is a substantial programme of work. It includes a review of the existing evidence as well as qualitative research with all 32 local authorities, key stakeholders and, importantly, applicants to the fund. It will take several months to do work of that scale and complexity properly. We need to do it once and do it well so that it generates reliable conclusions that are based on credible evidence. We expect that the final report on findings will be published early next year.

I should also say that the review is being supported and guided by a review advisory group, which includes representatives from a range of internal and external stakeholders. However, I am happy to keep the committee apprised of its progress.

We are already creating a fairer system of disability assistance in which the culture is one of encouraging people with disabilities to access their rights and entitlements by making significant improvements to the application and the decision-making processes.

I am sure that you will be aware of the new social security advocacy service, which was launched in January. It is doing a tremendous job in supporting people with disabilities to access and apply for Social Security Scotland assistance. The service proactively encourages people to apply.

As you will also know, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that more people will be eligible for ADP than for the personal independence payment. Also, awards are expected to be higher than PIP. That demonstrates the impact of those improvements in the here and now.

I will come on to the review, but it is important to note that what you have asked about is already the case because of a change in culture. By 2026-27, we expect to invest more than £500 million a year over and above the level of funding that we receive from the UK Government through the block grant adjustment.

On the independent review of ADP, I do not want to pre-empt its findings in relation to expectations around changes to how ADP is delivered. However, whatever comes out of that will be required to be resourced and we will need to manage that within our resources.

It is fair to say that—because of the Scottish Fiscal Commission projections and because it is the right thing to do—we have already prioritised spend for social security. Kate might want to say something about the fiscal framework and the need for that. I know, having sat on your predecessor committee previously, that we spent a lot of time interrogating the fiscal framework and its detail. However, because of its restriction on borrowing, our ability to increase the size of the cake is very restricted. I will not get into the detail because Kate knows it far better than I do.

We have a commitment around increasing the trajectory of spend on social security—we have prioritised that in the resource spending review. However, it would be extremely helpful to us as a Government to have a more flexible framework.

I welcome the latest report from the JRF and Save the Children, and we continue to work with them and other key stakeholders to take forward our work on child poverty.

We have set out significant resources to deliver on the plan. As I said, the RSR allocates up to £300 million for tackling child poverty and social justice. It also commits more than £23 billion through social security payments in the next four years, with almost £1.8 billion for the Scottish child payment.

The report welcomes the plan. It states:

“the Plan is a strong diagnosis of the struggle that many families currently experiencing poverty face. In many respects the Plan also correctly identifies the areas where additional action is needed.”

The report welcomes—as those organisations did when the plan was published—the balance between putting money into people’s pockets, reducing costs and employability. We were advised to balance those three pillars within the plan.

As I said in my opening remarks, the modelling that we have done around the plan would, as I set out to Parliament, deliver a rate of 17 per cent of children living in relative poverty, which would meet the relative poverty target. The JRF and Save the Children have said that they used a different system of modelling to reach their conclusions. I can bring in Julie Humphreys if the committee wants to know more about the differences in the modelling, as that is a different modelling system.

The absolute child poverty target is extremely difficult to meet in times of rising inflation because it is very much linked to inflation. It would be extremely difficult to chase that target by using the Scottish child payment, for example. The modelling that we did showed that, at that point, we would have needed to set a Scottish child payment at around £55 per week per child in order to chase that target, because it is linked so much to inflation. That figure would be even higher now, as the rate of inflation has gone up since the plan was published.

I am afraid that that is not a sustainable position. That is why the other things that we are doing, such as mitigating the benefit cap and providing all the other supports, are an attempt to tackle and target the poorest families. That approach is more likely to produce a shift with regard to the absolute poverty target.

I do not underestimate the challenge here, and we welcome the scrutiny from organisations that are dedicated to this work. We have said on a number of occasions that we will keep the Scottish child payment under review. I know that the organisations concerned had asked for a Scottish child payment of £40 by the end of the current session of Parliament. Of course, we will keep the Scottish child payment under review, but we have to balance it with the other elements such as employability to ensure that we encourage people to take up fair work opportunities where they can and remove the barriers to enable them to do so.