Seòmar agus comataidhean

You talk about anti-poverty measures, but are investments in colleges, local government and the university sector not anti-poverty measures that allow people to do more with their lives—more so, for example, than spending additional money on benefits?

Thank you for clearing that up. As I said, my understanding from evidence taken two weeks ago was that the matter was still under discussion, and COSLA seemed to think that, too. I am glad that you have put that on the record today. It clarifies an important point.

I want to talk about childcare. One of the great achievements of the SNP Government has been the increase in the number of funded childcare hours. When the SNP came in, the number was 412 hours and provision was means tested. It is now 1,140 hours for three and four-year-olds. That is a big achievement. The system has been better resourced than is the case down south, where there are staffing and funding issues, but it seems to me there are some advantages in the system down south. One of those is the fact that working parents can get support from when their child is nine months old. In Scotland, we have that support from the age of two years. Also, it seems that, if you have income of more than £850 a month, you do not get that childcare. Basically, mothers who are working do not get childcare support, but mothers who are not working do. That is the reverse of the position in England.

How will it persuade women to get into work if they lose childcare by going into a job? I understand that there is a threshold of 20 hours a week, as well as £850 a month. That seems to me to be trapping people in poverty as opposed to encouraging people into employment.

Fifty-seven per cent of people who are in receipt of universal credit are in work, so that is a point well made. There is no means testing in relation to three and four-year-olds, but there is in relation to two-year-olds. However, it is a fact that, if you are in work, you do not get free childcare, but if you are not in work, you do, which seems the exact opposite of how it should be. That is the opposite of how it is in England. Where is the incentive for people to get themselves a job, especially given that someone who has been unemployed for a long time will not necessarily be able to get a well-paid job? People end up in a poverty trap whereby they lose certain benefits once they earn an amount that is above a certain threshold.

There is a real disincentive for people to find a job. That is the crux of the matter. It is not just about providing benefits to a certain level; it is about getting people to change their lives so that they realise the opportunities that might be available to them. I am struggling to see how giving childcare to people who do not work while denying it to people who do work is in any way positive.

Okay. Fair enough.

No. People who are working pay taxes, so that reduces the share of the Scottish budget that is going on welfare even if the welfare budget does not decrease. If you increase the Scottish budget by 10 per cent, 5 per cent or whatever, because more people are working, we can afford those welfare payments. The issue is that the economy is not growing but the welfare share of it is growing and it is squeezing every other aspect of the Scottish budget. That is causing real difficulties for universities, colleges, the justice sector, local government and everywhere else. That is the issue.

Oh! That is the opening that I never got invited to even though it is in my constituency.

Kleine.

One could argue that continuing to pay the benefit disincentivises someone to move out of a three or four-bedroom house to a one or two-bedroom house when a family actually needs that bigger house. However, I do not want to go into that specifically.

There are plenty of other things that you could spend that money on. For example, the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that each £1 spent on colleges would see a £6 return to the economy.

You are right—when I said, “Absolutely,” earlier, I meant, “Yes.” The Scottish Government seems to look at things from a 12-month perspective, and Michelle Thomson is right to say that there is no long-term strategic vision. If you are investing for the future, you will be investing more in universities, research and development, colleges and so on, rather than just putting sticky tape over the budget every year. That is a big frustration for the committee.

In response to Ross Greer’s questions, you mentioned research on whether the Scottish child payment disincentivises people to work. I have to say that the Scottish Government pledged that SCP would be £20 per week by 2026. It is now £27.15 per week, so it has gone above and beyond the manifesto commitment. But let us consider someone who is on housing benefit and is getting the bedroom tax mitigated, the Scottish child payment, the two-child benefit cap mitigated, free childcare and free school meals. Together, that is a pretty big disincentive to return to employment. Potentially, their children will grow up in household with a culture of worklessness. How do you address something like that?

Despite what Scottish ministers might think, there is real resentment in communities, particularly in working-class communities, where people go out at 6 or 7 in the morning to put in a shift for the living wage only to see people across the road appearing to get a lot of benefits while not contributing to society in the same way nor encouraging their children to do so. How do you look not at one particular benefit but at benefits in the round and their impact on wider society?

Yes, that is important. The issue is about striking a balance and how we can get the best for the individuals concerned and for the public pound. A lot of the employability courses seem to be getting cut, which is of real concern to the committee.

We will leave it there. Are there are any other points that have not been raised that you wish to make to the committee before we wind up?