Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Scottish child payment was mentioned, along with the idea of direct payments. This year, that will cost £405 million. If that were to increase to £40 from £25, which is what some campaigners are asking for—I have sympathy with that call, but it has to be paid for—that would represent an additional £250 million, which would mean that there would be less money to spend on organisations such as Saheliya that are at the coalface, dealing directly with the most excluded and marginalised. Is there a balance to be struck between putting direct payments into the pockets of families that are very much in need and providing funding for those small organisations that provide support at the coalface? We cannot spend the same pound twice. Alison, do you want to respond first?

I support the instrument. For clarity, it is worth putting on the record why we have the council tax reduction scheme. The scheme was abolished on a UK-wide basis by the UK Government in 2013. The Scottish Government moved at that point to bring in a Scotland-wide council tax reduction scheme. In that time, 455,000 households per year have benefited—so, in 2022, 455,000 households benefited from the Scottish council tax reduction scheme. On average, low-income households benefited by £750, which is a £3 billion investment in relation to low-income households in the past 10 years.

If the negative instrument, which has been brought forward speedily by the Scottish Government, protects that key investment in relation to low-income families, I absolutely support it.

This is not my substantive question, cabinet secretary, but the committee would find it helpful if you could get back to us with a clearer definition of full-time non-advanced—as opposed to advanced—education. I have read some definitions—not Government definitions, but standard definitions that are out there—and I sometimes struggle for clarity on what counts or does not count as advanced, particularly in the college sector.

It is encouraging that the Scottish Government is not closed off to amending the regulations through looking at the matter again. That is welcome, although it is not for the current regulations. If you do not do that in the short term—we appreciate that you cannot—will you prioritise, for instance, extending the young carer grant to 19-year-olds? There is definitely a gap that is created, and the young carer grant could be another route by which to close that gap.

Okay. Thank you. Mr Scott is making eye contact with me. I think that he wants to come in.

That is a fair point. For clarity, this is about initial signposting. The wider support should follow on from that—in short order, I hope.

Paul, do you want to add anything?

My apologies, Maggie; I was not aware of that.

That is a point well made.

I hate to cut across you, Mr Scott, but the convener will have my guts for garters if I do not try to keep the questions moving. I apologise.

I have another question on this. We know that this is a challenge in the financial context. A change of approach has to be taken by the Scottish Government because we do not have the budget for every airt and pairt of the policy programme that would impact on child poverty. To give an example, one suggestion that I have made is that, if we cannot increase the Scottish child payment significantly above the £25 a week that we are already giving, and given that poverty does not impact uniformly across the year, could a summer supplement to the Scottish child payment make a difference to the lives of young people in families living in poverty? That is one idea. Is there another policy approach that you would like to recommend? You can throw that one out or you can support it, but are there other approaches that the Government could take, within a tight budget, that could have a direct and significant impact, hopefully relatively speedily?

That is a helpful comment, Maggie, because my final question was going to be about whether we should expect additional applications as a result of the change to the Scottish carer support payment. It is forecast that, in 2025-26, we will be paying out £32 million more than we would have been had we stayed with the carers allowance at UK level. That means more money going into the pockets of carers, which is a good thing, but only £7 million of that relates to the increased eligibility criteria, which include, for example, advanced full-time education applicants. The rest of the cost is assumed to be the cumulative impact of more people applying for the new payment. That goes back to Maggie Chiwanza’s point about clarity and accessibility.

Does any of the witnesses want to say a little more about whether the new payment will mean that people who currently qualify for carers allowance and carers allowance supplement but do not apply for it will be emboldened to do so? Is this an opportunity? Fiona Collie is in the room and she is nodding her head.

I will endeavour to be as concise as possible.

I want to look at the Scottish Government’s policies and budgets, and the impact that they have had on reducing or—dare I say it?—stopping an increase in child poverty. I want to disaggregate those things into policies that are working and the budgets that are around those policies. They interact with each other, but they are not the same thing. Maybe a couple of the witnesses could put something on the record about the impact that the policies and budgets that the Scottish Government is directing towards tackling child poverty are having.