Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a follow-up question, and I will bring in other witnesses. The UK Government would have had to be absolutely myopic and have its fingers in its ears not to get the clamour to abolish the two-child limit, so I commend, as Marie McNair did, the work of the stakeholders of civic Scotland and the rest of the UK on that. However, I am keen to know whether there are other policy areas in which engagement resulted in a bit of movement—or whether it is still a wee bit stuck and movement has not really happened. Our committee is trying to give added value on some of that. Can you give an example beyond the removal of the two-child limit—which, obviously, we welcome?

That is what my last question will be about, if there is time for it. Professor Sinclair, I do not know whether the two-child cap is an obvious example, but, based on what John Dickie said, the bandwidth and the effort that that took, for such a long period of time, might have crowded out other discussions that you were all keen to see take place. Did other discussions take place? How would you describe your engagement? Can you give some examples?

Thank you, Mr Dickie—I am sorry to cut across you; it is just that I am aware of the time. Are there any additional comments on how that money could be used?

That is very helpful, Mr Dickie, and a really interesting way of looking at the issue. On a slight tangent, that joint working happens quite a lot in net zero ambitions, for example, where discussions take place between Governments and, sometimes, sectoral organisations, and then a commitment is almost co-produced and announced. We perhaps do not get to see that in the field of social security and social justice. Professor Sinclair, do you have any final words?

No further questions from me, convener.

That is very helpful, because you have covered the final question that I wanted to ask. Are you able to quantify what you spend above your allocation? For example, I see that Glasgow’s DHP spend is £1.33 million. That is a heads-up for Duncan Black—I will come to him in a second. Do you have the detail on what Fife spends above its allocation? If you do not, you can send it to the committee, because it would be helpful to know that.

Please do so, and perhaps you could also send the detail of what you said there, because you were on mute for a second.

I will stick with Hannah Aldridge for the moment. If I have this right, the previous UK Conservative Government relinked to the 30th percentile in April 2024 but it used a baseline from a wee bittie before that, so it is linked to market values from before April 2024. The current UK Labour Government has said that, at least until April 2026, LHA will remain frozen.

I am looking at a Resolution Foundation report from October last year that suggests that any gain from the action in April 2024 may already have been lost. The report—and I apologise, convener, if these are UK figures rather than Scottish figures—suggests that, by this year, the affordability gap could be at record levels and that, by 2029-30, it could be at 25 per cent. Can I check first of all that the affordability gap for low-income families and individuals in the private rented sector is continuing to widen? Are the statistics that I have used for the UK or for Scotland? What is the Scottish perspective on that, Hannah?

That is interesting. Without putting words in your mouth, Hannah, I think that you are saying that the affordability gap is still increasing in Scotland, but at a lower rate compared with other parts of the UK. I see you nodding your head—I did not want to assign that paraphrase to you, if it was not accurate.

Ashley Campbell and Maeve McGoldrick, do you have any comments on a growing affordability gap at a Scottish level? Do you have any data in that respect that you could put on the record this morning? If not, that is okay.

For my final question—and I will bring in Maeve McGoldrick at this point—I just want to check the figure that Hannah Aldridge used. If we decided to peg LHA to the 30th percentile—that is, it would be tied to that, so that it would not be frozen—it could, if the data is reliable, cost £2.5 billion by the end of the current UK Parliament.

My question, then, is twofold. Some will say that there are affordability issues for the UK Government to deal with, and I would like to see it do that. However, is there a case to be made for the UK Government to at least commit to a guaranteed increase of LHA levels each and every year, be that increase 2, 3 or 4 per cent? Would that not give planned fiscal certainty with regard to the impact on the UK budget?

Given the time constraints, I will roll both my questions together. Would there really be a saving of £2.5 billion, or would that money be spent anyway by local authorities, the Scottish Government and individuals in the private rented sector? Would the overall cost to society more generally in relation to getting people into employment and providing them with sustainable and productive lives be much greater than the £2.5 billion that it would cost to invest in the sector?

There was a lot in that, so I will not ask any supplementary questions, otherwise I will meet the wrath of the convener. I promised to bring in Maeve McGoldrick on those two points first.