Seòmar agus comataidhean

Unfortunately—and I say this with genuine disappointment—the UK Government’s welfare reforms have reduced the incomes of the poorest households in Scotland and pushed households into poverty. Indeed, some of the policies such as the benefit cap and the two-child limit are targeted at households with children. Like, I am sure, other members around the table, I have had casework involving people who have been challenged because of these policies.

Of course, that sits in contrast to the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty, as evidenced in the regulations that are being considered today and which to a large extent focus on the game-changing Scottish child payment. That payment has been created and implemented by the Scottish Government—and that is, of course, the contrast that has to be drawn. There are other aspects in which the UK Government could do more—I am thinking not just of social security but elements of employment law such as minimum wage levels, which are reserved to Westminster—and in which, if changes were made with a focus on social justice at a UK level, a bigger difference could certainly be made.

Will Pam Duncan-Glancy take an intervention?

I will bring in my colleagues in a moment if they have anything further to add. As I emphasised in my previous answer on processing times, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland, as the delivery agency, have a strong commitment to paying people as quickly as possible. We considered whether the four-week period was appropriate, and that is why we are seeking to make the change through the regulations. There is a strong focus at a delivery level on getting money to people as quickly as possible.

I will bring in Janet Richardson to see whether she wants to add anything. I do not know whether Karen Clyde might also want to add something from the perspective of the Scottish Government legal directorate.

I will bring in Merlin Kemp at the end if he wishes to add anything, but I will just say, first of all, that what is in the regulations is what we intended to happen all along with regard to the linking period. It was intended that the agency could re-award the Scottish child payment by making a determination without application within 12 weeks of someone losing their award due to their no longer being entitled to a qualifying benefit or no longer being responsible for the child in question.

The most likely scenario in which that could happen would be a person losing their universal credit entitlement for a short period of time. We knew that that could happen under universal credit, and we did not want to people to have to submit a brand new application just because they lost the benefit for a month or two. The situation could also apply to someone who temporarily did not have responsibility for a child.

Unfortunately, what happens at the moment is that the 12-week linking period applies from when a decision is made on a change in circumstances. In practice, there can sometimes be a long delay between the change of circumstances taking effect and that change being notified to Social Security Scotland. That can mean that the agency automatically re-awards the Scottish child payment after the client has not been eligible for much longer than the originally intended 12-week period.

Therefore, the change that we seek to make in the regulations is consistent with the original policy intention to ensure that individuals are not automatically awarded the Scottish child payment after long periods of ineligibility. That change will allow for proper checks to be carried out to ensure eligibility and to check for any other changes of circumstances.

I will mention the circumstances in which there would be a long delay between a client losing entitlement and Social Security Scotland making a decision to stop the Scottish child payment. If a client was late in reporting to Social Security Scotland a change in their circumstances relating to their qualifying benefit or responsibility for the child, or if there was a delay in the client reporting the change to the Department for Work and Pensions or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that would result in their losing entitlement to the Scottish child payment.

An example of how that could happen in practice would be a client reporting that a child had left the household one year ago to live in another household but that, as of today, they were back living with the client’s household. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate to end the claim with an effective date of one year ago, when the client became no longer responsible for the child, and for the client to apply again for Scottish child payment for the child at today’s date.

I appreciate that there is a lot of detail in that answer. I hope that I have articulated it in a way that is helpful for the committee. I ask Merlin Kemp whether there is anything further that he wishes to add.

As far as I recall—I will bring in Ian Storrie in a moment—the last formal engagement between parties on the future of the council tax took place when I was public finance minister back in the spring of 2020. Those discussions, with the agreement of all the parties that were involved—the Conservative Party excluded itself from those discussions—were then postponed. Following the election, the Bute house agreement included a commitment to considerations around public engagement on the future of the council tax and a citizens assembly, but that would be a question for the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth to answer in any further detail.

To build on what the cabinet secretary has said, I will add that within the pay negotiations and the fiscal framework discussions and considerations around the new deal, discussions are on-going, between officials and at elected level, on ring fencing and the future settlement for local government in the next financial year. I am sure that the committee may have questions about the fiscal framework and the new deal, but all that has been considered within the pay negotiations in recent months.

Yes, as far as I am aware. I can confirm with the committee, but it is a Government priority and every Government priority is under consideration with the new deal, because local government is a key partner in not just delivery, but in development of how we move forward and deliver on both the priorities for the Scottish people and also what this Parliament sets as the agenda.

On climate change or more generally?

Thank you for the question. I will preface my answer by saying that I think that the committee’s work on this inquiry is really helpful as part of the wider challenge for us all to make progress on net zero and to work collaboratively with local government, as different spheres of government, all engaged in an important process of work to make a difference for the communities we serve.

On a point of detail, the Scottish Government disputes the 70 per cent figure. We argue that local authorities have discretion to allocate 93 per cent, or £11.8 billion of the current financial year settlement, of the funding that we provide. Plus they have discretion, of course, over all locally raised income.

However, the point on ring fencing and how we work together on shared progress and accountability for national outcomes that both local government and central Government, as different spheres of government, want to see progress on is all part of the discussions on the fiscal framework, which are continuing at pace. The discussions within that, at elected level and official level, are about how, in the next financial year, we get to a position where local government and central Government, having gone through a process of considering the current ring fencing, are working in an understanding of what the best scenario is for the financial year ahead and those thereafter.

The evidence that the committee has collected about the size of different funding allocations is helpful and will be part of the on-going consideration of the fiscal framework between finance ministers and the finance spokesperson for COSLA.

I will come to the new deal in a second, but I want to emphasise an important point that the deputy convener made at the start of her questioning to the cabinet secretary: local authorities are independent corporate bodies with their own powers and responsibilities. Councillor Gail Macgregor emphasised that point in her evidence last week. Local authorities need to be able to develop initiatives that work for their local areas.

The new deal is about how central Government and local government—recognising that both aspects of Government are important spheres of not just delivery but development of policy—get to a place where, from the next financial year onwards, we are working jointly on our shared priorities and the national outcomes that we both want to deliver. Of course, net zero is a cross-cutting policy area within that that is of the highest pertinence, just like local government is a cross-cutting consideration across the different spheres of portfolio responsibility within the Scottish Government.

The development of the new deal is going well. Through the summer, Government officials met COSLA officials over 10 times as part of their intensive collaboration on the fiscal framework. As the new deal develops, as you will know, it is the fiscal framework for local government that is intended to establish agreed ways of working on the fiscal relationship, greater transparency and, importantly, accountability. Alongside that is the partnership agreement, which provides the framework for specific policy agreements based on shared value-based overarching agreement on outcomes and accountability. It is in that partnership agreement space where considerations of how we work together on the net zero agenda are being developed. Then the resourcing is part of that within the fiscal framework.

This is about working with COSLA to make sure that, from the next financial year onwards, we have an agreed new deal settlement where we are focusing and where we collaborate on what we can do together, rather than the sometimes more polarised position that has been articulated in the public domain in years past. My experience, not just in this role but in others in government, is that when central Government and local government work together, what can be achieved is significant and makes such a constructive difference. As a Parliament and as a democracy, the more that we emphasise the good work that is going on between local and central Government, the more progress we can make together. This committee’s work on net zero has certainly shone a light on what has been done well and what more can be done together, and I look forward to working with local government colleagues in the presidential team to progress that. I am sure that colleagues across the different portfolio areas look forward to working with their COSLA spokespeople on the shared agenda.