���˿���

I return to the point about data. You have provided helpful qualitative evidence, and we heard some of that last week, too. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that we cannot reach definitive conclusions because of a lack of data, despite the encouraging evidence that you have all referred to. What data do we need?

Secondly, the Government talks about 60,000 children being “kept out” of poverty, but I am aware that that model uses a range of factors that are based on an invented or imagined scenario in which certain Government policies do not exist and the Scottish child payment is held up against that. I am keen to hear your views on the accuracy of that model. Jack, would you like to start?

Good morning. We are particularly interested in understanding the effectiveness of the child payment in reducing poverty. The first broad question that I am keen to get the panel’s views on is what we know so far about the effectiveness of the child payment in lifting children out of poverty.

Other panel members may want to reflect on the point about data but, in the interest of time, we are also keen to understand the extent to which the Scottish child payment is impacting on deep and persistent poverty. Do we need to do more work on those specific families in order to understand the picture? Ruth Boyle might want to answer first.

On the broader approach, although the strategy is important and sits in certain portfolios within the Scottish Government and local authorities, it is clear that we will need societal approaches. To what extent has it been challenging to develop a cross-Government, cross-authority approach? We appreciate that a number of different challenges are faced by all spheres of government. Is there a sense that the strategy is and will be cross-cutting across various sectors?

I take that point but, as recently as the gathering last year, the former First Minister was making the commitment to three-year funding, and we are some time beyond Covid. Is the Government still committed to that? Do you have influence on funding within the health budget that you are looking to move forward in that regard?

On the point about good-quality data, measuring impact has been of interest to the committee throughout our evidence sessions. Measuring the overall impact of the strategy will be important, but in relation to this line of questioning, how will we understand the impact on the groups that we want to focus on? I understand that there are a range of factors and a range of outcomes. Does Haylis want to start with the data set, and then we can think about other issues?

I will build on that theme of the sustainability of funding.

In the previous exchange that I had with you in the meeting, minister, I think that you mentioned men’s sheds—or, certainly, men’s groups—as being vital. We heard from the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association about the challenges with the sustainability of funding. In the intervening period, the Government had to rethink its withdrawal of funding to the association, but we heard from it that it does not have sufficient money to plan because, sometimes, it has no more than six months to a year’s funding.

I kept asking the third sector organisations who gave us evidence what the challenge is in that situation. We heard that the challenge is about being able not only to test what works and to test change, but to give security to people who feel that those organisations are literally a lifeline.

Does the minister want to reflect on whether the Government—as it has promised for a long time—will move towards more sustainable and longer-term funding?

Good morning to the witnesses. I will focus on the potential impacts of the strategy for groups that are disproportionately impacted by suicide. In the evidence that we heard, people said that, although the strategy’s focus on the contribution of inequalities to suicide is very welcome, there is concern that taking a one-size-fits-all approach will mean that certain groups do not always receive the particular support that they need.

We have looked at LGBT+ people and at men in particular and at the issues that affect them. Will the witnesses comment more broadly on what is being done across the spheres of Government and across communities to support those groups and to have a laser-like focus on the issues that impact them?

I will ask a similar question about local government. We understand the pressures that are on local government to deliver more sustainable funding within local communities, and third sector groups that are funded by local authorities are feeling that challenge. Does Councillor Kelly want to reflect on the challenges that local government is facing?

Good morning, panel. Following on from the earlier theme, I am interested in monitoring and evaluation. We have covered quite a lot of that already, but I would be particularly interested to hear the panel’s views on the Scottish Government’s modelling of the impact of the child payment.

The Government uses a model that looks at a counterfactual scenario, in which certain policies do not exist, and then makes a comparison. On that basis, the Government concludes that the Scottish child payment is keeping 60,000 children out of poverty. The figure of 100,000 children is also mentioned and there seems to be an interchangeability between the ideas of keeping children out of poverty and lifting them out of poverty. Given what was just said about the need for more quantitative data, it might be useful to allow more time to elapse so that we can understand that better. What is your view of the Scottish Government’s modelling and of the figures that it has arrived at?