³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The timing in relation to the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been laid out by the Fiscal Commission itself, and I note its remarks on the matter.

Clearly, the two-child benefit cap has been on the Government’s mind for some time, and our policy position has been exceptionally clear for many years that we believe that it should be taken away at source. We had hoped that that would happen with the change in Government, but it did not. Therefore, in the run-up to the budget this year, the Government had discussions about how that could be done. Mr O’Kane will be aware of when we told the Scottish Fiscal Commission about that.

The DWP would give different information to local authorities. It would give more detailed information, depending on what they wanted and how they would use it. Much more information is held by the DWP and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. They, too, must work on a legal basis. That leads us to the legal gateway that needs to be created under the Digital Economy Act 2017.

We have used that legislation and have worked with local authorities in the past—for example, to get further information on two-year-olds who are eligible for free early learning and childcare. That took a great deal of time to set up, which is no criticism of the previous UK Government, but a simple fact about how that had to be done through regulations. It can be a long and protracted process, which is exceptionally frustrating for everybody involved.

I do not think that it is the fault of the Government. It is a necessity of the system that we have, at both the UK level and the Scottish level. Again, it would be up to local authorities to decide what information they want and to determine who—whether the UK or the Scottish Government—has it and how they would wish to use it. They would then have to go through the legal processes for that.

Again, it is about ensuring that all levels of government work together. There are devolved areas on which the Scottish Government has a focus, but perhaps the delivery is at a local authority level, such as education, and there are a myriad of different ways in which employability schemes work, for example. We need to ensure that the national mission and the national policy also fit with what needs to work at a local level. We might—indeed, we should—have different variations of that across different councils.

Those are perhaps some of the more challenging areas, but we are seeing a great deal of progress. The work that is being done by the pathfinder initiatives in Glasgow and Dundee, for example, and the work that has been going on in Clackmannanshire show that those linkages are working effectively. We are developing that further with the fairer futures partnerships, and we hope to see that build with even more councils coming in. That is real development that we want to continue.

Working out how we can best support one another is challenging and there is a lot to learn, but that is exactly why we had the pathfinders and are now moving forward with the partnerships.

[Interruption.] I really wish that I had brought cough sweets to the committee.

We absolutely do not intend to miss the targets. It is important that the Government has a continued focus on that. We have talked about that throughout the evidence session. We are fully committed to the interim and final targets. I hope that Mr Balfour sees that in the budget that was published yesterday. That is exactly why the decisions were taken on the two-child cap and the investment in breakfast clubs, for example.

Clearly, the delivery of targets is not for Government alone—there are layers to it. The fact that events can make this more or less challenging for the Scottish Government is something that I am very conscious of, but we are very keen to restate further that we are keen to meet the targets, and we believe that we will.

The DWP would give different information to local authorities. It would give more detailed information, depending on what they wanted and how they would use it. Much more information is held by the DWP and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. They, too, must work on a legal basis. That leads us to the legal gateway that needs to be created under the Digital Economy Act 2017.

We have used that legislation and have worked with local authorities in the past—for example, to get further information on two-year-olds who are eligible for free early learning and childcare. That took a great deal of time to set up, which is no criticism of the previous UK Government but a simple fact about how that had to be done through regulations. It can be a long and protracted process, which is exceptionally frustrating for everybody involved.

I do not think that it is the fault of the Government. It is a necessity of the system that we have, at both the UK level and the Scottish level. Again, it would be up to local authorities to decide what information they want and to determine who—whether the UK or the Scottish Government—has it and how they would wish to use it. They would then have to go through the legal processes for that.

The estimate for take-up of the Scottish child payment in Glasgow that the Scottish Government works on is 89 per cent for 2023-24. That is produced through rigorous analytical processes within the Government. However, clearly, I have noted what Glasgow City Council has said. Officials will reach out and work with the council to see why we have that discrepancy, because it is important that we get to the bottom of that.

Even if it is the higher 89 per cent Scottish Government figure, that still leaves too many families who do not have access to a payment that they are entitled to. In relation to Scottish child payment take-up, it is important that we think about whether there may be particular families who are not accessing the support that they are entitled to.

Last week, I think, Paul O’Kane asked me a question about ethnic minority families. That is an important example of the fact that, even with high take-up rates, we need to work on particular priority family groups, whether that is in relation to the Scottish child payment or other things. I hope that that reassures Mr Doris that we believe that the take-up is higher but that, regardless of that, we are keen to work with the council to understand where the figure came from and how we can improve it.

Some of the challenges around data gaps are around the six priority groups, because some of the numbers involved are so low. When looking at a particular policy area, it is sometimes difficult to trace the numbers through in order to measure the impact on, for example, poverty levels when ethnic minority families use employability services and then go into employment. There are many steps to take to measure what is quite a small subset of the population. That is among the challenges that we have.

The other aspect is intersectionality. The National Advisory Council on Women and Girls is very keen that the Government continues to do more on that and it is right to challenge us on that. Again, that comes down to the challenges. People do not live in the simple silos into which the Government might wish to put them so that we could have clear data sets. Life is not like that. We all know that and it is an additional layer of challenge that we need to put on ourselves. That work is in progress. The national advisory council is right that we still need to do more on intersectionality.

[Interruption.] I really wish that I had brought cough sweets to the committee.

We absolutely do not intend to miss the targets. It is important that the Government has a continued focus on that. We have talked about that throughout the evidence session. We are fully committed to the interim and final targets. I hope that Mr Balfour sees that in the budget that was published yesterday. That is exactly why the decisions were taken on the two-child cap and the investment in breakfast clubs, for example.

Clearly, the delivery of targets is not for Government alone—there are layers to it. The fact that events can make this more or less challenging for the Scottish Government is something that I am very conscious of, but we are very keen to restate further that we are keen to meet the targets, and we believe that we will.

Thank you, and good morning. I am pleased to be here to give evidence as part of the committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017. This is a very important part of the committee’s and the Parliament’s work, and I look forward to reading the committee’s recommendations in due course. Ending child poverty is the foremost priority of the Scottish Government, and of the First Minister, and I look forward to setting out some of the impacts that the act has had in driving that mission forward.

I am heartened that, in the evidence that the committee has seen and heard so far, there is wide agreement that the act has had a positive impact. It has had a positive impact on focusing efforts and investment on tackling child poverty; on ensuring that child poverty reduction remains a high priority in all sectors; on fostering collaboration between organisations at local level; and on driving the delivery of policies that serve to support people in poverty across Scotland.

The act has led to a sharpened and intense focus on child poverty in the Scottish Government, and it has helped to shape policy with regard to how we deliver employability support, childcare, transport and a host of other policies that span all ministers and portfolios. Ministers have collaborated increasingly closely over this time, and that has culminated in the recent formation of a Cabinet sub-committee on child poverty, which has elevated our oversight arrangements and further strengthened our approach. The sub-committee builds on the learning from the actions that we have taken, and it will create more opportunities to co-ordinate policies and maximise our collective impact on child poverty. That is essential, because the scale and nature of the challenges that we face have changed dramatically since 2017 as the result of Covid, the cost of living crisis and other global events.

I have spoken to the committee many times about our transformation of social security provision in Scotland, which is establishing a radically different system that is built on dignity, fairness and respect. The act has been an important impetus for some of that work, and the Scottish child payment is an example of a policy that was designed and delivered with the clear ambition of reducing child poverty and which is now delivering crucial support to families.

Scottish Government modelling from February this year suggests that the Scottish child payment will keep 60,000 children out of relative poverty in 2024-25. In total, it is estimated that Scottish Government policies will keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty in that time, with relative poverty levels 10 percentage points lower than they would otherwise have been.

I was glad to hear in the evidence to the committee how policies that are implemented at local level are bringing critical support to families and how the act has transformed the way that national and local government, third sector organisations and all our partners in this national mission engage with one another to drive forward progress and create a fairer, more equal Scotland. That is the collective approach that was envisioned for the act from the beginning, and I hope that, through the inquiry, the impact of the act has been clear for members to see.

Much has been achieved since the act was introduced, but, collectively, there is still so much more to do to improve the lives of those families who experience poverty, and I am grateful for the time with the committee to discuss that further.

[Interruption.] I will certainly try to explain, if Mr O’Kane will bear with me and my sore throat again.