³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Yes. A number of the aspects about procurement and meals in that example are for the local authority to decide on. We clearly have national standards when it comes to the nutritional value of food, but it is very much up to local authorities to deliver those. Members will be aware that the next expansion for free school meals is for those who receive the Scottish child payment in primary 6 and 7. That is an important area of work, and that more targeted approach is the next step, but we have that commitment to universalism, particularly in primary schools. You raise an important point about the take-up of that offer, which is another area that the Government needs to be concerned about.

As I said, I would be happy to provide further information in writing about the nuanced policy and its modelling of certain aspects. The NFUS was discussing food wastage, which is concerning for a number of reasons, including cost and the environment.

There is a clear need for us to look at how many children are taking the offer up and to bear in mind that we can have a universal policy, but if that policy is not being taken up, it does not cost any money unless the food is then being wasted. There is an aspect there about who is taking it up, how we pay for it at the Scottish Government and local authority level, and how those estimates are achieved.

We are committed to a full evaluation of the expansion to 1,140 hours of funded childcare, which will be published later this year. The interim evaluation report was published in August 2024 and showed promising signs that the expansion is delivering improvements to quality, affordability and flexibility. Clearly, other work is going on in the school-age childcare programme, including the extra time programme, which is funded in partnership with the Scottish Football Association, bright start breakfast clubs and so on. That work is complemented by the insights from the early adopter communities.

It is important that we look at the work that is being undertaken in the large-scale expansions that are part of the 1,140 hours of provision, as well as the evidence on the extra time programme and other on-going work. The evaluation will allow us to be able to design further expansion based on what works, what families are looking for, and whether those types of programmes are delivering what families need and want, with the clear knowledge that not all families need the same type of childcare that is provided in the same way. From my visits to the early adopter communities, I am cognisant that some of the programmes are very different from others, but they work in that community or school. That learning is being gathered and the evaluation is being undertaken to ensure that we are developing the right programmes in the right places. It goes back to Liz Smith’s earlier point about ensuring that we are delivering what parents need in a cost-effective way, rather than taking a blanket approach and providing services that parents do not require, or doing that in a way that is not correct.

We have answered that in all the FOIs and parliamentary questions.

On data sharing, I recently asked officials through Social Security Scotland to convene a roundtable on data sharing, because I was concerned that we were discussing why it is so difficult, rather than how we get it work. There are legal complexities—it is arguably too legally complex—but that is a UK issue. In our circumstances, how do we get it to work? We have turned the conversation around. That roundtable has taken place, and that is one part of the work that is being done on data sharing, because, as my officials know, I am quite interested in it.

On the question about what benefits children and what benefits parents, we cannot really disengage what impacts on a child from what impacts on a parent. That is why I mentioned the early discussion of a gendered analysis of the next delivery plan. When women are in poverty, children are in poverty. That is why it is so important that we reflect not just on how we assist women but, when we are looking at families, that women are an important part of the work. We cannot disentangle the two, nor do I think that the Government should get to the point where it second-guesses or judges a family for the decisions that parents or carers take.

On the final point, about universalism and targeting, we have been clear that we have no intention of taking anything away from people. I totally appreciate that we can have a debate about a targeted approach versus universalism as services develop or are introduced, but in the areas where we have taken a universal approach, it is important that that is what the Government has promised and what we have delivered. It is part of the package that, if we ask people to pay a little bit more tax through progressive taxation, there should be an understanding that there are services that are available to all that would not be available elsewhere in the UK as we move forward with progressive taxation. It is a balance, and part of the Government’s social contract is that some of those areas are universal.

I appreciate that people will have different views on certain aspects of that. Some people want us to go further with universalism and some people would suggest a more targeted approach for areas where we take a universal approach. Most stakeholders usually suggest adding more people to a service rather than taking a more targeted approach. It speaks to the challenging nature of the fiscal environment that we are in that the Government is asked to do more—public discourse on this is not about what can be taken away from people. The Scottish Government’s position is that, if a service or a provision is available at this time, we should not take it away from people.

It is important to consider that. The results would vary by example, but universalism taking away administrative costs is often cited in relation to free prescriptions. If you want to have a service, you have to look at the cost of delivery, and it is often the case that keeping a service as simple as possible is the most cost-effective way to deliver it. It will vary, but it is important that we consider that in relation to universalism.

It is important that we consider the financial sustainability of social security in the short, medium and long term, because it is not that far away in terms of fiscal planning.

I go back to the point that those increases in spend are, in effect, due largely to decisions that have been taken proactively by the Scottish Government—for example, on the Scottish child payment, which, from memory, costs just under £0.5 billion.

The biggest change that the Fiscal Commission’s forecasts show is due to forecast decreases in the Scottish Government block grant because of changes that are being made by the UK Government. Those changes will have a substantial impact.

I was going to say that I am hopeful about this, but I am not. Clearly, I do hope that there is a change of heart, and that, when the UK Government looks at the evidence from its own impact assessments, it will reflect on that and change its position, which would markedly change the forecasting that the Fiscal Commission has developed. Any changes that the UK Government makes to the winter fuel payment in the future will also assist. However, we do not know when any changes will be made and we do not know what those changes will be. Again, those cannot be included in the Fiscal Commission’s forecasts, which have to go on what the UK Government policy is at this point.

I accept that there is a challenge. The Government will need to make a decision every year about how it balances its budget. However, I go back to the point that any change to the level of spend in social security means, in essence, that people are asking us to reduce eligibility or to reduce the adequacy of benefits. Those are the only two ways in which benefit expenditure will come down, and the Government does not want to take those forward. I appreciate that that means that we will have to take difficult decisions elsewhere in the budget, but I am exceptionally uncomfortable about saying that the way to tackle the challenges is to take money away from disabled people, carers and low-income families.

If some policies are not delivering, that would be shown in the evaluation and we would look to ensure that those services or policies are redesigned so that they do deliver. We have mentioned early learning and childcare. We would look at whether that delivers and whether the model that we are proposing is the best way to deliver the policy, as well as what we are learning from the early adopter sites. There is a policy evaluation process to see whether we are getting what we expect from them and whether they are being delivered in a cost-effective manner.

I know that Liz Smith knows that it is not a black or white issue of taking away services or raising taxes. We need to look at our public service reform, which falls under the work that Ivan McKee is doing to deliver services in a better way. I go back to data sharing and to whole-family support. The way in which some services that are available to families have been delivered over time has made it exceptionally challenging for those families to get the support that they need, so can that be done in different ways to provide a better, more cost-effective service? We as a Government are looking at other ways to ensure that the policies and services that we are delivering, and the services that other people are delivering, either on our behalf or through their own powers, are effective and cost effective at the same time. I include that important third challenge that the Government is undertaking under Ivan McKee.

A great deal of work has been undertaken to ensure that the benefits that are available to people are being taken up. The benefit take-up strategy is an important part of social security and is one of the key areas that we need to look at in terms of the impact that the policy can have. I hope that the UK Government task force will also look at that area because, at the moment, only the Scottish Government is looking at benefit take-up encouragement in the round, although I appreciate that this UK Government has done some more work than previous UK Governments on certain benefits.

We are also looking at more work that we can do to assist families, particularly larger families, through the impact of the scrapping of the two-child cap. That is the next significant piece of work that is being undertaken. I think that the Fiscal Commission estimates that it will be paid to 42,000 children in Scotland. That is an important area. The Scottish Government’s modelling estimates that scrapping the two-child limit will result in 20,000 fewer children living in poverty in 2026-27. We know that the depth of poverty will be reduced for thousands more. That is the next area in which the Government will take action to assist in the social security field.

It has been widely recognised that the increase in national insurance is a tax on jobs. At an economic and a political level, how the UK Government expects to deliver growth while delivering a tax on jobs remains a puzzle to me.