Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Official Report 452KB pdf

---

Child Poverty

Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2010 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. As usual, I ask members and the public to turn off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys. We have received an apology from our deputy convener, Alasdair Allan, who cannot attend because of the disruption to air services and travel.

Item 1 is oral evidence on child poverty in Scotland. The committee published its “Report on Child Poverty in Scotland” last May, and the Scottish Government responded in July. Today we have an opportunity to consider the progress that has been made since then. I welcome our witnesses. Nicola Sturgeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, is joined by Scottish Government officials: Samantha Coope, head of the tackling poverty team; Jim Stephen, head of early education and child care; Linda Sheridan, head of delivery in the fuel poverty branch; and Julie Bilotti, policy manager in the employability team. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some introductory remarks.

Thank you. I welcome the opportunity to discuss child poverty and update the committee on progress against the recommendations in its report.

As you know, we very much welcomed the broad range of evidence that was given by the many contributors to the committee’s inquiry, and we welcomed the subsequent report. I wrote to the committee in July with my response. We were pleased that the report was, in general, supportive of the Government’s approach to tackling child poverty and provided useful ideas on how we might enhance our approach.

Since the summer we have made progress on all the areas in the report on which the committee made recommendations to the Scottish Government. Under the framework that was set out in “Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland”, a great deal of work has been under way to identify and support people who are at risk of financial exclusion. In particular, we have worked on initiatives that target vulnerable groups who are most in need of support and assistance in accessing the benefits to which they are entitled. The committee might be interested in the new initiative by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which we are supporting. The initiative targets low-income families with children and brings together income maximisation services and health services.

The committee will be aware that the United Kingdom Child Poverty Act 2010 received royal assent in March. The implementation of the 2010 act will give added momentum to work that is under way through our early intervention frameworks on poverty, health inequalities and the early years. However, the development of the new strategy that is required under the 2010 act will require us to have an added focus on the specific drivers of child poverty, which is a welcome development.

Government officials have begun to work on the strategy and regular progress reports can be made available to the committee, if members would find that useful. We intend to consult on the draft strategy later this year and we will advise the committee when the consultation is available. After the strategy has been published, annual reports will be produced to monitor progress, and the strategy will be refreshed every three years. We will, of course, continue our practice of publishing Scotland’s progress against the child poverty targets on an annual basis.

An important part of our work is ensuring that poverty—particularly child poverty—is at the forefront of everyone’s mind when significant decisions are made on policy, services and budgets. We are considering how such decisions can be systematically poverty proofed.

We are also working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to review benefits information and advice provision and to assess how current provision fits with need. A position paper on information and advice provision was circulated to stakeholders at the end of April. We will circulate a copy of the report to the committee.

All those actions take place against the backdrop of our wider efforts to improve the outcomes for all children in Scotland and to tackle poverty and inequality and, most important, their drivers. I know that committee members are familiar with the Scottish Government’s policies on those themes. It is our intention to maintain momentum around that work and I look forward to working with the committee as we do that. The committee’s input has been extremely helpful in the past and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so.

I thank the cabinet secretary for those opening remarks.

Last week, the report “Growing up in Scotland: The Circumstances of Persistently Poor Children” was published. I do not know about other members, but it is certainly a challenge for me to define poverty: there is absolute poverty, relative poverty and persistent poverty. Importantly, the publication focused on persistently poor children. I know that the Scottish Government uses that measure. What action has been taken around that? In one of our papers concern is expressed that no concerted action has been taken to deal with the issue of persistently poor children. Has that attracted the cabinet secretary’s notice, and will actions be taken in that area? Is it a priority area that the Government should look at?

Yes. The “Growing up in Scotland” report that was published last week is in many respects a reminder to everybody of the scale of the challenge that we still face. Progress has been and is being made in tackling child poverty, but I am not complacent about the work that we still need to do. I know that no member of the committee is complacent about that, either.

I will say a word about the figures used in “Growing up in Scotland” around persistent poverty, and then I will talk about the various targets and measurements that we measure progress against.

The report states that 24 per cent of children in the three to four-year-old age group and 21 per cent in the five to six-year-old age group were living in what it terms persistent poverty. What I am about to say is in no way intended to underplay the significance of that, but we know that figures for persistent poverty are likely to be higher in the younger age groups because parents of younger children are perhaps less likely to be able to work and to access the labour market. If we were to look across all age groups, we are fairly sure that the figures would be lower.

That takes me on to how we can be sure about that. As the committee will know, we publish statistics annually that look at absolute poverty, relative poverty and material deprivation. The committee will be aware of the most recent statistics on absolute poverty, which state that the 2010 target has already been met. However, there is still a way to go in addressing relative poverty. The updated statistics on the three measurements will be published later this month, so that will give us a better indication of more recent progress.

The Child Poverty Act 2010 requires reporting against four indicators: relative poverty, material deprivation, absolute poverty and persistent poverty. We do not yet have sufficiently robust data to be able to report accurately in relation to persistent poverty. That is the case not just in Scotland but across the UK. A great deal of work is under way to get the data into a form that will allow that reporting to be done. A target level is to be set by the end of 2014, as the data become available—that is the case across the UK. Certainly, we have work to do on persistent poverty in order to have the data that will allow us to measure not just the current situation with persistent poverty but progress against that over the years.

I agree with you that the report highlights that qualification of the figures, acknowledges that we are not comparing like with like and focuses on younger age groups. However, it notes that persistent poverty is still prevalent among young Scottish children, and says:

“Despite this evidence, there are no concerted policy measures to tackle persistent poverty”.

Are we saying that measures will have to wait until 2014, or have I misunderstood you?

It is probably my fault for not making the position clear enough. Action to tackle persistent poverty certainly does not have to wait until 2014. The many policies and strategies that we are pursuing are intended to tackle poverty in all its forms. I can say more about those policies and strategies if the committee wishes. My point about 2014 is that although we are working towards targets for relative poverty, absolute poverty and material deprivation, a target for persistent poverty is not yet in place, as we do not have the data for measuring progress towards such a target. The 2014 date is the UK-wide date when it is intended that that target will be set. That does not mean that tackling persistent poverty is not a priority for us. I hope that the position is a bit clearer now.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that we are not just considering income, which was one of the interesting aspects of “Growing up in Scotland”? The committee has been considering benefits take-up and other issues that we could probably deal with effectively in Scotland, such as the capacity in the health service to deal with behavioural problems among younger children and to assist with mental health problems among mothers. Is work being done there, and are budgets being allocated?

The short answer is yes, absolutely—although there is also a much more detailed answer. I absolutely accept that income is not the only indicator. Obviously, income is extremely important, but a young person’s quality of life is also important in the broader sense. That brings in a whole range of issues, including the quality of education and of educational experience, attainment and health. “Achieving Our Potential”, the Government’s strategy to tackle poverty, makes it clear that, as well as dealing with the here and now of poverty and trying to alleviate its symptoms—that is a responsibility that I take very seriously, on behalf of the Scottish Government—we must do much more to deal with the underlying causes and drivers of poverty.

There are various work strands in the national health service and in education to improve young people’s life experiences, including in relation to mental health, which you mentioned. I am the first to recognise that child and adolescent mental health has been something of a Cinderella service in the NHS over many years. Mental health services generally, and child and adolescent mental health services in particular, have been described in that way. We are now investing a considerable amount of resource to improve those services to deal with what has been an unsatisfactory performance over a number of years.

So this report will drive your discussions with COSLA and local authorities.

Do you mean the “Growing up in Scotland” report?

Yes. Will it drive a debate and action?

Absolutely. All such evidence is used to drive and maintain momentum around all the actions and initiatives that we are taking. I do not for a minute underestimate the power of the Child Poverty Act 2010 to focus everybody’s mind, even more than has been the case, on what we need to do to meet the targets, which are now statutorily underpinned. I am not suggesting that people were not sincere about meeting them before, but there is now the added force of statute to ensure that we not only set the targets but make and evidence progress towards them annually.

The committee’s report examined how the tax and benefits system can be used more creatively and flexibly in Scotland so as to foster ways to tackle child poverty. In the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report, we were told:

“A high-level bi-annual meeting involving Scottish Ministers, COSLA leaders and Ministers from the Department of Work and Pensions”

will take place to make progress on the possibility of a more creative approach to the tax and benefits system. Can you give us any details of meetings that have been held and of what was discussed? Perhaps just as important, whatever new UK Government comes into power after Thursday, what matters do you intend proactively to pursue in connection with those meetings?

You are right to point out the Government’s response to the recommendation. That high-level meeting has not yet taken place—it is an early priority for us after the UK general election. Obviously, UK politicians have had other diversions over the past wee while, but we are absolutely committed to that.







At the start of the year, there was a jobs summit at which various stakeholders were represented, including the DWP. The issues of tax and benefits integration and how to make the tax and benefits system more conducive to getting people into work were raised at that summit. Those issues are very much on the Scottish Government’s agenda. Obviously, we cannot bring those things about by our own actions, but we are absolutely committed to working constructively with UK ministers in order to propose ways in which the benefits system can work better. We all have many anecdotes and real stories from our constituencies about people who cannot access work or are put off accessing it because of the financial consequences of the withdrawal of their housing benefit or council tax benefit. There is broad consensus now that that is not a good thing and that there should be reform. We are certainly willing to play a full part in discussions on that.

10:15

I am grateful that the Scottish Government will take a consistent approach to pushing forward the potential reform agenda. On the reforms that could happen, the committee has taken a lot of evidence on kinship carers being tied up with the tax and benefits system, particularly in relation to tax credits and the UK Government’s clawback. You may or may not want to respond to that point, but it is important that we mention kinship carers, whom I have championed for a long time.

More and more of my constituents in Glasgow have been telling me about the child tax credit system, which they welcome. However, many part-time female workers—usually single parents—have told me that although their 16 hours a week are helpful and the £130 tax credit top-up that they can get is welcome, they would be worse off if they worked the additional hours that employers offered them. As I said, I have long championed kinship carers. Will you discuss with whoever forms the Government after the UK election how we in Scotland can use child tax credit cash more flexibly and creatively to ensure that the approach that is taken does not, ironically, become a disincentive for mothers to work part time? Currently, it is such a disincentive. We should be keen to push the matter forward.

I absolutely agree with all those points. I will not go into detail on the point about kinship carers, but it was well made. Indeed, we have raised the matter consistently with UK ministers, so they are well aware of our views on it, and we will press it again with UK ministers after the election. Whether we are talking about the kinship carers allowance or any other aspect of the benefits system, it is important that perverse disincentives are not built into the system.

I am going to do something that I do not know whether I have ever done before, and I am not sure that I will ever do again: I am going to quote Jim Murphy.

Steady.

In the leaders’ debate on Sunday night, Jim Murphy said that there should be a guarantee that nobody will ever be worse off in work than they would be on benefits. We should all be prepared to sign up to that principle. It will not surprise anybody to hear that I think that we would be in a better position to ensure that that was the case if employment and benefits policy were devolved to the Scottish Parliament and we had the power to ensure that the different bits of the system were properly integrated. That would be a far better state of affairs. Short of that, we want to work constructively and positively with the UK Government to deal with the disincentives that exist in the system. It is not right that somebody should think that they cannot take up a job or increase their hours of work because doing so would make them worse off, as they would lose money through losing benefits. That is simply a crazy state of affairs.

It also damages many small businesses that have good, reliable and steady workers who work 16 hours a week and cannot go beyond those hours, although their employers would like them to do so. Small businesses in local communities that I represent are being stifled.

Finally, we know that there will be cuts and pressure throughout the UK after the election. Let me keep party politics out of things. We have a democratic responsibility to tackle child poverty and poverty in general in Scotland. Will the cuts in Scotland hamper our ability to meet our 2020 child poverty target?

Having a budget that is declining in real terms rather than rising—which is certainly the case with the Scottish Government’s budget in this financial year—will not make achieving such targets easier. No minister of any party would say otherwise. It stands to reason that, if we have less money, it will be harder. Nevertheless, there is no doubting the Scottish Government’s commitment to achieving the targets. That commitment is shared across the parties in the Scottish Parliament.

If I recall correctly, one of the recommendations in the committee’s child poverty report concerned the need for accurate assessments of the actual cost of hitting the child poverty targets. We were able to give some rough figures for that. However, there is no doubt that we must ensure that the money that we already spend—whether on education, health or, in a UK context, benefits—is spent in the most effective way to achieve the targets. Our early years strategy and our work on tackling health inequalities are all about making different parts of the public service work more effectively together to deliver better outcomes. The Child Poverty Act 2010 will be an important driver because it puts requirements and obligations into statute, which will mean that, whatever party is in government in Scotland or the UK, we will all have to ensure that we make the required progress and allocate resources accordingly.

We may or may not come on to other recommendations in the committee’s report that concern how we ensure that we have regard to tackling poverty—particularly child poverty—and inequality in our budget decisions. The committee will be aware of the equality and budget advisory group’s work and the work that we are doing to try to poverty proof not only our policies but our budget decisions.

There is broad agreement about the transition into and out of work. The research findings that were published last week suggested that that would be a rich area for additional research. Is any additional research planned?

I will come back to the committee on that. I am not sure whether any research on that is under way or planned, but I noted the comment in the report about the need to understand the drivers of getting people from benefits into work.

I ask the question genuinely because some research on that would help us all in our common objective of helping people out of idleness and dependency. We would be in a stronger position if we had some academic research.

I was interested that the cabinet secretary quoted Jim Murphy on ensuring that nobody was worse off in work than on benefits. I have been around long enough to see Governments try to tackle that issue, but the difficulty with such a statement is that Governments have tackled the issue mainly by reducing benefits rather than by dealing with the real, underlying problem to which the convener alluded, which is whether people receive enough of an income on which to live and bring up children in the UK and Scotland. The convener referred to the transition from work to unemployment and vice versa. Will the cabinet secretary comment on how best to achieve an income level for people that takes them out of poverty?

The figures that are before us show that absolute poverty has dropped from 31 per cent in 1997-98 to roughly 12 per cent in 2007-08. However, although the figures have dropped over that period, they have remained stable over the past four or five years according to the information that we have. We do not seem to be biting into the last chunk—the 20 per cent in relative poverty and the 12 per cent in absolute poverty. How will we achieve that? How does the Scottish Government aim to get at that last fifth or 10 per cent, in relation to which we seem to be failing to reach the targets?

I will try to round this up in a couple of questions. How does the Government envisage the current recession affecting the figures? Is it anticipated that there will be a blip in the effort to achieve the targets because of the recession and the likelihood that many workers in Scotland will face unemployment or a drop in earnings?

I will start with the final question. Obviously, we do not yet have statistical evidence on the recession’s impact on the issues that we are talking about. However, I think that most people would intuitively conclude that the recession will have an impact on our efforts to tackle poverty, certainly in the short term. One example of that impact just now is around employability initiatives, which is the work that the Scottish and UK Governments do to support people into work. Obviously, it is harder to do that at a time of higher unemployment when jobs are scarcer on the ground. We have seen over the course of the recession people going on to four-day working weeks, for example. Such things are having an impact on income levels. So, it would be rather difficult to argue that the recession is not having an impact on our efforts to tackle poverty, but it is too early to have statistical evidence on that.

On the broader point, John Wilson is right to talk about ensuring that people are never worse off in work than on benefits. We can achieve that by making work more lucrative or by making the benefits system less lucrative. I certainly prefer the former approach. I know that everybody agrees that when we talk about this issue we are talking about people who can work. Unfortunately, some people in our society cannot work, so it is important that we have a civilised and humane benefits system that looks after the most vulnerable in our society properly. I am not going to go off on a tangent, but I certainly have concerns about the operation of the recently reformed employment and support allowance, for example, and how that impacts on people who genuinely cannot work.

On how we ensure that we make work more lucrative, the minimum wage has an obvious part to play. The Scottish Government is not responsible for the minimum wage, but it is very supportive of it. I believe that our election manifesto—if reference to that is not straying into party politics—like the Labour manifesto, advocates increasing the minimum wage in line with earnings so that it keeps pace with earnings generally as they rise. That is important in ensuring that being in work continues to be worth while for people.

On helping to make work more lucrative, I should have said earlier that the Department for Work and Pensions announced at the end of last year the better off in work credit, which comes into effect in October this year. It is a £40 a week credit for those who would otherwise be worse off in work than they were when on benefits. There are a variety of ways in which the objective of making work more lucrative can be achieved. However, I very much agree with John Wilson that this should be about making work more lucrative rather than penalising those who have no alternative but to be on benefits.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and colleagues. I was interested in the reference in your opening statement to the work that your Government has done with the UK Government. Given the split responsibilities for trying to reduce child poverty as much as possible, that is perfectly fair. We have talked about benefits uptake and other key points in that regard. On Mr Doris’s point, you were right to say that, whoever forms the next UK Government, there will be questions about what will happen about child poverty and a range of other issues.

I have information, however, that suggests that reductions in child poverty have pretty much flatlined during your Government’s period of office, although there were reductions in previous years. In fact, there has been a reduction of less than 0.5 per cent since 2006-7, so there has not been an awful lot of progress. What discussions has your Government had with the UK Government in the past few years that would help to reduce child poverty? What measures have been used and what has been their effect? From the statistics that have been made available to the committee today, it seems that there has been very little change.

10:30

By way of trying to be helpful, let me say that I will not sit here and say that everything in the garden is rosy in our efforts to tackle child poverty. We have made, and continue to make, progress, although we have seen a bit of a tailing-off in progress over the past few years. A variety of factors are at play in that. Our performance compares well to that of the rest of the UK, but that does not mean that our performance is great. In Scotland, 20 per cent of children live in relative poverty—far too high a figure, in my opinion—but that compares to a figure of 23 per cent for the UK as a whole. There has been progress, but I will not sit here and say that it is good enough. That is why we are talking about the action that we need to take.

Discussion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is regular, on-going and—not always, but in the main—constructive. For example, our discussions on the Child Poverty Bill led to the obligations and duties in the Child Poverty Act 2010 being applied to Scotland, which I know many members of this committee were keen to see happen. We are in close on-going discussion with the UK Government on the development of guidance to public authorities on the implementation of the measures.

At a more specific level, there is close working between Jobcentre Plus and Skills Development Scotland, which are trialling a scheme whereby Jobcentre Plus will refer people to Skills Development Scotland for skills training that will make them more able to access the workplace. We are working closely together in a variety of ways. As I said earlier, I think that it would be better if the Scottish Government had access to all the levers of employment, if we could integrate Jobcentre Plus policies with skills policies and if we had control over the benefits system. That remains my position, but in the meantime it is vital that we continue to work together. We are absolutely committed to doing that.

I appreciate that we have a political difference about which powers should and should not be devolved to a future Scottish Government, but an examination of the timings and levels of reduction in child poverty suggests that, on the issues that are devolved to this Parliament, we were much more successful in the Parliament’s first two sessions than in the third session. What else can the Scottish Government do on that, if we assume no changes to the powers that are devolved to this Parliament in future years?

I take issue with the first part of that question. If Jim Tolson wants to cite evidence that the devolved parts of the solutions here have been less effective in the past two years than in the first two parliamentary sessions, we can discuss that, but I do not think that that has been the case. Without wishing to indulge in party politics, I genuinely think that that statement is misleading.

Regarding the trend, I have been very open and frank with the committee that we have made progress, but that progress has tailed off, and not just in Scotland, over the past couple of years. That suggests that we need to refocus our efforts. Clearly, we cannot divorce that issue from the general economic climate, which is—as Bob Doris said—absolutely fundamental. The fact that we have been in recession for the past couple of years cannot be ignored in this context. Notwithstanding that, our general trend on tackling child poverty is slightly better than the UK average. That does not make me complacent, but it is a statement of fact. However, we are absolutely committed to doing the things that we need to do to make as much impact as we can on meeting the child poverty targets, which are now underpinned by statute.

I am glad that the cabinet secretary has said that she will not be complacent because, whatever flavour of Government takes power after Thursday, her Government—and any future Scottish Government—will need to work with the UK Government. I hope that we can work towards real success and real progress on reducing child poverty.

The Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report drew attention to the Government’s

“recommended child poverty proxy at local authority level (‘percentage of children in each Local Authority that live in households dependent on out of work benefits or Child Tax Credit more than the family element’).”

You reported that that indicator was adopted in only seven of the 32 single outcome agreements, although seven other single outcome agreements contained some other indicator on progress on reducing child poverty. I want to focus on your recommended indicator. How is the percentage measured annually? Who carries out the survey and finds out the results?

Are you talking about the figures in the single outcome agreements?

Page 4 of the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report says:

“In 2009/10 fourteen SOAs included an income and poverty proxy indicator aimed at reducing child poverty. Seven of these used the SG’s recommended child poverty proxy at local authority level (‘percentage of children in each Local Authority that live in households dependent on out of work benefits or Child Tax Credit more than the family element’).”

As I read it, that is your preferred indicator for measuring progress, council area by council area, on reducing child poverty. Is that a fair summary of the response?

I think so—yes. I am more than happy to consider whether we can provide more information to the committee on that. Councils that included that indicator in their single outcome agreements will report against it in their annual reports on the single outcome agreements.

I understand that. However, if the Scottish Government thinks that that is a good indicator for measuring progress on reducing child poverty in all 32 council areas in Scotland, I would have assumed—maybe wrongly, so perhaps you can enlighten us—that the indicator would be surveyed annually throughout all 32 local authority areas. I would also have expected that to be done by the councils—although perhaps not, given that only seven councils have adopted the indicator—or by the Scottish Government. Perhaps the information is available from the DWP, at UK Government level. Is the information available for every council area, rather than just for the seven councils that have chosen to stick the indicator in their single outcome agreements?

As I understand it, the information is available from DWP data. We are developing a new indicator, which will be based on Scottish household survey data, but that is for the future. In short, the data are available for every council; we could look at the DWP data for every council.

On the broader point about single outcome agreements, I know that the committee has discussed the issue at length. The ethos of SOAs is to make local authorities accountable for the progress that they are making. Therefore, it is right that local authorities draw up their SOAs, based on discussions with and guidance from the Government. If a local council does not have a specific child poverty indicator in its SOA, that does not mean that the work that it is doing under the SOA is not contributing to tackling child poverty. A range of indicators in all single outcome agreements are directed at tackling poverty and child poverty.

I understand and accept that. However, if the Scottish Government has a preferred indicator at national level, at some point the Government must produce a national report that uses the preferred indicator, on progress that is being made council by council. If the Government thinks that the indicator that it set out in its response to the committee is the proper one, surely it should report on it on a national basis and not just let councils pick and choose the indicators or benchmarks that best suit them. Is that reasonable?

It is, indeed, reasonable. The information is available publicly through the DWP. As I understand it, councils are compared. I am being told that by my officials, but I will clarify the position and confirm it to the committee.

We report annually on the child poverty targets about which we have spoken. To supplement that information, we are looking at producing local authority level equivalised income and poverty estimates. However, I understand that the information to which you refer is already available publicly. I am more than happy to come back to you on the issue with more detail.

That would be helpful. It would help if all of the sources were drawn together in a single indicator document. It is fair enough to say that the DWP has the information, but the DWP works on a UK basis and the information will be contained in one of its publications. The issue is addressed only in so many single outcome agreements and progress reports on those agreements. The Scottish Government should bring together all of the different sources and say how it is contributing across the country as a whole.

That is a constructive suggestion that I am more than happy to consider. It is about bringing together in an easily accessible format the various sources of information that are available. I am told that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation website already does that, although it is not a Government website. I am happy to look at the matter from a Government perspective, to see whether we can do something similar or better.

There is some confusion. The committee’s report included recommendations in respect of how we measure outcomes and how single outcome agreements can help us to do that. In your response, you pointed out:

“There is a requirement on Community Planning Partnerships to report annually on progress against the outcomes and indicators”.

At the heart of the matter is whether you expect all local authorities to identify progress on child poverty as an outcome. You went on to say:

“That reporting serves a dual purpose: to report to the communities and also to Scottish Government. The first of these reports will be available in September 2009 and reporting in this way will provide the opportunity for the committee to determine the extent to which SOAs are supporting a positive impact on tackling child poverty”.

Were reports published in September 2009?

Yes. In addition, a Government overview report was published early this year. The next set of reports on single outcome agreements will be published in September this year.

Did the overview report give us the information that we required, or did it look only at local authorities that have identified progress on child poverty as an outcome?

The report looked at the progress that all local authorities are making against the indicators in their single outcome agreements. It is for local authorities to determine the indicators that they use in such agreements and to ensure that those are best suited to local circumstances. All of the single outcome agreements for 2009—the current iteration of agreements—cover poverty and deprivation. They may not all include specific child poverty outcomes but—as I said to David McLetchie—that does not necessarily mean that the issue is not being tackled.

I agree, but does that not fall short of your expectation, and ours, that we should be able to use single outcome agreements to monitor progress in local authority areas? It was suggested to us that that would be a good way of proceeding. However, if there is an onus only on authorities that have identified child poverty as a priority in their single outcome agreements, the others are, I presume, free to go their own way on the issue.

In the annual reports that they are required to produce on their single outcome agreements, all local authorities must report against the indicators that they have selected for those agreements. The reports were published a number of months ago. If the committee thinks that they may contain more information and wants to look at them, I will be happy to come back to discuss them in detail.

Perhaps both of us need to look at them, given the conversation that we are having and the committee’s recommendations in respect of how we measure outcomes against our child poverty targets. It was suggested to us that reporting on single outcome agreements would be a mechanism for doing that. Perhaps both of us need to reflect on whether it is a good or sufficient mechanism.

In their single outcome agreements, councils identify, based on their local needs and circumstances, the areas in which they need to make progress. Some councils prioritise employability and supporting people into work, others prioritise health issues that are having an impact on child poverty in their localities, and others focus on school attainment. What I am saying is that, although not all councils will do that in the same way, all the single outcome agreements tackle poverty and deprivation.

You see the merits in having a clearly understood mechanism, although it does not need to be identical everywhere.

The Government reports annually on progress towards the child poverty targets.

They are not local authority children; they are Scotland’s children. You cannot break them up into data zones like that, surely.

That is what I am saying. We report annually against the child poverty targets.

We look forward to seeing that. I hope that we can reflect on the matter and get a better system that is better understood.

10:45

We all agree that work is an important way of getting out of poverty and of avoiding its effects. I heard what you said earlier in agreeing with Jim Murphy. However, you went on to qualify that by saying that it will be important for the Scottish Government to have more powers in relation to benefits. The Scottish Government already has a number of powers that can be used to address poverty, and I have two questions on two of those. The first relates to council house rents. Over the past three years, we have seen substantial increases in council house rents—and indeed, in some housing association rents—and that has frequently been cited as a disincentive for people to seek work. How do you respond to that?

It is for councils to set their own rent levels. I do not have in front of me information on the council and registered social landlord rent levels , but we can get that for you. It is important to note that, generally, rent levels in Scotland are lower than rent levels in England. Councils must take a range of factors into account in setting rent levels, but rent levels for affordable social housing must be affordable. I do not think that there is anything to suggest that rent levels in Scotland do not meet that requirement. If you want to provide us with evidence that backs up what you have said, I will be more than happy to look at it.

I will do that. In one local authority, there has been a rent increase of 4 per cent per annum over the past three years and tenants feel that there is a disincentive to work in that they would lose housing benefit, as you mentioned earlier. That seems to be a problem.

That is to do with the rules on withdrawal of housing benefit rather than the rent levels.

Do you think that housing benefit should just carry on paying for increasing rents?

No, I do not. I am saying that the disincentive is to do with the rate at which housing benefit is withdrawn; I am not suggesting for a minute that housing benefit should pay for increasing rents. Overall, rent levels in Scotland are lower than elsewhere in the UK, certainly than in England, and I do not know of any evidence—if you want to provide it, I will be happy to look at it—that suggests that rent levels in Scotland are generally unaffordable. It is important that rent levels in the social sector are affordable. Councils and RSLs take a number of factors into account in setting rent levels, as is appropriate. I am not aware of evidence that backs up the point that you are making.

To be clear, I did not say that rent levels are unaffordable; I said that they are increasing substantially. Nevertheless, there is a fear that they will come to that at some point.

My second question relates to child care. Can you say a bit more about the measures that the Scottish Government has taken to provide more flexible child care provision, which you mentioned earlier, so that people can work?

As the committee will be aware, we have increased from 412 hours to 475 hours the number of hours of child care that are available for three and four-year-olds. That is a very concrete sign of progress in increasing the availability of child care. Many parents who are working, or who want to work, will talk about the importance of integrated comprehensive child care, rather than about the portion that is funded by local authorities. The early years strategy talks about the need to work towards much more flexible and integrated child care. As a very early sign of that commitment, we have increased the hours. We are now working with local authorities to ensure that that progress continues and that all three-year-olds get access to child care within a month of their third birthday, which is another important sign of progress. Progress is being made, but there is still work to do.

How many children have benefited from that increase in hours?

I cannot give the figure off the top of my head for the number who benefited from the move from 412 hours to 475 hours. I can certainly find out very quickly.

All children who are in child care would have benefited because it is an increase in the hours for individual children.

My understanding is that local authorities were already providing that and it was only the private sector that saw an increase.

I do not think that is the case.

I would be interested to hear how many children benefited, if that is not the case.

Again, Mary Mulligan is making assertions without evidence. If she wants to provide the evidence, then I will be more than happy to look at it.

I do not know where we are going with this, cabinet secretary. You have said that twice—you said it when rents were mentioned. I do not know that we are compelled to provide evidence for a question.

I am not suggesting that.

If some work has been done by the Government a question about it may be helpful. I am sure that the figures will be readily available on whether rents have increased and by what proportion. You often respond to the committee on issues that have been raised, and do so very well. Maybe on this issue, given the time constraints, you can give us the additional number of children who benefited, in response to Mary Mulligan’s question. That may be helpful.

I genuinely always try to answer the committee’s questions to the best of my ability.

You do.

I will leave other people to determine what that ability is. I am not trying to be difficult with the committee. It is, absolutely, for the Government to provide the factual information that you talk about. Mary Mulligan suggested that rent levels are providing a disincentive to people going into work. I simply said that I was not aware of evidence for that. Likewise, I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that local authorities were already providing the increased child care hours, but I am absolutely happy to provide the factual information of numbers of children who have benefited. I have volunteered the view that all children in nursery education benefit from that because it is an increase in hours that are pertinent to individual children.

May I ask one last question, convener?

You are into Patricia Ferguson’s time.

I will stop then.

While we are talking about additional information, when you look at that information, can you give us some information about employers’ responsibilities with regard to family-friendly policies and child care? You were doing some work with vouchers. You do not necessarily need to respond now, but it would be interesting to know what progress we have made with employers.

We can do that. We are encouraging employers, as the committee knows, to make child care vouchers more readily available because employers have a big responsibility and are a big part of the solution.

I am conscious that the cabinet secretary is slightly pushed for time, so I will keep my questions relatively short. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report on child poverty was very interesting. I would like to explore one of the points that it made about expenditure and outcomes. The response said:

“The Scottish Government is already committed to undertaking work on linking expenditure to the Government’s priorities and outcomes”.

Would you like to say a few words, cabinet secretary, about how that work is progressing and where the Government is with that?

I am happy to do that. This work is at a relatively early stage. I am sure that all members will acknowledge that it is a complex piece of work to ensure that we are matching the money that is being spent and how it is being spent with the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. It sounds like something that should be done as a matter of course but, nevertheless, it is complicated. Although it is a long-term piece of work, a project team is developing numerous shorter-term activities, including building the evidence base of how things are done in other countries. I am happy to report regularly to the committee on how the work progresses.



The Government’s approach through the national performance framework—the outcomes, targets and indicators that we have—is designed to encourage and promote an outcomes-based approach. It is not about what you put in, but what you get out. That is our mindset but, obviously, we need to do much more work systematically to evidence that the money that is being spent is contributing to the outcomes that we want to deliver.

Thank you. Although the work is long term, I look forward to seeing progress made over the piece. I wonder whether you can point to any examples of budgets being realigned as a result of that work, either in local or national government.

I cannot do that as a result of that particular work, because it is at an early stage. What is more relevant is how the national performance framework has guided and influenced the budget-setting process of the Scottish Government over the past couple of years. Without breaching the secrecy of Cabinet discussions, I can tell you that we look at setting budgets much less on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis and much more according to the outcomes that we are trying to deliver. The smaller nature of our Government and the structure of the departments encourages that—for example, my health and wellbeing department includes housing—and we are trying to break down the barriers between portfolios to ensure that spend is focused on outcomes. I am not suggesting that we are at the end of that road; we are probably just at the beginning of the journey to ensure that that happens effectively.

Perhaps we can come back to the committee with more specific examples of how a particular budget might have been aligned. At a fairly high level, a good example is my departmental budget, which covers not just health, but health, housing and social inclusion. It allows a much more strategic view to be taken of how resources are spent to deliver outcomes.

Are you aware of any examples of that kind of work in local government?

I will check to see whether there are specific examples from local government that we can provide to the committee.

Cabinet secretary, I thank you and your officials for your attendance and evidence. Given the time constraints, you will understand that we have been unable to cover some areas that we wished to cover, but I am sure that, as always, you will be happy to respond to some written questions.

I thank the committee for being understanding about the time, so that I can get to the Health and Sport Committee. I am happy to provide written answers to other questions or, indeed, to come back to another meeting and go into matters in more detail.

We will pause and get ready for the next evidence-taking session.

10:58 Meeting suspended.

11:02 On resuming—