Child Poverty Strategy
We move to agenda item 3. I welcome Michael Matheson, Minister for Public Health, and the Scottish Government officials Calum Webster, senior policy officer, welfare division, and Anne MacDonald, statistician, communities analytical services. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
I welcome the opportunity to update the committee on our first annual report on the child poverty strategy for Scotland. As we know, far too many Scottish children live in poverty and the figures have remained steady for far too long. We also know only too well the impact that growing up in poverty can have on children. I am sure that we all agree that we have to focus our energies on reducing the levels of child poverty and the impact that that can have on children in Scotland.
The child poverty strategy, which was published in March 2011, sets out our long-term vision for tackling child poverty in Scotland, and the recently published annual report sets out the shorter-term actions that we have taken since the launch of the strategy.
Our two main aims in respect of tackling child poverty are to maximise household resources and to improve children’s wellbeing and life chances. It is clear from the child poverty strategy that we have a range of powers across a number of areas, such as early years, health, education and housing, which we are using to good effect to tackle child poverty in Scotland.
It is also clear to this Government that the issue of child poverty goes beyond income levels, important though they are. I hope that the variety of policy interventions highlighted in the report shows the efforts that we are making to ensure that the effects of child poverty on vulnerable families and children are mitigated across Scotland.
I believe that there is consensus that our approach of early intervention and prevention is the right one, but I know that there are different views on how to take the work forward to best benefit children in Scotland. I can tell committee members that, because of that, I intend to establish a ministerial advisory group on child poverty. I want the group to help me to reflect on the first annual report, to identify priorities and actions that we can take on board for future reports and to formulate strategies as the cycle moves towards publication of the next report in March 2014.
The report acknowledges the vital contribution that local government and third sector organisations have played in tackling child poverty in Scotland. We are doing all that we can to support those partners, despite the challenging economic circumstances.
I am conscious that this is the first time that we have produced a report on the child poverty strategy and I look forward to hearing the committee’s questions and observations on the content of the report.
I welcome your comments and will home in on your remark that we have tried to maximise household resources. What effect will the UK Government’s Welfare Reform Act 2012 have on that strategy?
As I said, maximising household incomes is a key part of ensuring that we support families who are in low-income households. They must be able to access the benefits and supports to which they may be entitled. We have expressed some concerns about the impact that the changes to the welfare system could have on lower income families. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted the potential impact that some of the changes could have on children in the UK and in Scotland. It has demonstrated that the 2012 act could increase the level of child poverty.
We must ensure that we mitigate the impacts where we can. A challenge is that some of the measures that we take to try to assist people in lower income households are about passporting them into particular services or supports. One difficulty with the welfare reform agenda is that it is not clear how some aspects of the universal credit will work and the impact that it will have on passporting through to certain services and supports that we provide.
The 2012 act will clearly have an impact, but the degree and nature of that impact is probably still unknown. We are trying to ensure that we can respond to the information that we receive from the UK Government in such a way as to ensure that the measures that we have in place to support people on low incomes continue to be available to them.
In light of your comments, will we meet the targets that we have set ourselves for reducing child poverty?
The targets are set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010, which applies to all parts of the UK. As we highlighted in the annual report, it is very concerning that the main piece of independent research that has evaluated the changes that are taking place to the welfare and tax system at a UK level indicates that they will have an adverse impact on child poverty.
I am very conscious that child poverty is extremely sensitive to changes in benefits and taxation and it is clear that the changes under discussion will have an adverse impact in that regard. We will do our best to mitigate matters where we can, but it is difficult to do that in the short term when we do not have control over taxation and welfare policy. We will have to consider what we can do within our existing powers. However, the real impact will come from welfare and tax changes over which we do not have control. I would like us to have such powers and to be able to address issues through our welfare and taxation system, but at present we do not have such powers.
We all wish you well in the prosecution of this challenge. We are all concerned to see progress on the issue of child poverty. I am grateful for the first annual report and for your being here this morning. Clearly, foreseen and unforeseen challenges will have to be accommodated in the years ahead. I will eschew the opportunity to address them by responding to any kind of potential constitutional arrangements that you might think would ultimately make the challenge easier or less so.
I am particularly interested in whether you can clarify the circumstances that led you to conclude that a ministerial advisory group would be useful to you in this work, when you expect that group to be operational, what thoughts you have given to the composition of the group and what immediate challenge it will set itself to focus on assisting you and the Government.
I decided to set up the ministerial advisory group because this is our first annual report and we are in new territory in that regard. I want to consider whether there are better ways of taking forward the report. In addition, given the changing economic environment in which we find ourselves, I want to consider whether we should give greater emphasis to other areas in our social policy. I also want to use people in the statutory and voluntary sectors with expertise in the field to assist us by indicating whether we need to redirect some of our resource and priority and whether there are better ways of taking forward the annual report next year.
I am conscious that we have a vibrant community in Scotland that is passionate about tackling the challenges of poverty. I want to give them the opportunity to work directly with me on shaping policy. The advisory group will be composed of people from the statutory sector and the third sector, but we have not yet decided exactly who they will be. I expect the group to meet at some point between now and the early part of the summer to take a retrospective look over the past year and consider what we have to do here and now if we need to refocus policy that is in place.
I also want to start some of the early work on considering the next child poverty strategy. It is a three-year strategy and if we start that work now, we can start to put in place some of the means to take forward the next phase of the strategy. The group will obviously also consider issues around the welfare reform agenda, which we are picking our way through. So, it will take a retrospective view, consider the here and now and look forward at the next strategy. As I said, the group will consist of a mixture of statutory and voluntary sector organisations.
Thank you. I assume that you will be happy to inform the committee and the Parliament in due course when the group is constituted and when it is meeting, so that we are aware that it has embarked on its challenge.
I am more than happy to do that.
Richard Simpson is next—sorry, Richard, I have jumped forward in the list. It is Adam Ingram next, then it is Richard Simpson.
Thanks, convener—sorry, Richard. You will get in after me.
I am happy to give way to your ministerial experience.
Minister, you talked about mitigating some of the negative impacts of the welfare reform process. Have you given any thought to how you will use the newly devolved responsibilities that we have on, for example, council tax benefit and the discretionary social fund? Have you considered the impact of universal credit on passported benefits such as free school meals?
The second part of my question relates to the mitigation of the impacts on groups such as single mothers, who are being required to seek work when they still have very young children. That suggests to me that we must do something significant with regard to childcare provision and employability and tie them together. What are your thoughts on those issues?
11:00
We are undertaking work on council tax support with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the cabinet secretary is involved in a welfare scrutiny group, which is looking at the areas that are going to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. You will be aware that, in the council tax transfer, the UK Government is going to pass over to us the resource minus 10 per cent. That could have a significant impact on low-income households that are dependent on council tax benefit, so the Scottish Government has said that it will close down that 10 per cent to ensure that people who currently receive that benefit do not lose out.
We are considering a couple of different options for how council tax support should be provided—whether through an exemption process or through a direct benefit process—and we must have the system in place for next year. That dialogue is taking place with different stakeholders and with COSLA to ensure that we have everything in place for the transfer. A considerable amount of work has been done in that area already, and I am confident that we will get a system in place that will continue to meet the needs of those who require the support of council tax benefit in whichever form we decide to continue it.
We are pursuing work on the social fund with stakeholders and COSLA. Our general view is that its purpose should remain largely the same as at present but that it should be delivered at a local level with the rules and regulations applied on a nationally consistent basis. There will be a national set of criteria, but it will be delivered at a local level. We are having discussions with COSLA about how that can be shaped and what it will look like going forward. Our general view is that the fund should focus on two areas: grants and the supply of equipment, such as a washing machine or a cooker that is necessary in a set of emergency circumstances. We think that it should avoid loans, as history shows us that those on low incomes who take out loans through things such as the social fund often struggle to pay them back or do not manage to do so. Our thinking at this point is that the fund should be about grants and the supply of equipment as and when necessary. That work is being taken forward.
As I mentioned earlier, we are doing a lot of work to identify the areas in our own policy responsibility where passporting through benefits is a measure of whether someone is entitled to receive a service or support—for example, a blue badge for disabled parking. The switch to the universal credit will change that, and the possibility of moving to personal independence payments will change it again. In recent months, we have had difficulty in getting sufficient detail from the UK Government on exactly how the universal credit will be applied to allow us to scope out how we will use that model for passporting into the services that we provide. We intend that those who presently receive services by passported means will continue to do so, but it is difficult to scope that out without knowing how the universal credit system will operate. Once we have more detail on that, we will be able to work things out in a much more concrete fashion.
Our general approach will be to protect what passported provision we can under the new system, but that will involve a fair amount of work in a very short timeframe and will depend partly on information that we receive from the UK Government on how the universal credit will apply.
Adam Ingram’s final point was about support for single mothers with regard to childcare provision and employability. Those are key areas on which we must focus. We have indicated our intention to increase the availability of free childcare from around 475 hours per year to 600 hours, which is extremely important in supporting mothers, in particular, into employment. The expansion of childcare has been one of the key elements in assisting us to support mothers in that regard.
We have been doing a lot of work on employability through various workstreams, such as workforce plus, and through our skills agencies to support people in acquiring the necessary skills to get into employment. We are refreshing the workforce plus scheme, which dates back to 2006 when the economic and employment market was entirely different, to ensure that it focuses more on the present market. A key part of that will involve employability and ensuring that people get the skills that they require to maximise their potential for employment.
It is important that those workstreams fit together as far as possible. The work that we are doing through the achieving our potential framework and the early years framework involves drawing everything together as effectively as possible.
I hope that the annual report demonstrates the way in which the different policy areas all add to the focus on child poverty. Childcare is one of those areas, along with employability and supporting people into employment, and ensuring that once people are in employment, it pays for them.
I take on board Adam Ingram’s point about the need to ensure that things are tied together. As a Government, we are determined to ensure that that happens.
I am well aware that while creating policy is one thing, implementing policy is quite another. We need to work with a range of partners, particularly at local level. I understand that a toolkit was produced for local authorities and others to use in tackling child poverty. How successful has that exercise been?
Secondly, we have an opportunity through the proposed children’s rights bill to legislate to reduce socioeconomic disadvantage. What contribution will that bill make to addressing some of the tricky implementation issues at a local level?
The toolkit, which was made available last year, was one of the recommendations that came out of the Local Government and Communities Committee’s inquiry into child poverty in the previous session of Parliament. Feedback from the statutory and voluntary sectors suggests that it has been useful in supporting them in what can be described as poverty-sensitive policy making.
Part of the approach that we have taken is to try to ensure that local authorities and other organisations have information and advice available to them on how to take forward policy development that is sensitive to poverty, and the employability and tackling poverty learning network has done that through the toolkit. The feedback that we have had from both the statutory and voluntary sectors is that the toolkit has been extremely useful.
In addition, the Poverty Alliance is undertaking a piece of scoping work to identify a number of areas in which public agencies have taken forward policy on tackling poverty and to demonstrate how effective that work has been. We can use those examples as case studies so that other local authorities and organisations can learn from them and use the same approaches in their policy development work.
The toolkit is about trying to encourage more local authorities and other organisations to ensure that their policy making is sensitive to poverty, and it appears from those who have used it to be working relatively well. We will continue to encourage local authorities and others to do that.
The proposed children’s rights bill will give us a good opportunity to legislate to ensure that there is a more consistent approach to dealing with some of the issues around children and that agencies are working in a focused way, with health boards, local authorities and others working collectively. The bill can help us to put some elements of the work that is currently done by community planning partnerships on a statutory footing, and the Government is considering how we can shape that. We have a good opportunity to consider using the bill as an avenue to put some elements on a statutory footing.
Adam Ingram raised a relevant point. There is also frustration that the poverty impact assessment that the session 3 Local Government and Communities Committee recommended, following its inquiry, has not been introduced. We need outcome measurements so that we can see whether what we are doing actually has an effect on child poverty.
An example that has been mentioned—which we also identified in that inquiry—is that because childcare is an important element in the child’s life and the family’s life, we should know what effect the expansion in the number of hours of free childcare will have. What is the estimate? The Scottish Government is making a significant investment in the area, so what impact has it been calculated that the measure will have on child poverty? I could ask that question about any measure, but I presume that there are workings and calculations that show that the expansion of childcare will have a positive impact on child poverty.
It is difficult to look in the short term at one policy area and say what impact it will have on child poverty. There is no doubt that supporting families through childcare provision and giving people the opportunity to get into employment are key ways in which we can help to reduce child poverty, but it takes time to reach a position in which we can measure the direct impact of a measure; I cannot say to you that a measure’s direct impact will be to reduce child poverty by X per cent.
However, we know that childcare is a key element in helping to support families into employment, and we know that employability and employment are key factors in reducing the chances of families being in poverty. I have no doubt that, once the policy has been introduced and we are in a position to measure its impact, we will, as time goes by, get a clearer understanding of the nature and extent of it.
11:15
Will the ministerial advisory group that will be set up to help the Government to decide priorities have a matrix or set of expectations in order that it can ensure that priorities are based on the best expected outcomes? What influence will it have on deciding priorities? Crucially, will it be able to discuss poverty impact assessments, the community planning process and single outcome agreements—some of which mention child poverty and some of which do not? Will there be co-ordination of effort and will there be some sort of template to measure outcomes?
The purpose of the advisory group is to examine what we have been doing over the past year and what we are doing at the moment, in order that we can find out whether we need to reprioritise certain areas. If we need to look in more detail at, say, childcare and to consider changing our present approach, the group will have the opportunity to have that discussion and to advise ministers on whether they should be doing something else. It will also focus on areas that we should look at in the future.
I understand your point about a matrix and the notion that if we do X, it will have a direct impact on Y. Between the late 80s and the early 90s, child poverty in Scotland was about 28 per cent; according to our most recent statistics, which are for 2009-10, the figure now stands at 20 per cent, although the figure has remained fairly static since 2004-05. Early efforts to tackle child poverty gained in a big way from the direct impact of working family tax credits and the child tax credit.
As I have pointed out, child poverty is very sensitive to changes in taxation and welfare. The fact is that it is not within Parliament’s gift to put in place the kind of dramatic policies that could have such direct impacts; we simply do not have control over the tax and welfare system that was utilised prior to 2004-05. We will be able to use various education, health and employability mechanisms as best we can to make an impact on child poverty, but it is often difficult to say that one particular initiative will have X amount of impact. After all, many policies are complex and interrelated.
I do not want to go near the constitution question again—we have had too much of that this morning—but I certainly voted for a Government that implemented policies that made a significant change to child poverty. It is not outwith our gift.
According to the 2004-05 figures, the level was flatlining. Given that, you have to ask what further measures need to be taken to drive the figure down even more. One can see the difficulties in this respect that are being experienced at UK level, and we must recognise that this is a complex area in which relationships need to be made between policies if we are going to make collective impacts.
The previous session’s Health and Sport Committee tried to examine that issue. Obviously, we are looking at it again today. The question is what we can do at the present time.
Jackson Carlaw asked about this earlier: which groups have been invited to join the advisory group and what is its remit?
No groups have been invited yet, but I can tell the committee that there will be a combination of statutory and voluntary sector organisations.
As for its remit, the advisory group will carry out a retrospective analysis of what has happened over the past year, and will look at some of our current work to find out whether, in this economic climate, we need to place particular emphasis on specific areas and do some forward thinking about policy development for the next phase of the three-year child poverty strategy.
Will employers be invited to be part of the group?
I am more than happy to consider whether we should have someone from the—
I ask because what employers do is so important in relation to many issues. I am thinking about the minimum wage and the Scottish Government’s position on child-friendly policies, for example.
I have not ruled anyone out, so I am more than happy to consider your idea.
The interplay between tax and benefits is complicated, as you said, and what the Scottish Government can do is important. No one has mentioned that the reduction in the percentage of children living in poverty—from about 32 per cent in 1997 to 21 per cent or thereabouts in 2004-05—took place against a background of rising incomes, which is interesting. We define poor households as being ones that have less than 60 per cent of the median UK income: if incomes are rising, it becomes harder every year to achieve 60 per cent of the median.
Now we are in a situation in which incomes are in retreat—we have been discussing pension contributions, which will amount to another 2.4 per cent out of people’s incomes this year. I very much welcome the first annual report, but will the Government incorporate into future reports analysis of the complex interplay whereby as incomes go down the ability to reach 60 per cent of the median could be improved without any alteration in income? I am particularly concerned about children in households with less than 70 per cent of median income, which are experiencing material deprivation. If the household income does not change, those children remain materially deprived. We could have a false set of outcomes, which I am anxious to avoid.
Anne MacDonald can give a bit more detail about the survey data and the measures. It is worth pointing out that the report uses historical data. Under the Child Poverty Act 2010 we are required to publish the report in March each year, but the survey data do not come out until June and it might be two or three years down the line before we have some of the other survey data that we will use. It is difficult to ascertain where we are now from looking at the annual report.
Next year we will have updated data, but it might be a couple of years before we have the data on elements of the four areas that we must cover. I think that we have until April 2015 to get the data, which are compiled at UK level and developed by the Department for Work and Pensions. The issue is not that the DWP is being slow but that the child poverty reporting cycle does not fit in with the survey cycles.
There are other challenges for us in getting data. Some data are based on the current welfare system, so when the system changes we will not have a comparative data set. A number of surveys measure different aspects of the targets in the 2010 act, so there are difficult issues. Anne MacDonald will talk about the challenges in more detail.
Anne MacDonald (Scottish Government)
Richard Simpson’s point illustrates exactly why there is not just one indicator or target on poverty, but a range. The relative low-income target—which relates to households on 60 per cent of the median income—looks at how people are faring relative to the rest of the population. As Richard Simpson said, if the rest of the population is not doing so well, curious things can happen with income distribution, so we might not pick up poverty in the way that we expected.
There is also the absolute poverty measure, which considers how incomes change in real terms over the years. The measure should track in real terms whether the poorest people in society are experiencing a rise in incomes.
Another target that Dr Simpson mentioned involves a combination with material deprivation. That involves asking questions about whether people can afford to have a winter coat or two pairs of shoes, or to allow children to have friends round for tea. Such questions have been developed to look at what people think are basic norms of society. Combining low income and material deprivation is intended to overcome the difficulties in having straight relative low-income targets.
That is why there is the range of indicators. The persistent poverty target covers people who are consistently in poverty for three of any four years—people who are still in poverty year after year. There is, in the 2010 act, a range of measures rather than one single indicator.
That is helpful to have on the record; I know that the information is in many documents. In the current circumstances, those who are in material deprivation and persistent poverty interest me particularly. If we are able to focus on those two groups, we should do so.
Within those groups, I am particularly concerned about looked-after children broadly and about kinship care. The Government attempted to hand a national kinship care policy to local authorities, but the variation between local authorities has been massive and that has had a significant effect on that group, which has a particular problem. When the minister’s advisory group starts to have discussions, I hope that it will examine how to develop a consistent kinship care policy, which I know the Government desires.
I am interested in the role of credit unions. As we move into much greater austerity and stringency, those who are in employment but have very low wages will often be forced to borrow money. The press have debated the huge interest rates on pay-day loans, although such loans are a more desirable alternative to the street credit in some of the communities that I represent, where people give illegal loans. Will you comment on progress in supporting credit unions to have a much stronger role in providing temporary credit to individuals who find themselves in relative or absolute poverty?
Credit unions have a valuable and important role. In recent times, we have done work to strengthen and support that. Dr Simpson is right that, in the present economic climate, credit unions can play an invaluable role for people who are in difficult financial situations, so there is an opportunity for the advisory group to consider whether we need to focus more on such areas, in the light of the changing economic environment in which we find ourselves. That would fit in with our achieving our potential strategy and would have a direct impact on children in poverty. The group will give us an opportunity to consider further direction or support, if that is needed. I am with Dr Simpson on the role that credit unions can have, particularly in the present economic environment.
I have a couple of specific questions. You mentioned the 10 per cent cut in relation to the council tax benefit changes and I think that you used the phrase “close down”. Are you suggesting that the Scottish Government will fill that gap?
Yes.
That is great.
We have discussed the relationship with local government. Will single outcome agreements be renegotiated after the local government elections? Will you seek to change the priorities in what we ask local government to do on child poverty?
11:30
A number of the single outcome agreements—if not most of them—identify poverty as a priority. In our discussions last year with local authorities and community planning partnerships around single outcome agreements, tackling poverty was one of the four key areas that we highlighted that we want to address, and we intend to continue to focus on that area.
I am not in a position to say whether there will be a renegotiation of the process after the elections—I have no doubt that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth will want to make a decision on that himself—but tackling poverty continues to be a focus for us. No local authority in the country does not view tackling poverty as a priority. Local authorities will take different approaches and we will continue to provide them with support, assistance and guidance to enable them to do that. Local authorities and community planning partnerships have already made clear commitments, which will, I have no doubt, continue post the May elections.
I have two slightly broader questions to ask, if time allows. The first goes back to what you rightly said about the effect of the changes in the tax and welfare systems around the time when we saw some of the big advancements in Scotland. It is fair to say that the level of child poverty fell faster in Scotland at that time than it did in other parts of the UK. Do you have a view on why that happened that would suggest that there are other things that we could do within a devolved context, or do you stick to the view that the primary driver was changes in the tax and welfare system and that, although there might have been specific things going on, there are fewer lessons to learn from them?
I mentioned the early gains and that the level of child poverty has largely been flatlining since 2004-05. There is no doubt that child poverty is sensitive to welfare and tax issues, and there was a marked impact during that early phase. However, there will have been other factors at play around childcare provision and employability, which Richard Simpson referred to in terms of the employment market. Incomes were different at that stage, as well.
If it were possible to isolate two or three specific things that would eradicate child poverty, it would have been done years ago. A number of factors interplay with one another. I would hesitate to say that, if we focused on a couple of areas, that would help to bring down further the level of child poverty. Childcare, employability and maximising people’s incomes are key areas. The Government’s overall strategy is on early intervention and preventing children from missing out on opportunities because of their household circumstances.
A complex range of issues interplay to have an impact, so it would be wrong to suggest that only a couple could have a marked impact. It is clear that child poverty is sensitive to welfare and taxation and that they have an impact, but they are not the only aspects that we must consider when it comes to tackling child poverty.
I thank you for that. I welcomed the annual report; I was frustrated with the lack of current statistics, but you have explained some of the reasons for that. It is good that a group is being brought together to consider the usefulness of the report. If the report is not combined with statistics, it perhaps needs to perform a different function. The first report will perform the useful function for Government of drawing together the different things that are being done. However, to produce it annually and not relate it to statistics would make it less valuable over time, so I welcome the establishment of the group.
The criticism has been expressed to me—I do not necessarily subscribe to it, but I would like to hear your response to it—that what is in the report clearly stacks up as being about tackling child poverty rather than about tackling poverty in general. We all support tackling poverty in its broad sense, so it is not necessarily an either/or situation. To what extent do you have a distinct child poverty strategy?
I will deal first with the annual report, about which Drew Smith made a valid point. I am frustrated, too, that production of the report is not aligned with statistics being published. Our difficulty is that we must by law—under the Child Poverty Act 2010—publish the report at a particular time. We have discussed the issue with the UK Government and have highlighted that it would be helpful if we could realign the publication of the annual report so that it is published after we have the new data set. The report would then provide something much clearer for comparing one year with another. We will continue to have discussions with the UK Government on that because such a realignment would make the report more meaningful and helpful.
On the other aspect, I think that I am right in saying that there is no prescription on what must be in the annual report. Is that right, Calum?
Calum Webster (Scottish Government)
There are elements of prescription in the 2010 act, but it does not preclude our including other things in the annual report.
I want the advisory group to consider this year’s annual report and to decide whether we should put something different in next year’s and, if so, what that should look like and how we should take it forward. It would make more sense, from my point of view, if we could align the publication of the annual report with when we get the new data, which would make the report more meaningful. I understand and share Drew Smith’s frustration in that regard.
The achieving our potential framework is our overarching poverty policy, which sits alongside the two other key social policy approaches—the equally well health framework and the early years framework. They all have distinctive parts to play: the early years framework takes a preventative approach with children, the equally well framework takes a preventative approach to tackling health inequalities in some of our most deprived communities, and the achieving our potential framework is our overall anti-poverty strategy.
We have a specific child poverty strategy because the Child Poverty Act 2010 requires us to address child poverty and we want to ensure that we have a strategy to help us to achieve the objectives that the 2010 act sets. The child poverty strategy sits within, or is supplementary to, the three overall social policy areas, which means that it gets a focus.
The intention of the achieving our potential policy is to deal with poverty as best we can. It is fair to say that if we deal with poverty effectively, that will have a direct impact on child poverty. Lifting mums and dads out of poverty assists in lifting children out of poverty. However, the child poverty strategy reflects the fact that we have legislation in that area and we want to ensure that the strategy sits alongside the three key social policy areas.
I have two questions. One is about the link between deprivation and poor educational attainment and the other is to ask for an update on the early years framework. The link between deprivation and poor educational attainment has been well documented. What specific measures and interventions are being implemented to address that issue in deprived areas? What opportunity exists for the ministerial advisory group to address such issues directly and to evaluate and monitor progress?
Once you have addressed those questions, I will come back to the question on the early years framework.
The curriculum for excellence gives us a great opportunity to address the educational attainment of children from disadvantaged communities because it gives teachers much more flexibility in taking forward education at local level.
However, we should not get into the mindset that low educational attainment is inevitable in deprived areas. Clearly, schools in certain communities with catchment areas that cover deprived and low-income households are achieving very good educational standards. We must ensure that we build on that good practice, which is what some of the work that my colleagues in the education department are doing is about. We want to ensure that we can utilise the gains that have been made in some schools and roll them out to other schools in similar situations, and that we have a curriculum system that is flexible enough to allow schools to respond to the different needs of their students.
Is work being done on how the successful approaches in schools in some deprived areas can be rolled out in other areas?
I know that colleagues on the education side are looking at using the experience that they gain from schools in those areas to encourage other schools, and that they use case studies and so on to share that learning. If Jim Eadie wants detail about what is happening on the ground, I am more than happy to follow that up.
In all policy areas, where we in Government can learn from one area of work in one part of the country, we should use that, build on it and share the experience with others. It is important that we do not begin to think that it is inevitable that a poor background will cause poor educational attainment. Some schools are demonstrating that that is not necessarily true, if the right approach is taken.
What about the ministerial advisory group?
I have not limited its remit to childcare or income maximisation. If the advisory group needs to look at educational attainment and how it fits in with other policy areas, it will have the opportunity to do that.
In November 2011, a task force was established to implement the early years framework agenda. What progress has been made? How successful have you been in co-ordinating the efforts of the Scottish Government, local government, the NHS, the police and other agencies?
The early years framework sits on the education side rather than being my direct responsibility. We published the framework jointly with COSLA in 2008, and then we reconsidered some aspects of it, and reviewed what we had learned from our experience over the past couple of years. I understand that a paper has been developed and is being made available today that sets out the vision and priorities. That work is pertinent to today’s discussion. It focused initially on the strengths of universal services, prevention and early intervention, guidance to community planning partnerships, the quality of early years services, and getting better value. That work was published today, and I have no doubt that education colleagues will look to respond to it and look at how we can build on the progress that has been made.
Child poverty does not come without parent or guardian poverty—you alluded to that yourself. Parent poverty is closely associated with unemployment, low-wage employment and benefits. The controlling factor is often the UK Government, so it is vital that we continue to have dialogue with the UK Government so that we can get the best results. In your opening statement, you alluded to the fact that communications might be good but outcomes are less positive. Will you expand on that point?
During the past year, the Scottish Government and the UK Government have had a lot of dialogue and discussion about the welfare reform agenda. The Parliament partially agreed to a legislative consent memorandum on some of the proposed changes. Those discussions will continue. The UK Government is in no doubt about our areas of anxiety. We are limited in what we can do. Part of the challenge that we will face in the next year is that of making sure that those areas for which we take responsibility work effectively. A lot of the energy that we are putting into that work involves engaging with a range of stakeholders who can assist us in making sure that the system that we must have up and running next year delivers what we intend it to deliver.
11:45
We also face a challenge around passporting, to do with lack of information. We depend on getting information from the UK Government. I do not want to give the impression that the UK Government is withholding the information just to wind us up, but there is an issue about the development work that it is doing. As the UK Government develops its thinking and the detail around some of its policies, I have no doubt that it will share the information with us. However, it creates a serious challenge for us to make sure that in a compressed timeframe we are able to respond to that information as soon as we have it. The earlier we have it, the better placed we are to measure the impact on passported services.
It is a frustrating situation, but we are dependent on information from the UK Government. We will continue to work with the UK Government as constructively as we can to get the information to assist us in the policy work that we need to take forward. We have to do things in a compressed time frame, which, given the complexity of these matters, we do not necessarily want.
Obviously, poverty—whether child poverty or otherwise—is not restricted to Scotland. It exists in fair measure in Wales, Ireland and, indeed, England. People in some parts of England suffer almost as badly as we do in Scotland. Are you in dialogue with the devolved Administrations, even if for nothing more than to focus the UK Government’s attention on the resource element? I understand what you said about the information that you require, but from my perspective the problems associated with poverty, and child poverty in particular, are about resource. Of course, we anticipate an even tighter squeeze on that. If the devolved Governments spoke collectively on the same issues, would that focus attention in Westminster?
I know that fairly regular dialogue in formal structures takes place between ministers in different UK Administrations.
It would be fair to say that an important element in tackling overall poverty is to grow the economy and create employment. We have highlighted our frustration at the UK Government’s approach; we believe that it is cutting too deep and too fast in key areas. That is having an impact on capital spend, which can directly impact on creating employment and incomes for individuals. The most recent example is the £300 million-worth of shovel-ready projects that we were asked to put forward and for which we still have not been able to get the response that we are looking for. Those would have a direct impact on creating employment, putting money into people’s pockets, so there is an element of frustration from our point of view.
I am not sure whether the Northern Irish Government or the Welsh Government was asked for a similar set of projects that could be moved forward. We do not believe that the UK Government’s approach helps us tackle some of the areas around poverty. That is why we do what we can in mitigation, such as accelerating capital spend to try and support employment through various public sector projects.
I was thinking more of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. I suspect that our colleagues elsewhere in the United Kingdom are going to come under the same cosh, and there might be a positive response to a collective approach as opposed to a lone voice. I suspect from what you have told me that that is already taking place.
Yes.
We have made good progress. However, there is one issue that has not been mentioned, which is the importance of the living wage. I think that we are all in agreement on that. The Government has supported it and there has been some success in the public sector. We should ask what progress has been made in the public sector, what further progress could be made, and, indeed, what efforts there are in the private sector to encourage employers in Scotland to pay the living wage.
As of this month, all employees in departments and organisations where the Scottish Government has direct control of pay policy are required to receive a minimum of the living wage. Obviously, it is for local authorities to decide whether to move towards a living wage; quite a number have done so and we will continue to encourage the others to do the same.
There has also been some debate in Parliament about extending the policy to private sector organisations involved in public sector functions or contracts. However, such a move might raise issues with European legislation and Alex Neil has written to the European Commission seeking clarification as to whether including a requirement for the living wage in procurement policy would cause problems at a European level. We are still waiting for the Commission to respond but we will certainly examine that response once we receive it. In fact, it is important that we do so, given the public procurement bill that will be introduced later in the year, but we will have to wait for the Commission’s response before we can decide whether to take the issue forward.
I am more interested in the dialogue that is happening at a lower level. I realise that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee has examined the matter and that it is perhaps difficult—indeed, impossible—for some people to consider such a policy at this time. Has the Scottish Government discussed with the Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and so on the possibility of moving Scotland’s employers towards a living wage economy? For example, are the employers involved in the Parliament all paying the living wage?
We are leading by example on this matter. In areas where we control pay policy, the living wage is the minimum for all staff, and we have said very clearly that we want companies to consider paying individuals a living wage. However, until we understand EU law in this area a bit more, it is difficult for the Government to say clearly to employers, “We expect you to pay the living wage,” and to enforce that in any meaningful way. We can lead by example and encourage but it is difficult to take direct action until we get that clarity. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report on the living wage acknowledged some of the challenges and broadly supported the position that the Scottish Government is taking until we get further clarity about the law.
I was not encouraging you to enforce the living wage; I was simply trying to establish whether it was your job or the job of some other minister to discuss Scottish Government policy in this area with the private sector in Scotland. Many of those employers will be paying the living wage, but some of them will not be and I was wondering whether you were able to encourage them to consider the benefits that, as we believe, the living wage can bring to families’ income and the wider economy.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth is responsible for living wage policy and any decisions in that respect.
Thank you.
There was an absolute assurance that the 10 per cent gap in council tax benefit would be filled. Just for clarification, how much will such a move cost and how many children will benefit from it?
I can come back to you with specific details about that. We are trying to ensure that those who receive support from the system in its present form continue to receive it once it is devolved to the Scottish Government. However, the danger of top-slicing 10 per cent is that such a move might penalise a significant number of individuals. I can come back to the committee with specific figures.
I just want to know how much that priority will cost the Scottish Government and, in the context of child poverty, the number of children who will benefit from it.
I will come back to you with specific figures.
I would appreciate that.
As there are no further questions, I express the committee’s appreciation to the minister and his colleagues for their attendance and the evidence that they have provided.