Child Poverty
Agenda item 2 is to take oral evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and her officials as part of our child poverty in Scotland inquiry. I welcome the cabinet secretary; Frances Wood, the deputy director of social inclusion; and Samantha Coope, the team leader of the tackling poverty team. I invite the cabinet secretary to make introductory remarks before we proceed to questions.
Thank you for the invitation to come here today to speak about child poverty, which is very much at the top of the Government's agenda as well as the agendas of all the parties represented here today.
As we know, around one in five children in Scotland are growing up in poverty—that means that, right now, more than 200,000 children throughout the country find themselves denied the positive future that should be their birthright. The good news is that child poverty has been declining in Scotland; the less good news is that our progress is, quite frankly, far too slow. There is no doubt that our challenge has been increased by the economic downturn; the impact on the jobs market throughout the UK limits opportunities for families to lift themselves out of poverty through good, sustainable employment. That said, nobody would see that as an excuse to take our eye off the ball or to deter us from the ambition that we all have—to eradicate child poverty. Indeed, it should strengthen our resolve to ensure that poverty does not blight the prospects of another generation. In my view, which I am sure is shared widely, child poverty has no place in a modern Scotland.
The Government is fully committed to working with all our partners to do everything we possibly can to help achieve the UK Government target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020. We believe in social justice, which is why we set ourselves the solidarity target of increasing, by 2017, the overall income and proportion of income received by the poorest 30 per cent of households. Last year we published "Achieving Our Potential: A Framework to tackle poverty and income inequality in Scotland" which, with "The Early Years Framework" and "Equally Well: Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Health Inequalities" sets out our approach to tackling poverty and income inequality. The policies represent a comprehensive attack on the poverty and inequality that blight Scottish society.
Also relevant to the debate is the recently published UK Government child poverty bill, which the Scottish Government is considering closely. We look forward to seeing the outcomes of the consultation on the bill. We are absolutely committed to working co-operatively with the UK Government and stepping up our collective efforts on child poverty—this time last week I had a constructive meeting with Stephen Timms about the UK bill.
It would be remiss of me not to say that we are concerned that, as it stands, the UK bill does not bring with it any further investment. We will all be mindful of the research published last month that confirms that significant short-term action is required if we are to meet the interim target. That can be achieved only by extra investment by the UK Government in tax credits and benefits, and the Scottish Government will continue to call for that. We are concerned that the current devolution settlement limits what we can achieve for Scotland by our own hand—for example, the way the social security system operates puts barriers in the way of our poorest families lifting themselves out of poverty.
It is critical that we work as hard as possible to ensure that policies pursued by the UK Government in reserved areas—it is absolutely entitled to pursue such policies—do not undermine our efforts to meet child poverty targets. We have already made known our views on the UK Government's welfare reforms. Although we are not opposed to many of the principles behind those reforms, we have some concerns about their practical implications.
The committee might be interested to know that I had occasion yesterday to write to the Department for Work and Pensions to raise concerns, which are shared strongly by COSLA, about the decision to cap at the rate for a five-bedroom house housing benefit for families who need six or more bedrooms. Our analysis suggests that that would force some families into overcrowding. It could affect 2,000 to 3,000 children in Scotland, frustrate attempts to tackle child poverty and have a disproportionate effect on ethnic minority families.
We are all aware that we face big challenges in our efforts to end child poverty, but we should all be determined, as the Scottish Government is, to address the root causes of poverty. I believe, on the basis of the Official Reports that I have read, that the committee's inquiry has gathered a great deal of valuable information about, and insight into, the problem. I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry. I look forward to the outcome of the inquiry and will ensure that it is fed into the Government's work.
Thank you for those opening remarks. John Wilson has the first question.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome your remarks about your continuing discussions with the UK Government on some of the levers that can help to take people out of poverty. I am interested in the Scottish Government's assessment of the present economic situation. Targets have been set for 10 and 20-year interim periods—to eradicate poverty by 2020, for example—but they were set when, as one politician famously said, we expected an end to boom and bust in the UK. We are clearly almost in a bust situation, and that will affect families and individuals. What discussions have been held with the UK Government to address some of the issues arising from the homelessness and job losses that may occur, more about which we will probably hear later?
As you would expect, different departments of the Scottish Government have discussions with different UK departments about a range of issues that are being caused or exacerbated by the current economic climate and how we can work together better to respond to those challenges. We in the Scottish Government have our six-point economic recovery plan and much is happening at the UK Government level. Some of that falls within our respective discrete responsibilities, but we can do and are doing much to work together.
I think—and I am sure that most people readily accept—that, even without the economic downturn, we have a big challenge on our hands in meeting the UK Government's child poverty targets. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently published a study that illustrated the scale of that challenge well and gave its first estimate that a financial injection of £4.2 billion a year might be needed to reach the targets—in addition to what is being spent on tax and benefits.
The challenge was already considerable and there is no doubt that the economic climate makes it more acute. Evidence such as that in the Joseph Rowntree report suggests that, although the overall figures might not be hugely influenced, changes will take place underneath. More children might fall into relative poverty because their parents have lost their jobs or found obtaining work more difficult, but more children might come out of relative poverty not because they are better off but because average earnings have fallen. The overall effect might be neutral, but that will not take us where we need to go at the pace at which we need to go.
The Scottish Government can do, is doing and will continue to do much, which I am sure we will discuss. We all take our responsibilities seriously. The UK Government is doing much. We might think that it can do more, but that is a matter for discussion. We will continue to discuss what we can do together. In my introduction, I referred to my meeting with Stephen Timms last week to discuss how we can work together in relation to the child poverty bill. We are not absolutely sure whether we agree with all the proposed approaches in that bill to achieve our shared objectives, but we want to have a constructive working relationship on it. We both agreed that that was the right approach.
You said that average earnings are usually one of the measures that are used to determine poverty. Given that you said that average earnings could drop because of the current economic climate, are they a good enough indicator to determine whether families or children live in poverty?
The question is interesting. The committee might go into that in its inquiry outcomes and I would be keen to explore the issue more today. Average earnings and income are a fundamental measure of poverty. The standard measure of poverty for the purpose of the target is relative poverty, which is defined as an income that is less than 60 per cent of median earnings. Not to have that as a key standard measurement would be absurd.
Nevertheless, many data are available on other aspects of child wellbeing. Last week, Stephen Timms and I kicked off discussion about how we put together a basket of indicators that the Scottish Government can use to measure better our progress towards eradicating child poverty, and which we can usefully use to feed into any UK reporting. The UK bill proposes an annual report on child poverty, which we would want to feed our progress into. Income and earnings are a fundamental measure, but they are not the only factor that we should consider in determining whether we are making progress.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Average earnings as a baseline might fall, but other inflationary pressures in society might mean that food prices and other prices rise. However, as I said, average earnings are one measure. I welcome what the cabinet secretary said about using a basket of measures to measure impacts and what might happen in the future. Wages and earnings may be reduced—I am not saying that they will be—but there might be inflationary pressures on the shopping basket that parents must buy which mean that real targets relating to the pressures on people living in poverty or at a level just above poverty might be missed.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am sure that you have had the opportunity to consider some of the evidence that has been taken in the inquiry so far. The provision of child care is one of the main issues that have arisen. What has the Scottish Government done to promote flexible and affordable child care?
I will answer that question in two parts. I have read the evidence and agree that the provision of affordable, accessible and flexible child care is fundamental to enabling people, particularly lone mothers, to get back into work. Therefore, I accept the premise of the question.
Obviously, there are two sides to the provision of child care. First, there is the supply side. We supply universal free provision for three and four-year-olds. Members will be aware that the Scottish Government set a manifesto commitment to increase the number of free child care hours by 50 per cent. We are making good progress towards that. The number of such hours has already been increased to 475 a year, I think, and is due to go up to 570 in August 2010. That takes us 38 per cent of the way on the journey. Obviously, we will consider how we can fulfil the 50 per cent commitment in 2011. That commitment is important.
The other side is the demand side. Child care is funded primarily through tax credits and child care vouchers. The need for parents to have access to high-quality and affordable child care is at the heart of the early years strategy, which, as members know, is a joint strategy with COSLA. That strategy clearly sets out the steps that we think need to be taken at the national and local levels to overcome the accessibility and affordability challenges.
One objective that the early years framework sets for local partners is to conduct a strategic review of child care accessibility and to use that review to start to address the gaps that exist. That duty—if I may call it that—is similar to what English local authorities are required to do under the Childcare Act 2006. In the Government's view, the longer-term objective is to provide much better access to integrated pre-school and child care services in every community. I do not want all of the discussion to be about what we think the UK Government should be doing, but it is difficult not to stray into discussing the UK Government's powers. I strongly believe that the UK Government needs to introduce a much simpler and more progressive scheme for supporting parents with child care costs.
We are therefore doing a range of things, but not all of what we think needs to be done is within our power to do. Child care is a fundamental issue to address in tackling child poverty in the longer term.
You mentioned that there is a legal obligation on local authorities in England under the Childcare Act 2006. Would you introduce such an obligation here?
There are no plans at the moment to implement such a duty. Local authorities, in conjunction with local child care partnerships, are responsible for ensuring sufficient child care in their areas.
I understand that the relevant departments in England do not have any statistical evidence on the impact of the statutory duty in the Childcare Act 2006 since it was implemented. That is interesting.
Given the rural nature of much of Scotland, the prevalence of shift working and a range of other issues, the English policy is not entirely appropriate for our circumstances. As far as I am aware, local government is not looking for any new laws to place a statutory responsibility on it, but it is important to recognise that although the different Governments might take different approaches to the same end, it is nevertheless the end that is important. Through the early years framework and our work on universal provision of child care, the Government is working constructively with our local government partners to ensure that there is provision of accessible child care.
One of our concerns about the Welfare Reform Bill—although we have received welcome assurances about this from the Department for Work and Pensions—is the idea that a lone mother could lose benefit because of an inability to access child care. Obviously, we want child care to be available and we do not feel that particular issues around child care should lead to benefit sanctions in that way. That is part of the continuing discussions with the UK Government about the welfare reform proposals.
You mentioned that you hope to increase the availability of time in early education for children aged three to four. Such provision is being extended, but it is my experience that it is often easier to manage children at that age into child care and that parents find it more difficult to access support and care for schoolchildren. How is the Government encouraging local authorities to make progress on provision of, for example, after-school clubs?
Local authorities have a responsibility to make progress. I agree with you—I speak not from direct experience but from constituency experience—that many parents find it much easier to arrange care for pre-school children than for schoolchildren because trying to integrate and juggle school and child care can be difficult. Local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that there is provision in that area. I am not going to get into a bout of concordat talk here, but it is clear that because of the relationship that we have with local authorities, funding is increasing and local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that they deliver in the kinds of areas you are talking about.
In relation to the directive from the Scottish Government, some local authorities have raised issues about providing free school meals for children in their area that might result in their reducing provision of breakfast clubs. What do you think of that?
Given the concordat agreement and the funding that we are providing to local authorities, I would not consider that that would be the case. It is always open to local authorities individually or through COSLA to discuss such issues with ministers. We might come back to this, but I believe that the commitments to deliver free school meals made by the Scottish Government and local authorities are extremely important in the context of the child poverty debate, as is the provision of universal free school meals in primary 1 to 3 from next year and the extension of eligibility to children whose parents are on maximum child and working tax credits—a move that will benefit more than 40,000 children. Those are significant steps and, although they are only part of the picture to tackle child poverty, they are an important part. My colleagues in local government are enthusiastic about those steps too.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. You mentioned in your introductory remarks the changed economic times and the challenges that they pose in tackling child poverty. I was hoping to ask about how to get people off benefits and into work or tackling in-work poverty. Given the current climate, the reality for many families is that people are moving out of work and on to benefits. That shines a spotlight on how the benefits system works at a UK level and on the Scottish Government's responsibility to work in partnership with the UK Government to ensure income maximisation and the full uptake of benefits.
Our briefing paper mentions that the Scottish Government has increased the funding it provides for debt and money advice services, but it has been highlighted that this Government and the UK Government support a number of agencies to give that advice. The issue is co-ordination. I do not want to get into a discussion about fuel poverty, on which the committee has already held an inquiry, but the idea is that the first stage of the energy assistance package will involve a full benefits entitlement check for everyone who phones the telephone number to find out about cavity wall insulation and so on. That will be an example of good practice. Are there other examples that you can give of how the Scottish Government, either on its own or in conjunction with the UK Government, is looking to work more cleverly on income maximisation and benefits advice?
I will give you a range of examples as briefly as I can. I agree that income maximisation and uptake of benefits are important and that the Scottish Government must take responsibility for them. We do not have responsibility for the benefits system; we think that we should, but I suspect that that is a debate for another place and time. We should take seriously our responsibility to do what we can.
In "Achieving Our Potential", the poverty framework that we published towards the end of last year, we gave a commitment to put £7.5 million into income maximisation over the next two years. We have not yet determined the details of how all of that resource will be spent, but I can run through some of the initiatives that the Government is funding, to help in that area. As I think you have heard from previous witnesses, we fund the Child Poverty Action Group second-tier advice project, which provides support and helps with capacity building of front-line services on benefits advice and uptake. We also fund One Parent Families Scotland, which runs the lone parent helpline. The helpline provides advice and signposting on a number of issues, including benefits uptake.
In addition, as you rightly identified, there is the energy assistance package, which will be an extremely important vehicle for ensuring that as many people as possible receive a benefits check. The benefits checks that have been carried out under the central heating and warm deal programmes that were put in place by the previous Administration have been hugely successful. They focused mainly on pensioners. I will probably get the figure wrong, but I think that, in the last financial year, £1 million has been delivered in additional benefits for pensioners. That shows the success that we can have.
In future, as you rightly say, provision will be made for benefits checks as part of the first stage of the energy assistance package. For people over 60, those checks will be carried out by the pension service, which carries out the checks under the existing schemes. For people under 60, checks will be carried out by Citizens Advice Direct. The potential of the energy assistance package to get people checked for benefits and to help more people get the benefits they deserve is huge. An interesting aside on child poverty is that the energy assistance package will make low-income families with children under five or disabled children under 16 eligible for central heating, which is another important initiative.
We have worked with Macmillan Cancer Support to pilot and, we hope, roll out its income maximisation service for people who are affected by cancer. Many children can be affected as a result of parents having cancer. We often hear from cancer patients that while in most cases, I am glad to say, the clinical care that they get is excellent, they find the financial implications of having the disease extremely difficult.
Another area that we are pursuing is work with housing associations, which are key intermediaries, particularly for older people, in ensuring that benefits are taken up. We are looking to work with Linkwide, which is part of the Link social housing group, to extend its older people advice service throughout Scotland. I could mention other initiatives, but in the interest of brevity I will not. That gives you a flavour of the work that we are doing.
I think that that is a new definition of brevity, but I thank you for your answer. Although I welcome the list of things that you mentioned, the fact that so many different things are happening at one time demonstrates the need for co-ordination. I hope that you will consider ways of signposting different groups in society to benefits advice. Would it be possible to carry out some kind of quantitative assessment after six months or a year of the additional benefits that have been accessed, via the UK Treasury, to see how successful the initiatives have been?
Yes.
The initiatives are welcome. Taxpayers' money funds them—that is as it should be, because they are part of Scottish Government policy. I am sure that the committee would like to assess how successful they have been.
Quantification is essential. We will be able to tell you over time exactly how many people access the different levels of support within the energy assistance package. That will include information on the number of people being signposted for benefits advice and on the benefits that they take up as a result.
I take your point about duplication, which is fair. We need to look at a range of approaches. We are not dealing with a homogenous group of people; we are dealing with people in different age and demographic groups and with different life circumstances. I am probably horribly misquoting John Dickie—I apologise if I am—but I think he said in one of your previous evidence sessions that we should not worry too much about duplication and that we want to ensure that people have access to the services that will ensure that they get what they deserve.
I think he did say that, but I am sure that he said that co-ordination is important too.
I appreciate that.
You mentioned housing, which is also part of our inquiry's remit. We have heard evidence that a cut in the subsidy for building houses will push up rents, which will have a big impact on the low-paid and the working poor. Advice will be available on managing that, but there is a recognition that housing costs will have a big impact on people on low pay, who face the prospect of rents being increased as a result of a policy that your Government is pursuing.
I would be genuinely interested in any evidence that you can show me to back up the assertion that you have just made. If you can provide such evidence, I will take it seriously.
As you know, the Government is increasing investment in housing by 19 per cent over the spending review period. Just last week, the Minister for Housing and Communities announced the allocations from the affordable housing investment programme for the next financial year, which are record allocations, partly because we have been able to accelerate some of our spending into the next financial year to help deal with the economic downturn.
This Government is investing strongly in housing. In our first year in government, we had more public sector housing starts than there had been at any time since the early 1990s. There is evidence of our commitment.
The housing association grant assumptions are about how many houses you can get for the money you are spending. It is right for the Government to try to be as efficient as possible and to try to get as much for our investment as we can.
We took decisions around HAG in our first year in government. The economic downturn happened thereafter. We listened carefully to housing associations, as a result of which we have increased the HAG assumptions. We are in dialogue with housing associations and we are not at all insensitive to the wider economic climate, but we have to remain committed to getting as much in the way of new house building out of our investment as we can.
But the housing associations—not Duncan McNeil—are saying that it will cost them more to meet the requirements in the plans that they have in place. There are three ways that things can go: housing associations can build less; rents will go up; or the quality of the build will go down. That is housing associations' contention, not mine.
The HAG assumptions are based on the assumptions that housing associations themselves make on, for example, rent increases. The intention is not to make rents go up. If you can show me evidence that that has been the result, I will be happy to discuss it with you.
As I have told you, we have responded to some of the concerns that housing associations have expressed in relation to the economic downturn. That is why the HAG assumptions have increased. We will continue to discuss these issues with housing associations. They are the main providers of social housing, so it is essential that we work with them to ensure that we are meeting our social housing objectives. In addition, in our efforts to get even more out of the money that we are spending, we are trying to incentivise councils to come back into the building game.
I am quite sure that housing association tenants will take some comfort from your assurance that rents will not go up and that their income will not be affected.
Notwithstanding what has been said about the difficulty that people are having in finding jobs, the question arises of how people manage the transition from benefits to work. Does that issue, which is a perceived problem area, come up in your conversations with Westminster?
Because of the overlap between workforce plus, which the Government seeks to roll out across the country, and the work of Jobcentre Plus, discussions continue on all the employability agenda. It is important that we give people the skills to access the labour market. A range of work is under way, both by the Scottish Government and by the UK Government, to make things easier for people. Notwithstanding the difficulties in the economy, such work is important.
Because of my other responsibilities in health, I am particularly keen that the public sector plays its part. Through health academies, national health service boards work hard with people who are traditionally quite far from the labour market. They provide pre-employment training and opportunities to help people to get into work. NHS boards are working hard, and they have some joint working relationships with Jobcentre Plus. There is undoubtedly scope for them to do more, and scope for local authorities and other parts of the public sector to do more.
A perceived deterrent that has been suggested to the committee is that, when people move from unemployment into work, they think that they might lose housing benefit. Have you given consideration to that perception?
Yes. I genuinely do not want to make this party political, but there are frustrations for the Scottish Government because many of our responsibilities and policy levers are influenced by levers at Westminster. For example, housing policy is completely devolved but housing benefit is completely reserved. I have already given an example of how a decision on housing benefit can have a severe impact on what we are trying to achieve in our policies on housing and tackling poverty.
It would make much more sense for benefits and the tax credit system to be devolved so that we can properly integrate our policies. In my constituency—and we will all have had similar experiences—I know of people who have found themselves in what is colloquially known as the benefits trap. They cannot get into work because the financial hit is too great. It is a big issue. As well as giving people skills to access work, we have to ensure that the work genuinely pays. There is a lot of scope for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together on that, but it would be much easier if the Scottish Government had the powers to ensure that the system made sense.
I am interested in this area, because there is a gap when it comes to supporting people who get out there and take low-paid work. We have learned of recent innovations in Glasgow City Council and in London in relation to the living wage. Have you and your Cabinet colleagues discussed how such innovations could benefit people on low pay?
A commitment in "Achieving Our Potential" was to publish this year an analysis of how the public sector can play a bigger part in tackling low pay. I am very interested in what Glasgow City Council is doing, and most people would welcome it.
I have responsibility for the NHS, and about 8,000 out of 160,000 people in the NHS are slightly below the £7-an-hour mark—not a great deal below but slightly below. There is scope for us to think much more about the issue. It goes back to my answer to Alasdair Allan. The public sector as a whole is a massive employer in Scotland, and if we are genuine about tackling poverty, including in-work poverty, we cannot ignore the role that it has to play.
Have you gone beyond thinking about the issue? Have you discussed with your colleagues encouraging other local authorities to introduce a living wage? Are you discussing with trade unions and the NHS how you would achieve a living wage?
As I said, there have been no Cabinet-level discussions since Steven Purcell's announcement. Obviously, other local authorities have to make their own decisions, as it would not be right for the Government to dictate to them. I am sure that they will all look at the example of Glasgow and make their own decisions. I have already pointed you to "Achieving Our Potential". I will let the committee know when we expect the analysis of what more the public sector can do to be published, which will be at some point this year. There is further scope to maximise the role that the public sector plays.
It is interesting that London rolled out its living wage in and around the Olympics. Has any work been done to replicate that in Scotland in and around the Commonwealth games? We would be dealing not only with the public sector but with the private sector. Has any work been done on that?
I cannot speak off the top of my head for the Commonwealth games organising committee, but I am happy to come back to you with the detail of anything that it is considering.
That is something that it would be within your powers and influence to do.
Absolutely. I have said all along that I will have no hesitation in saying and make no apology for saying where I think the UK Government has to do more or where I think we should have more powers, but I will never deny that we have a considerable amount of power in our own hands, which we should use to the full.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will follow on from Bob Doris's line of questioning about the multiplicity of debt and money advice services and how we might achieve a better co-ordination of such services.
When I was walking along George Street this morning, I saw an advert on a bus for a money advice service that is being run by West Lothian Council. As you might expect, the advert gave a freephone number. It is obviously commendable that West Lothian Council should offer that service, but I could not help but wonder what happens when someone phones that number who is not from West Lothian.
It struck me, as I was thinking about the discussion that the committee would have this morning, that there should be a mechanism whereby people could phone a single number for such publicly funded advice services and agencies; if they live in West Lothian, they could be directed to an appropriate office or meet a money advice counsellor in West Lothian—and ditto for Edinburgh. If an Edinburgh person with money advice worries happened to be walking along George Street this morning, they might have been deterred and wondered, "What do I do? I don't live in West Lothian." It strikes me that, although there is an awful lot of advertising of such individual services, it does not necessarily hit the body public who might all share the same general concern.
That is a fair point. In the distant past, I worked in the advice sector in a law centre. I know that when people phone a number that they have seen somewhere but they do not fall within the catchment area for the service provided, it can be difficult always to know where to signpost them on to, so you make a fair point.
Some review work is currently being done with COSLA on how better to tie up and integrate the work that individual local authorities do. The outcome of that work is not due imminently, although it is due this year. I am happy to give the committee more detail on when you can expect the outcome of that work, because it obviously has a bearing on your inquiry.
In addition, people can phone Citizens Advice Direct, for example, and be signposted through that. Another service that the Government funds, which is focused not so much on benefit uptake but on debt advice more generally, is the national debtline. That is a single number, so anyone who phones from Scotland will get Scotland-specific advice. There are more generic services, although I accept that there is a fair amount of work to do to join them all up properly, particularly with services that local authorities are rightly providing in their areas.
I will move on to how we focus specifically on child poverty. The committee is holding an inquiry on child poverty and we have a joint commitment from Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Government to end child poverty by 2020. Against that back-cloth, why does the concordat with local government talk not about decreasing the proportion of children living in poverty as one indicator of progress but about decreasing
"the proportion of individuals living in poverty"?
If there is a particular policy focus on reducing—indeed, eliminating—child poverty in 11 years, one would have thought that in the agreement between the Government and councils, that indicator would have been more specifically focused.
I have followed the evidence that the committee has taken on that, which is an interesting point for debate. I will try to explain why the national performance framework and the outcomes and indicators are as they are, after which I will touch on single outcome agreements and what we are doing to try to ensure that they reflect the objectives that the Government has set on child poverty.
Children who live in poverty are the victims of their families' economic circumstances so, in tackling the parents' economic circumstances, by definition and as a consequence we tackle the circumstances in which children live. Therefore, achieving the national indicator on decreasing
"the proportion of individuals living in poverty"
and meeting the targets in "The Government Economic Strategy" to increase the share of income that is earned by those whose income is in the lowest 30 per cent will impact on child poverty. The debate is fascinating, but we cannot necessarily isolate child poverty from the wider poverty issues. To return to the point that John Wilson raised, although income measurements of child poverty are fundamental, there is a bigger picture on child poverty and wellbeing. That takes us back to the need to consider various indicators to ensure that our progress is comprehensive. That is, I hope, a semi-coherent explanation of why we do not isolate child poverty but see it in the bigger context of overall poverty.
The single outcome agreements are important in ensuring that, at a local level, the Government's objectives are met. The agreements for the present financial year were the first of their kind, so everybody accepts that there is a lot of learning to be had from them. About half of all the single outcome agreements had at least one proxy indicator for child poverty and they all had indicators that were connected to child poverty. For the next set of single outcome agreements, which have been submitted in draft form, we have made clear to community planning partnerships through guidance on the agreements that prioritising "Achieving Our Potential", the early years framework and "Equally Well" is of real importance for next year.
We must consider child poverty as part of the bigger picture of poverty. However, that does not take away from our clear commitment to work towards the UK targets of halving and then eradicating child poverty.
I have a follow-up question that goes in a slightly different direction. We have papers that say that 200,000 children in Scotland still live in poverty. I accept absolutely the general thrust of your argument that we need to improve families' wellbeing and income—that was raised in studies that we have received on issues such as kinship care. It depends on whose figures we believe, but it seems that 25 per cent of those children are likely to live with a parent with addiction. Irrespective of how we maximise such parents' income, the money is more likely to go to drug dealers than to the children. I accept your general argument about families' wellbeing, but what work has been done to drill down to those children who live in difficult circumstances, in poverty and competing with addiction, and to ascertain how we can connect benefits to where they should go?
You are right that the figure of 200,000 that we use is based on the measurement of child poverty for the purposes of the target. I think that that is a reasonable way of measuring, but I do not think that it is the whole story. You are right that there will probably be many children in Scotland who do not fall into that definition of child poverty and who live in the most extreme and horrendous situations. You referred to children living with parents with drug or alcohol addiction. Obviously, our drugs strategy is important in that respect. I am more than happy to come back to the committee with more detailed explanations of exactly what is happening to ensure that we are getting underneath the overall strategy and reaching children who do not fall within the broader definition but nevertheless should not fall outside our efforts.
I would welcome that information.
Good morning—I think that it is still morning. I want to take you back to the point on child care that Mary Mulligan started with earlier. Some witnesses have expressed concern about the impact of the loss of ring-fenced funding on the provision of child care by local authorities. For example, Fife Gingerbread, which is a group that I know fairly well, stated in written evidence:
"Although considerable Scottish Government funds have previously been made available for the development of childcare, as of 2008, these funds are no longer ring-fenced for that purpose".
How is the Scottish Government monitoring the loss of ring-fenced funding to provide child care? What outcomes have so far been found?
Obviously, I have just spoken a bit about single outcome agreements. I am not going to get into a debate about the removal or not of ring fencing. I suspect that nobody wants me to do that.
Please do not.
We have the relationship that we have with local authorities. We fund local authorities and are providing them with increased funding over the spending review period. It is for them, mindful of the Scottish Government's objectives in the national performance framework and so on, to ensure that they deliver locally.
We will of course look at and evaluate the single outcome agreements. The draft single outcome agreements for the next financial year are being looked at and discussed with local authorities as we speak. As I said earlier, we have made very clear in the guidance to community planning partnerships that one of the strategies that should be reflected in single outcome agreements is the early years framework. Clearly, child care and child issues are very much at the heart of what we expect to see in single outcome agreements for the next year.
I appreciate the focus on single outcome agreements. I understand and welcome that. You said earlier that your previous work life was connected very much with the voluntary sector. A lot of child care is provided by that sector. Do you acknowledge that there is extreme pressure on some of that child care provision, now that there is less certainty—at least, in the voluntary sector's view—about where their funding is coming from?
Again, from personal experience, I know that the voluntary sector always works under pressure. It does a great job, and we value it very strongly. Funding to local authorities has increased and funding to the voluntary sector has increased in line with that. If anybody wants to bring us particular examples of lack of funding, we will of course look at them. However, I repeat that it is for local government to ensure that it funds and provides the services locally that meet its local needs and to ensure that the objectives that the Government sets can be met. That is the responsibility of local government. We give local authorities the funding to do that and their responsibility is to use it in that way.
Good morning, cabinet secretary—it is still morning, just. I would like to follow up a question that Duncan McNeil posed earlier on the issue of a living wage. I take your point that the Scottish Government does not have control of the benefits system. We might have an argument on another day about whether that is the correct approach to take. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government has a great deal of influence—not to say opportunity for direction—in agreeing the concordat with local government. Is there an opportunity for the Scottish Government to show its commitment to tackling poverty in general by making that a feature of the concordat with local government?
The overall concordat with local government—and, I would contend, the single outcome agreements with individual local authorities and community planning partnerships—prioritises the tackling of poverty. The fairer Scotland fund, which we have not mentioned yet, aims to regenerate communities by tackling individual poverty and helping people back into work. Those objectives should be and are at the heart of the agreements that local government has with central Government.
I have made my views on the general issue of the living wage known. You have put your finger on an important point regarding the tension that can exist between devolved and reserved responsibilities. Another example that has been mentioned this morning, although not in any detail, is the kinship carers allowance. If we gave kinship carers a bigger allowance, without relevant changes to the benefits system all that would happen is that the money would be clawed back through the system. We would end up subsidising the benefits system, not increasing people's incomes. The same issues arise in relation to the idea of a living wage, although that is not to say that it is not something that we should explore. From my earlier comments, you can take it that I am enthusiastic about ensuring that the public sector—whether local authorities, the NHS or whatever—is playing its full part in tackling poverty.
However, there are two points to make further to that, on which you may wish to comment. First, if there is a benefits trap—our evidence suggests that there is—one of the ways in which we could encourage people who are on benefits to get into work is to ensure that the wage that they would receive would allow them to get out of the benefits trap. That is one lever that the Scottish Government has with which it could address that issue, which we all recognise. I would have thought that the Scottish Government would use that lever.
Secondly, we seem to be saying that particular local authorities are taking forward the initiative. I do not believe that the Scottish Government would want disparities to begin to appear between local authority areas in relation to the minimum rate of pay at which people could expect to be employed by local authorities.
On your first point, I agree with you generally that there is influence to be exercised there. I think that I have made my views on that fairly clear.
On your second point, we have a relationship with local government whereby we allow local government to fulfil its responsibilities and to be accountable for the way in which it does that. Given your views, I am sure that you will make it clear to your local government colleagues and to those in other local authorities that you think that they should follow the example of Glasgow City Council. I dare say that others will do likewise. Nevertheless, we must recognise the fundamental responsibility of local authorities to make their own decisions.
The NHS, which I have mentioned, is in a different position from that of local authorities. Most of those who work in the NHS are already paid at or above the £7-an-hour minimum wage that has now been set in Glasgow, but there are some who are not. That is an issue that we have to think about.
It strikes me that there is a great deal of inconsistency. On the one hand, the Scottish Government can criticise Westminster for not using the benefits system as the Scottish Government would deem appropriate or for not giving the Scottish Government the power to use the system in such a way. On the other hand, when you have a lever at your disposal, you are not particularly inclined to use it. You say that the health service, in which you have some control over pay, will pay at £7 an hour or above. Do you agree that it is iniquitous to suggest that another part of the public sector in which levers are available to you will not do so as well?
With respect, that is not what I am saying. I am simply recognising the reality that local authorities are autonomous within their spheres of responsibility. I know that there is some disagreement and conflict within other parties that are represented in the Parliament about whether that is a good or a bad thing, but it is clear to me that it is for local authorities to take decisions in the areas for which they are responsible. We all have opinions about the decisions that local authorities take or do not take, but such decisions are their responsibility.
We will have a couple of brief questions from Mary Mulligan and John Wilson. John will finish the evidence session, which he also began.
My question relates to the issue of the living wage. The cabinet secretary has responsibility for staff employed by the Scottish Government or its agencies. What percentage of those staff are employed through employment agencies, rather than directly?
I cannot provide the statistic off the top of my head, but I am sure that I can get it for the member. I am also sure that it is not hugely different from the figure under the previous Administration.
When was that? It seems a long time ago.
I would not know whether what the cabinet secretary has just said is true. Is the Government in a position to examine employment agencies' rates of pay? My experience is that they do not pay the same rates as the Government, so you may not be promoting a living wage when you have the ability to do so.
I will come back to the member with the statistic that she seeks, as I do not have it with me. The Scottish Government is reviewing its pay policy; that review will be published later this year. I have made my views on the issue clear, and there is no huge disagreement between us. Ultimately, the UK Government sets the level of the minimum wage. If members do not think that it is set high enough, perhaps they should say something about that. I would be more than happy to find some common ground with them on the level of the minimum wage.
As a member of the Scottish National Party, the cabinet secretary does not have the ability to lecture us on the minimum wage.
Actually, I think that I do.
We will move on. John Wilson has a question.
I understand that Glasgow City Council, under Steven Purcell, has introduced a minimum wage, not a living wage. We need to be careful about the terminology that we use. I have worked for an organisation that promoted a living wage and know all about Unison's campaign in London for a living wage for the 2012 Olympics. There are clear differences in definition between a minimum wage and a living wage.
My question follows on from those of Mary Mulligan. Would the Scottish Government be prepared to ask the UK Government to consider raising the minimum wage to the same level that Steven Purcell has suggested for Glasgow's workers? When the national minimum wage was introduced in 1999, the UK Government department that was instructed to administer it admitted that many of its staff were not being paid the minimum wage that had been set. Currently, the UK minimum wage is £5.90 an hour. If we introduce a minimum wage and ask for that to be imposed throughout the public sector and the Government, the cabinet secretary could ask the UK Government to ask the Low Pay Commission to consider setting the national minimum wage at a level that is more appropriate than the current one.
I will discuss that suggestion with my colleagues. The committee may also want to pronounce on the matter in its report. John Wilson is right to make the point that a living wage should not necessarily be equated with the minimum wage.
Our economic advisers might have something to say about that. Anyway, there is a debate to be had.
This is not a plea for money, but you will be aware that we have been taking evidence on equal pay. Glyn Hawker of Unison told us last week that, fundamentally, the issue of equal pay is about taking women working in the public sector out of poverty. She said that an increasing majority of women who are in poverty are in work and that it is "a scandal" that many women in that situation work in the public sector in Scotland. In your remit as cabinet secretary, do you accept that equal pay is about taking women out of poverty?
Yes.
Can you use your role to bring a focus on the issue? I am aware of the argument about who provides the funding, but there is a logjam at this point which, if it is released, could put serious money in the pockets of some of the lowest-paid people in Scotland. Can you use your position and influence to help to break that logjam.
It does not fall within my Cabinet portfolio responsibilities, but I am more than happy to raise that point with colleagues. Some local authorities have resolved equal pay issues, but that does not apply so much to others.
I was talking about the public sector, and Glyn Hawker represents people in local authorities and the NHS, where there are 12,600 claims.
Indeed—there is an issue in the NHS. Some cases have not come to hearing yet. I am very much aware of the issue in the NHS, but there is nothing that I can add to this discussion that would give you information that you do not already have.
Can you show us an example from the NHS of a better way of dealing with the issue and fast-tracking it?
I am more than happy to look into the suggestion that you are making and to come back to the committee.
Thank you.
That is the end of the questioning. Thank you very much for being with us for this item, cabinet secretary—and you will be staying with us for some further items. I also thank your officials for attending; they are going to change round now.