Official Report 690KB pdf
Welcome back. We now move to agenda item 6, which is a pre-budget scrutiny evidence session.
I welcome to the meeting Leah Duncan-Karrim, who is the policy and influencing lead at One Parent Families Scotland, and Adam Stachura, who is the associate director of policy, communications and external affairs at Age Scotland.
We hope to be joined online by Fiona Collie, who is the head of public affairs and communications at Carers Scotland, and Allan Faulds, who is the senior policy officer at the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland—known as the ALLIANCE. There are some technical difficulties, but we hope that they will join us during the course of this morning’s meeting.
Jeremy Balfour will ask the first questions.
The Scottish Government is spending £1.4 billion more on social security than it received in the block grant adjustment. If that additional spending affects the group that you represent, how does it do so?
I will speak about the effect that it has had on children and young people growing up in families that are in receipt of additional spending in Scotland. In recent years, a number of payments, such as the Scottish child payment, have had substantial impacts on families, as will the forthcoming mitigation of the two-child limit.
Families tell us that they can now afford things that are essential to their households, such as the shopping that they need, as they have more choice about what they buy. They are also able to afford the heating bills and can ensure that their children have opportunities to do things such as extracurricular activities, because their budget allows that little bit of extra space.
The impact on the quality of life of families who were living in poverty in Scotland and who are now not living in poverty as a result of those payments is immeasurable.
That spending relates to a lot of things that older people—including people who are over the age of 50 and receive the state pension—will need. With regard to Mr Balfour’s question, spending more on the social security system has demonstrated what Scotland can do differently from the rest of the UK—that is how the system is set up. It is likely that, at some point, we will be spending more than the UK Government had set out to spend. The ability to do that was critical to devolution—first with regard to the Scotland Act 1998 and subsequently to the powers that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government wanted to gain.
With regard to either extra spend or critical spend, it is important to recall what happened last winter with the removal of the winter fuel payment, the inability to deliver a pension-age winter heating payment, and the negative impact that that had on the lives of low and modest-income pensioners in Scotland. Before then, almost four in 10 pensioners were living in fuel poverty—the biggest group in Scotland that is affected by fuel poverty is older people, but there is hardly mention of that fact in fuel poverty strategies or actions by the Scottish Government. That proportion skyrocketed last winter. Resuming that payment, or returning money to people to help support them through the winter, will make a big difference, but the best that it might do is bring us back to the level of fuel poverty that we had before. There are, therefore, things that we might want to do more of to help address those issues.
I do not know whether Allan Faulds has heard the question. I will go on, and maybe he can come in in a moment.
Our witnesses who are online have had some technical difficulties, but I have just been told that Allan Faulds has joined us.
Okay. I would like to develop this issue with all three witnesses. Last week, I asked witnesses whether our social security spend should be more targeted towards those in need instead of being universal. We have seen today that there has been overspend in some benefits. Would it be better to focus the benefits on those who are in most need and give less to those who perhaps do not need it as much, or is the universalist methodology that the Government has followed the right one?
Who is that question for, Jeremy?
Maybe we should start with Adam, since he was looking bemused.
I will avoid looking at you now, in case you ask me further questions.
The universality element is important. The Scottish Government has adopted that as its position. We also know that we can miss a huge number of people who need something by drawing sometimes quite draconian lines where we think lines are necessary. I go back to the example of the pension-age winter heating payment or the former winter fuel payment. At one time, the only criterion for receiving those was going to be the receipt of pension credit, but half a million pensioners in Scotland have incomes that are too low to pay income tax. That means that 350,000 pensioners are not entitled to pension credit although they demonstrably have very low incomes.
We do not have the right mechanisms to work out who is the most needy. Over the past year or so, I have found it very hard to get any kind of assessment from politicians, the Government or others about where the line of need is.
Everyone’s circumstances are different. Income and wealth can look very different to different people, and needs can be more severe than they appear to be. I do not think that we necessarily have sophisticated means for determining who is and is not needy.
I think that lots of people, irrespective of their income or wealth—which might not be liquid—will be in need of social security support, and it is important that we do not just find lines to draw that are so low that very few people get it. I do not think that we have cracked that issue yet; I do not think that anybody has worked out where the line of need is.
Does anyone else want to come in on that point?
I think that there is a place for both approaches. For example, we know that the Scottish child payment is making a huge difference to lots of different family types. However, we are five years away from the 2030 statutory child poverty targets, and at the moment it does not look like we are on track to meet them.
When we look at targeted interventions in social security, we do not find many. Next year, we will be looking at the mitigation of the two-child limit, which is for larger families. However, we also know that child poverty rates are significantly higher among single-parent families, families with a child under the age of one and families with a disabled child.
There is more that can be done in relation to targeted spend for groups that specifically need it. For example, the child poverty rate for single-parent families is 36 per cent, compared to 23 per cent for all families with children. There is a distinction to be made between where universal provision has an impact and where targeted support might be needed.
I have a final question. In the next few months, the winter heating payment and the carers additional person payment will be introduced, and there is the possibility of the two-child limit on payments being mitigated. Given the financial context that we are in, do any of you have a view on the priorities for those particular payments? Are there other priorities that could or should be met as well?
I will bring in Allan Faulds, as he has not had the opportunity to put anything on the record.
Good morning, folks. In the short term, we would agree with that prioritisation of the things that are coming up. In particular, we welcome the new carers additional person payment. Although that will be a very small additional sum, it is still an additional bit of money for people who are caring for multiple people, which we strongly welcome. Given that the value of that will be quite small in relation to the Scottish Government’s budget but it will be an improvement to people’s lives, it is a good thing to take forward without having too much of an impact on other stuff.
We also welcome the two-child limit mitigation payment coming in, although it remains the case that the UK Government should ideally abolish that at the source. That is a restriction that should never have been introduced in the first place. Perhaps there will be something about that in the UK budget, which we would certainly welcome.
It is good to see the winter heating payment being brought forward. With regard to the previous point, the universality approach is quite positive, because there was a lot of confusion last winter. The confusion was a huge problem—people had the payment suddenly taken away and were told a few weeks later that they would get it again but only in the following year. That kind of uncertainty in relation to the payments that people are able to get has not been particularly helpful.
On things that could be prioritised in the near future, we would refer to some of the recommendations that were in the “Independent Review of Adult Disability Payment”, particularly the recommendation to effectively abolish the 50 per cent and 20m rules. We have long called for those rules to be abolished; they are arbitrary and unfair, and they do not represent the realities of the conditions that people live with. We particularly emphasise that the 20m rule fails to take account of things such as pain and exhaustion, which obviously have a significant impact on how people are able to get about. We are glad that the independent review picked that up. There would be resource implications to removing those rules—that is kind of the point, because we would like more people to be able to access those payments.
Another priority would be to increase the earnings limit for the carer support payment. The Scottish Government had intended to do that once it got to the point of having done all the case transfers. The UK Government beat it to the punch by increasing the limit itself, which had financial flow-through that enabled the Scottish Government to replicate that decision. However, the Scottish Government should not consider that job to be done. If the policy intention was to put in place a more generous earnings threshold for the carer support payment than existed at the UK level, that should be followed through, and the earnings threshold in Scotland should be increased again.
Considering that the value of the carer support payment in Scotland, plus the supplement is about £5,000 and the earnings threshold is about £10,000, there is a gap for incomes between £10,000 and £15,000 in which people taking on additional hours, even if they want to do that, will end up losing money. We suggest that bringing the earnings limit closer to the £15,000 point would make more sense in making sure that the payment is effective and goes to the people who need it.
I am done with my questions, deputy convener. I should have declared that I am on ADP at the higher rate.
Thank you, Mr Balfour. We are about to move on, but if either Leah Duncan-Karrim or Adam Stachura would like to make a short, pithy comment on the question, please come in—I apologise that we are a bit short of time.
The two-child limit mitigation is fundamentally an issue of rights. Although we recognise that the issue originates from UK Government policy, this Parliament unanimously passed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and, within that, children have a specific right to social security. Fundamentally, the mitigation is about ensuring that all children will be able to access that right, regardless of their family size.
Your point is that that is the correct priority to pursue.
Yes.
10:00
The priorities are set and I would not change anything. If anything, we would like there to be more social security for people in areas where we think there is an injustice or an imbalance in the benefits that they receive. For instance, we think that a mobility component should be considered for PADP. It may not need to be exactly the same as someone would get under ADP or what they would have received from the personal independence payment, but the idea of a benefit award being based on when someone has become disabled is essentially ageist, and the idea that receiving a state pension mitigates someone’s disability is unfair.
We could be doing a lot more with the winter heating payment for people who live in cold parts of Scotland. The universality of the payment is welcome, but we are missing people on extremely low incomes living in the coldest parts of the country who previously would have received a lot more social security and benefit payments on average. I think that there are quite a lot of things that are missing for that group of people, as well as older carers. I do not necessarily come to the committee with helpful suggestions about what we might prioritise or cut, but I would say that perhaps we are not doing enough.
The clarity is helpful, although it may not be helpful with balancing the budget. Your point is that there should be additional priorities, rather than different priorities, which feeds in nicely to our next theme.
I have been asked to talk a wee bit about balancing the budget. The panel might know that, in previous evidence sessions, we heard that the budget will be under severe pressure, so it is important that we look at that.
The Scottish Government has set out plans to meet the expected shortfall between funding and spending across all public services. How can we ensure that any budget cuts, made in part to afford social security spending, do not affect the very people that social security spending is intended to help across the portfolio?
That is a difficult question. There are different responsibilities for a lot of the spending areas across Scotland. For instance, integration joint boards across the country are reducing spending significantly, which is detrimental to the lives of people who are disabled, older people or those living with dementia, because they do not have the same access to services that they had previously. They are likely to be in receipt of social security, but their health outcomes could become poorer, so they might become a bigger strain or burden on the NHS. Social care spend is not keeping up with anything near the amount that we need it to, so the burden will shift.
Decisions are made by local authorities, IJBs, health and social care partnerships and others that will have a big impact on people’s lives. I go back to the point that, whether it is closing community centres, day care centres or restricting access to the eligibility criteria for receiving social care packages, the decision-making process is hidden and there is limited accountability or responsibility. It is hard to work out how things have happened or who is responsible, so it is difficult for the public to scrutinise those decisions. Although the Scottish Government might have measures and levers at its disposal, other organisations in Scottish public life and public services make decisions that could run counter to its aspirations and there are no mechanisms to challenge or understand those decisions. Those decisions create other issues that bodies, such as those in the health system, then have to deal with.
I will bring in Fiona Collie, who has just managed to get online. I am not sure whether you heard the question. In essence, as we try to meet the shortfall in the block grant in Scotland’s social security investment, that could impact other services elsewhere and it could lead to cuts. It could also have a detrimental impact on the groups of people that we are trying to help with additional cash payments. Do you have any reflections on that, Fiona?
I will add to what Adam Stachura said. It is a challenge that different parts of the system are doing different things that can cause harm to individuals and create harm elsewhere.
We have increasingly found that caring is a social determinant of health, but so much of that is linked to poverty. We also know from the Scottish Fiscal Commission that the level of poor health among carers at the peak age of caring is increasing at a rate that will cause a problem with providing individuals with social care and unpaid care in the future. The Scottish Government and its partners are keen to look at investment, including social security, to develop care in a cohesive way that looks at those interdependencies and outcomes across all policy areas.
Carers Scotland and the other organisations that are here today are part of a Scotland that cares and talks about developing a national outcome on care and caring. That would look at where and how we invest those funds across the system so that we have fewer of the unintended consequences that Adam Stachura mentioned—it would be optimistic to say that we would not have any of those. A national outcome might not be a panacea, but it could look at a co-ordinated way of making public policy and at how we invest in individual areas and those interdependencies.
There is a point here that our politics have come back to again and again since 2010—when cuts are made to one area, they have knock-on effects in other areas. The previous UK Government’s welfare reforms just made people’s health worse, did not lead to savings and meant that people became more reliant on the NHS and other services. In this scenario, we are flipping it about and investing in social security, but do we then reduce spending on other public services and will that impact upon people’s rights and their lives?
I will be slightly cheeky and partly reject the premise of the question. We acknowledge that there is a budget and that it needs to be balanced. We recognise that there are financial difficulties at the moment, but if the Government fully recognised that, perhaps it should not do things like straitjacketing itself with a commitment to a tax strategy not to touch income tax for the rest of the parliamentary session. Perhaps it should finally make some serious progress with the reform of local taxation, which is long overdue. I always make the point that I was not even a one year old when council tax valuations were made. If the Government were to address the long-standing problems with the tax system and increase the amount of revenue and resources that are available, it would not necessarily need to make as many decisions on whether to cut X in order to invest in Y.
If it is essentially a choice between making cuts and modest tax changes, we suggest that the Government’s priority should be making tax changes to meet the obligation to deploy maximum available resource and to deliver on human rights, rather than it saying that the current budget needs to be kept where it is and that cuts should be made accordingly.
Carol, do you want to come back in on any of that?
I will, because my next question links to what Allan Faulds was saying. Is there a way in which we could consider human rights in how we balance the budget? Part of what we are scrutinising today is how to balance the budget, and Allan has made some interesting points in that regard. Does anyone else want to comment on the point about how we can use human rights to help us to achieve that?
Leah Duncan-Karrim mentioned that in an earlier answer. Do you want to expand on that, Leah?
Absolutely. Even before the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, the Scottish Government was under international legal obligations not to allow rights to regress in Scotland, and it has to prove every year how it will further that objective. Children’s rights have to be a key consideration in the budget and that is what children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessments are for, particularly at a time when we are looking at potential financial changes. Those assessments are there as an indicator and they have to be done meaningfully, which means that ensuring that the participation of children and young people is at the centre of any decisions that are taken. The assessments should be done in advance, meaningfully understood and no decision should be taken until then.
As an aside—this is an important point—as an organisation that represents single-parent families, we know that 92 per cent of single parents are women and women’s rights budgeting goes alongside what we have been talking about. If we get budgeting right for women, we also get it right for their children.
As no other witnesses want to come in, Carol do you want to add anything before we move on?
No. That was very helpful. Thank you.
Fiona Collie, there is more support for carers in Scotland than there is in any other part of the UK. How impactful are the changes to the carers allowance supplement, the changes for students, the young carers grant and the plans on caring for more than one person, and what more can be done?
The changes to support for carers are really welcome—particularly those that extend eligibility and add value. We have seen improvements, but some of those are softer improvements. The level of carers allowance supplement, for example, has enabled carers to deal with additional costs at certain points. However, the gap between the allowance and the additional costs is becoming smaller as a result of the increased cost of living, and I note that the carers support payment remains one of the lowest benefits—it is very, very low.
We can beat around the bush and say that Scotland and Social Security Scotland are doing well. Yes, we are doing better, but even with the improvements, including increased eligibility and the improvements that are coming down the line for those who care for more than one person, the reality is that more than a quarter of carers are living in poverty. Furthermore, they are 56 per cent more likely to be living in poverty than non-carers. For those who are also on means-tested benefits such as universal credit, the poverty rate is more than 60 per cent. Therefore, these are welcome developments, as are the changes that are coming in this parliamentary term, but the value remains too low, and I do not think that any of us could say that the value of carers support payment in any way enables carers to offset the costs of or their contribution to social care in Scotland.
Thanks, Fiona. Do not get me started on the lack of reform to carers allowance since it was first introduced to the UK in 1975. Your submission mentioned the overlapping benefits rule, which is a real issue. Do you have any concerns that trying to fix that might have an impact on pension credit entitlement, which is means tested?
Any attempt to fix the overlapping benefits rule would need to involve both Governments and co-operation. We have seen what has happened over the years when the two Governments do not work together in relation to social security, which creates additional complexity and anxiety for individuals. Fixing that issue will involve both Governments, because, ultimately, we want to make social security—whether it is in the reserved or the devolved system—as easy as possible for individuals to claim.
There are opportunities in the system in Scotland to look at how we support older carers, for example, who lose their carers support payment. We get huge amounts of correspondence from individuals who express a great deal of anger about that, given that their caring role continues. Are there opportunities to look at something such as a recognition payment for older carers? Previously, both Governments worked together to offset carers allowance supplement so that it cannot be taken off reserved or devolved benefits. There are opportunities, but they would require both Governments to work together.
That is really helpful. In the interest’s of time, I hand back to the convener.
Thank you. I call Elena Whitham.
Leah Duncan-Karrim, how can we reduce the need for child payments? It seems that the only way that we could do that is by increasing parents’ employability options. How tricky is that?
The committee has previously done an inquiry into employability for parents across Scotland, and the picture is very patchy. How do we ensure that support is in place to reduce demand? How do we ensure that parents do not face a cliff edge when they move into work, particularly when they lose Scottish child payment eligibility?
10:15
In an ideal Scotland, it would be possible for all parents to access employment if they want it. Unfortunately, a number of systemic barriers make that quite challenging.
Sixty-six per cent of single parents are in some form of employment, whether that is full time or part time. It can be very challenging. For example, if you are a single parent and want to work full time, you might have to cover full-time childcare costs, which can be the equivalent of the best part of your wage. That can make it very tricky to access full-time employment. Carers can also find it difficult to work in long-term, sustainable and flexible employment. For example, they might have a six or seven-year-old who has additional needs and they might need to go into school a couple of times a week to support them. Flexible employment is really key. It is about ensuring that employment is tailored to parents’ needs, and understanding and recognising that caring is a legitimate need in our society.
For some parents, work is just not appropriate. There will always be parents in situations in which it is just not possible to work, part time or full time, because they have a child with complex needs. Social security is in place and needs to function effectively as a mechanism for families who need it, whether it is a bit of additional support on top of employment or their primary income. Unfortunately, it is not as straightforward as saying that parents who want to work are able to.
It helps to have on record the structural barriers that are in place across the country. That is why what is available in local areas is such a patchy picture. That gets to the heart of what Adam Stachura and others have said about the decisions on where to prioritise the spend. Do you look at the Scottish child payment as scaffolding infrastructure that is in place to help families at any point? Should we not look at that? How do we reduce spend in that area?
Originally, the Scottish child payment was introduced in recognition that the child element of universal credit was insufficient for families and their needs. There needs to be a broader conversation on cross-Government collaboration on the issue, but the Scottish child payment is a scaffolding for families and is essential. When it came in, families told us that it allowed them a bit of extra wiggle room in a budget; now, in some cases, they tell us that they could not afford their weekly shop without it.
As we look towards the next election, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has done modelling that looks at the Scottish child payment and whether a targeted additional element would be possible for families—particularly single-parent families, families with a baby under the age of one and families with a disabled child—who potentially face additional barriers to things such as employment. It is not always as simple as parents saying that they want to increase their hours at work, because that is not always possible.
I wonder whether Fiona Collie has anything to add from a carer’s perspective. Leah, you touched on carers already, but I want to hear Carers Scotland’s perspective.
I echo absolutely everything that has been said. Parent carers with a disabled child and carers who are responsible for a child under 18 face greater poverty. Many of them even miss out on the support of the Scottish child payment.
A bigger conversation is to be had about what support employers should and could provide. The Government’s investment in the carer positive scheme means that around half a million employees are being supported by participating employers more effectively, but that is only part of the picture. If you cannot get accessible childcare in your area, no matter what your employer does, it is very hard to balance work and care.
We need to do more with employers in that area, and more with public commissioning. When money is being invested from the Scottish budget, there should be an expectation that employers look carefully at how they support, from our perspective, carers in employment, but also at how they provide family-friendly, flexible working more widely that enables people to balance work and their caring responsibilities, whether that is for children with disabilities, for children without disabilities or for adults.
We have heard from you in your submissions, and from previous witnesses, that organisations would like to see eligibility criteria extended to cover more people, and potentially an increase in some benefits, which would help individuals in your sectors or the areas that you deal with.
Those matters are relevant, and there is no question but that they need to be looked at. However, if you think that the eligibility criteria should be broadened and there should be further spend across the sector, how would you suggest that we could afford that additional spending on Scottish social security payments beyond what we already have in place?
This week, we have seen documentation on how the whole thing is blossoming and we are continuing to potentially move into overspend, if we have not already. If much more is required in the specific areas that your organisations are considering, how would it be possible to afford additional spend on current policies?
Perhaps I can bring in Adam Stachura first, because he has rightly set out what the additional priorities should be. We may come to Allan Faulds after that, given that he made some suggestions earlier, if that is okay.
I am content with that.
It is a very good question. Audit Scotland’s “Adult Disability Payment” report, which was published today, talks about the extension of the ADP by the end of the decade. I suppose, slightly counterintuitively, that I would not necessarily describe it as overspending—it is just spending based on what the criteria are.
Thinking about the social security spend in Scotland over time, there has been more of that as more benefits come to Scotland as part of the anticipated package, so the numbers go up. We can look at that as a bad thing, but it is what was expected.
A lot of the money for that is coming from the UK Government, and there are margins within each benefit, or in most of them, where Scotland has decided that it will do a little bit more by increasing the payment or the eligibility. That spend is there to meet the need, and the organisations that we represent, and the many more that will come to see the committee, and which have appeared before the committee over the years, see the need that exists in communities. People see where the gaps are and the injustices and challenges that people face, and advocate—rightly, I think—that we may not be doing enough.
On your point about where spend might be cut, I would never come to the committee with suggestions for that, but we might want to look at how we can spend money better in some places. It is not about just saying straight up, “We’ll stop doing this thing.” With regard to some Scottish Government priorities, whether it is public service reform or other areas, we might look at where we are not necessarily wasting money, but spending more than we need to. Where is spending unaccountable? Are there initiatives in which tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds have been invested that do not float, or do anything else, yet? How are we ensuring that the money that we are spending is having the right outcome?
I suggest that the social security budgets, along with the budgets for health and care, education and other areas, are absolutely necessary for citizens in Scotland, but we could maybe look at how the rest of the £60 billion is spent.
Rather than the hyperbole that we get sometimes—not necessarily from you, Mr Stewart—that says, “Look how much more we’re spending,” we should be saying that the spend is expected. Most of it is coming from elsewhere, but a good chunk is coming from Scotland to do more of what it wants for its intended outcomes.
As a starting point, I refer back to something that I said to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee last week, during its pre-budget scrutiny: it sometimes feels as though the approach that we take to public spending across the UK is back to front. We often consider what levels of taxation we think are acceptable, what levels of taxation we think we should have, and then, based on the money that that would raise, what services we can deliver.
Instead, we should consider the kind of society that we want to live in, the human rights obligations that we have and what we need to deliver to meet those obligations. Only then, once we know what kind of society we want to live in, should we talk about how we build a taxation and revenue-raising system that delivers on those obligations and principles.
As I mentioned earlier, perhaps we need to be open to making more changes to income tax if that is what is needed to raise additional revenues. I also do not think that we should underestimate the potential for additional revenues that could come from fixing local taxation and finding a long-overdue solution to that. If we had a stronger local tax system—there are various views on how to do that—and councils were less stretched and their services were being cut less, that might free up money at a national level that could then be invested in different areas.
I did not come in earlier on this point, but I suppose that it is relevant here—a human rights budgeting approach should absolutely be central. We should be thinking about what kind of society we want to live in. I emphasise that human rights budgeting is not a tool for deciding on cuts to essential public services, but there are ways in which it might identify things that do not have a particular human rights basis. If the Government is spending on something and it cannot see what human rights it is meaningfully contributing to realising, whether those are rights to education, health, social security, employment, participation in society, or any number of other rights, perhaps that thing is not a priority.
To refer to an example that I gave to the Finance and Public Administration Committee last year—I admit that this is more on the capital rather than the resource side of things—does road building have as much of a human rights bang for our buck as house building? We need to think about those issues and to ask how we can increase the revenues that we have to deliver on the society that we want to live in. As Adam Stachura said, there might be ways to spend the money that we already have more smartly to deliver on those rights.
Following on from that, which areas of policy would the witnesses like to be prioritised for additional spending? Should those areas be higher priorities for public spending than areas such as health and social care, which Adam Stachura mentioned?
I echo everything that has been said. We need to think about things in a different way, including how we measure outcomes. We are great—well, perhaps not great, but we are good—at data, but we are not very good at measuring outcomes across the piece. We certainly believe that we need to think about social security in its widest sense in relation to being bold and developing a minimum income guarantee. Sometimes when we talk about a minimum income guarantee, people think that that means more spending and so on, but what we are actually talking about is minimum expectations for individuals in relation to their income. The issue is also about how we reduce costs.
There are opportunities there, and we should think about how we can pilot some of those opportunities. The minimum income guarantee expert group made recommendations on the building blocks that are necessary for us to start moving in that direction. As Allan Faulds said, that is partly to do with how we fund our public services. Taxation is also part of that, as is how we support people into employment and provide them with the right support for their children.
On short-term support, we certainly think that there is a gap for parents with a disabled child who are not currently on a means-tested benefit. Their costs are significantly higher, particularly for accessible childcare, but at the moment they do not qualify for the Scottish child payment. That is a very specific issue for that group.
Do the witnesses have any low-cost, high-impact suggestions for how we can improve Scottish social security?
Leah, do you want to take up the cudgels on that?
Yes. I have two points to make. On prioritisation for additional spending, I do not think that the question is how we can reduce the cost of the Scottish child payment. As part of the End Child Poverty coalition, we are looking for the Scottish child payment to be raised to £40 at the earliest opportunity, because that would lift 15,000 children in Scotland out of poverty. Although budgetary constraints are a factor, if we have the opportunity to lift children out of poverty to give them better long-term outcomes, the question is: how, on a human level, can we afford not to?
10:30On low-cost, high-impact suggestions, a number of families who are entitled to current social security provisions do not always receive them. For example, the uptake of benefits is significantly lower in ethnic minority communities. One solution to that would be to look at income maximisation services and to think about how we can get alongside communities in a way that is appropriate for them, that meets their needs, that makes things accessible in a way that works for them and that ensures that they receive everything that they are entitled to. That would have a significant impact on child poverty levels in particular communities but would not necessarily cost very much.
As this might be our final question, I will ensure that every witness gets the opportunity to put on the record the low-cost, high-impact suggestions that they want to see.
It depends on your definition of “low-cost”. I am not entirely sure that we have easy fixes for such issues. In Scotland, we have a long-term challenge in relation to our national health—not our national health service, but the health of the nation—which will drive the challenges that we face at various stages in our lives or in later life. That will draw resources from the NHS, social care and other places. Therefore, it is difficult to suggest that there will be one or two quick fixes.
In relation to Leah Duncan-Karrim’s point, the Scottish Government should look more at how it could work with the UK Government—we heard about this from Fiona Collie—to increase the uptake of things such as pension credit. I do not think that this committee has ever heard anything from the UK Government to suggest that, if Scotland did more in that area, money would be taken away. It is not accurate to suggest that that is the case. Such joint working could open the door for people to receive more income, and the cost of doing that would be very low, because some of the spend comes from elsewhere. That would provide an opportunity to lift people out of poverty.
There are 70,000 or 80,000 pensioners in Scotland who are entitled to claim pension credit who are not doing so. Scotland has done almost nothing on that. We could have awareness campaigns or anti-stigma campaigns. More support could be provided for income maximisation to help people to apply to get the support that they need. The provision of a bit of money for that might help the level of spend in other areas, such as health and care, across the country.
Scotland should commit to doing something significant with the UK Government on pension credit uptake, because it is a gateway to some of the social security that Scotland is responsible for, such as the higher rate of the pension-age winter heating payment and the winter heating payment, which are things that we do not do anything on. It would not take much money to transform people’s lives, but we seem to be absolutely unwilling to touch those areas, which is wrong.
From the ALLIANCE’s perspective, we probably do not have low-cost, high-impact suggestions; ours are probably high cost and high impact, because a lot of our focus is on disability payments and carers payments. The changes that I suggested—addressing the 20m and 50 per cent rules and increasing the earnings threshold for carers allowance—would probably have significant resource implications. However, some of the suggestions that other witnesses have made, such as improving uptake of benefits among ethnic minority communities, would be a good approach to take and would probably have very high impacts for quite low costs.
I will finish with a more general point that I did not get the chance to make earlier. We need to be aware of the fact that social security does not work in isolation; it is part of a wider system. Part of what is driving the increased demand for disability payments—this is not true in every case, because lots of people have conditions and disabilities that are genetic, congenital or unpreventable—is relatively poor health. Scotland has significant levels of health inequality, and there is a lot that could be done in different portfolio areas to address those issues.
I do not have any quick fixes, but we ought to be aware of the need to look beyond social security and to think about how we can increase and improve the health of the wider population. The Scottish Government has its population health framework. If we can deliver in that area, rather than attempting to cut costs, that might help to constrain some of the growth in social security in a positive way.
Fiona, I am conscious that you missed out at the very start of the session. A question was asked about whether we had our priorities right for new social security spending. The carer additional person payment was discussed as part of that, along with other issues. I mention that just in case you would like to reflect on that in your answer.
It is right that the carer additional person payment is a priority. We know from the evidence that we have that those who care for more than one person face greater poverty than those who care for one person, so it is right to look at that. Extending the run-on for those who have been caring for someone with a terminal illness is absolutely the right priority, as Marie Curie research has been very clear on the poverty that they face.
In response to the question about low-cost, high-impact suggestions, we are a little bit like the ALLIANCE in that we have lots of high-cost, high-impact suggestions. The point about the need to understand the impact of health was well made. There has been investment in short breaks, and it would be good if targeted support could be provided for micro breaks to enable carers to address their health needs, because we know that 41 per cent of carers miss out on appointments and are unable to attend tests and screenings, including in primary and secondary care, which has significant consequences.
On the point about pension credit, the system for those who have an underlying entitlement to the carer support payment is very complex. People get a letter that says, “You’re entitled to carer support payment—we’re not going to pay it, but you might be eligible for pension credit.” Simplifying that system to enable more individuals to claim their entitlement to pension credit is a great example of something that would have low cost and high impact.
To go back to the point that I made about public commissioning, we should expect more companies that benefit from the public pound to support current and future employees to remain in or return to employment. With my organisation, we are talking about carers, but that could equally apply to parents and people with disabilities. We are missing a trick by not bedding that in.
Thank you, Fiona.
I thank all our witnesses for their helpful, focused and tight contributions, because we have landed within our timescale for completing the evidence session.
Next week, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice as part of our final pre-budget scrutiny evidence session.
10:38 Meeting continued in private until 11:10.Previous
Subordinate Legislation