Chamber and committees

Good morning. First, I apologise for not being able to join you in person, and I hope that you can pick up what I am saying from where you are. I also welcome both cabinet secretaries and their opening statements, which I found helpful.

My first question is probably for cabinet secretary Kate Forbes. You made the point that your budget is “not inflation proofed” and you set out the difficulties that you have in managing it. You are right to point out that it is about choices. Will you therefore set out why you chose to use the Barnett consequentials from the cost of living payments to give £150 each to basically the same group of people that the Tories chose to give it to, as opposed to targeting it to the four groups of people—pensioners, disabled people, carers and people on low incomes—who that payment could help to lift out of poverty, as the Scottish Labour Party suggested?

I am interested in why it would have taken nine months to make payments to people who are, for example, receiving the carers allowance supplement, because I assume that the Government already knows who and where those people are.

I also have a further question that falls under the theme of social security, but it is not related to my initial questions, so I will hold on to it.

I would appreciate that.

I appreciate that commitment, cabinet secretary. I take the point about striking the balance and not deluging people with a lot of information and letters. People do not want any more letters than absolutely necessary. If we can get the right balance between that and the current situation, which appears to be that people do not quite get enough information, that would be helpful.

My last question relates to social care charges. Is the cabinet secretary in a position to update the committee on whether she is aware of the number of people who are in debt because of such charges?

I am keen to talk a little about the child poverty delivery plan in the context of the flat cash allocations elsewhere, outside the social security portfolio.

Both cabinet secretaries have talked this morning about a 17 per cent rate of child poverty. However, they will be aware that both Save the Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published an independent analysis, the “Delivering for Families?” report, this week. The report said:

“it is hard to conclude that the”

child poverty

“Plan fully delivers a comprehensive set of activity that will meet its lofty ambitions. A stronger prescription is needed to meet the diagnosis.”

I think that the committee will concur with me that we have heard evidence from third sector organisations that the plan, while it had “lofty ambitions”, to use the term from the report, was a bit light on detail.

The independent report says that the Government is likely to miss the targets and that families might have to “freeze or eat”. Those are quite strong words, but they come from an independent analysis.

In the context of that report, will you comment on how you expect to meet the child poverty target? In particular, it appears that it took quite some time to get to the point of taking enough action, so it is possible that the only option now is the Scottish child payment, but I think that it is important to look elsewhere. What is the plan to meet those targets now that it looks as though you are going to miss them?

Thank you for that answer, cabinet secretary. Of course that is the case, and increasing employability options has to be the way forward so that people can get out of, and stay out of, poverty.

However, at this point, organisations are saying—as they were even at the beginning of the current session of Parliament—that action on reducing the structural inequality that exists in society has not been significant enough and that the only option was to use mechanisms such as the Scottish child payment.

I take your point that the organisations used slightly different modelling. Nonetheless, they state in the report that they used the same figures and modelling as the Government used and still could not get to the point that the Government got to.

I am interested to hear what more you are going to do to meet those targets. By the Government’s own estimate, we might just get there; independent analysis says that we will not. It is fair to say, therefore, that more action is needed. So, what other actions is the Government going to take?

Can you confirm whether the review will look at the three-year funding proposals? Can you update the committee on how you are implementing three-year funding proposals, particularly for money advice services?

Good morning, minister, and hello again, cabinet secretary. Thank you for your opening statements.

I wholly concur that high-quality advice is one of the most important issues. The committee has heard from various advice providers that they are absolutely burst at the seams. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland told us that staff working in the bureaux are actually going to bed at night worrying about the same money problems for which they are having to support people during the day. Money advice services are in a very difficult environment right now, but we have seen a 10-year decline in funding for those services. How will the cabinet secretary and the minister address that? Do they accept that people need more and not fewer services at this point?

I will ask a final question about data collection. Can you tell us about the impact on data collection of the legislation that you have brought in, particularly in relation to data on the representation of women on boards or anywhere else?

I am sorry to hear that that is the situation, but thank you for sharing it.

The other part of my question was about whether the move to self-identification has affected data about women.