Chamber and committees

The number of children who remain in persistent poverty is a concern. We are conscious that the statistics that we have do not yet capture the full roll-out and impact of measures such as the Scottish child payment and the expansion of funded early learning and childcare. We expect the levels to fall in future years.

The fact that persistent poverty data is refreshed annually, with rates and past years reviewed as new families enter the survey, makes it a volatile measure. However, as I am sure the committee expects, we are continuing to consider what steps can be taken to tackle deep and persistent poverty among families.

I point to the whole family holistic support work that is being done across Government to ensure that the services that are available are there for people when they need them, where they need them and to ensure that services work in a way that supports the whole family. Rather than looking at every single challenge or impact on a family, we are looking at how we assist a family in a much more holistic manner. I hope that those important policies, which involve systemic change, will assist in driving down persistent poverty statistics.

It is a sign of the fact that Scottish Government policies are having to work a lot harder to make an impact, given the social and economic context of continued austerity, particularly in relation to the welfare policies of successive UK Governments. Those findings are in line with the Scottish Government’s expectations, because a lot of the impacts of key policies such as the Scottish child payment took effect only from 2023-24. On that basis, we would not expect to see substantive reductions in long-term trends at this stage, but we anticipate that those will be more evident in future years.

The published statistics show that, although we have not met our interim child poverty targets, the proportion of children living in relative poverty reduced last year, with the rate being lower in 2023-24 than it has been since 2014-15. That demonstrates that one of Scotland’s Governments is working exceptionally hard against strong headwinds to eradicate child poverty, but our policies are having to work harder, given the context that we are in.

Aspects relating to the six priority families are very important. I will point to two areas of concern. I am particularly concerned about families with disabled children, given the impact of the changes that the UK Government plans to make—

We have a challenge, in that some of the levers are not under the Scottish Government’s direct control. However, before I turn to those, I will reflect on the wider economic context, which has an impact on everyone and means that our policies have to work a bit harder. I mentioned some of that briefly in my opening remarks.

If we look at Brexit alone, modelling by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research estimated a 2.5 per cent hit to gross domestic product because of Brexit in 2023, which increases to 5.7 per cent by 2035. For Scotland, that equates to a cut in public revenues across national, devolved and local governments of about £2.3 billion in 2023. That is one example. I could give many more on the impact that Brexit is having across society; I am sure that the member is already well aware of that.

We also have the on-going cost of living crisis. Inflation has disproportionately hit some of the most vulnerable people in our society. One of the major challenges that you referred to—you were right to do so—is that levers that could be used to assist in tackling child poverty are not being used.

The most concerning decision—it is not the only one—is the one that I mentioned in my opening remarks about cuts to disability benefits, which the UK Government’s own impact assessments estimate will put 50,000 children into poverty, and we still have no movement on eradicating the two-child cap. Those two policies alone—one that the UK Government is still refusing to get rid of and one that it is determined to bring in—will undoubtedly impact on the number of children in poverty, and the Scottish Government is determined to mitigate that impact.

With all those points, I would stress that it is modelling—that is, modelling that uses the best information that we have at the time. The Government has been clear that this is about keeping children out of poverty, so it is modelling on how to keep children out of poverty. The 40,000 figure is for the Scottish child payment, and the 70,000 figure is to do with the estimates for overall Scottish Government policies. That relates back to a question that Mr Doris raised earlier about estimating the differences that different policies will make.

The updated modelling reflects a number of new inputs, which are based on Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts and UK and Scottish Government policy announcements that were available prior to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring statement. In addition, the latest modelling, which was published in March, incorporated the family resources survey data for 2022-23 and refined methodology in relation to free school meals. Those all led to revisions in the estimates. When new information comes in, either from the OBR or through changes at fiscal events at the UK level, or when new data arrives through the family resources survey data—I understand that the committee has spoken about the importance of that in the past—and that new information or date is put into the modelling, the modelling will change. However, the modelling itself is robust.

Yes. A number of the aspects about procurement and meals in that example are for the local authority to decide on. We clearly have national standards when it comes to the nutritional value of food, but it is very much up to local authorities to deliver those. Members will be aware that the next expansion for free school meals is for those who receive the Scottish child payment in primary 6 and 7. That is an important area of work, and that more targeted approach is the next step, but we have that commitment to universalism, particularly in primary schools. You raise an important point about the take-up of that offer, which is another area that the Government needs to be concerned about.

As I said, I would be happy to provide further information in writing about the nuanced policy and its modelling of certain aspects. The NFUS was discussing food wastage, which is concerning for a number of reasons, including cost and the environment.

There is a clear need for us to look at how many children are taking the offer up and to bear in mind that we can have a universal policy, but if that policy is not being taken up, it does not cost any money unless the food is then being wasted. There is an aspect there about who is taking it up, how we pay for it at the Scottish Government and local authority level, and how those estimates are achieved.

We are committed to a full evaluation of the expansion to 1,140 hours of funded childcare, which will be published later this year. The interim evaluation report was published in August 2024 and showed promising signs that the expansion is delivering improvements to quality, affordability and flexibility. Clearly, other work is going on in the school-age childcare programme, including the extra time programme, which is funded in partnership with the Scottish Football Association, bright start breakfast clubs and so on. That work is complemented by the insights from the early adopter communities.

It is important that we look at the work that is being undertaken in the large-scale expansions that are part of the 1,140 hours of provision, as well as the evidence on the extra time programme and other on-going work. The evaluation will allow us to be able to design further expansion based on what works, what families are looking for, and whether those types of programmes are delivering what families need and want, with the clear knowledge that not all families need the same type of childcare that is provided in the same way. From my visits to the early adopter communities, I am cognisant that some of the programmes are very different from others, but they work in that community or school. That learning is being gathered and the evaluation is being undertaken to ensure that we are developing the right programmes in the right places. It goes back to Liz Smith’s earlier point about ensuring that we are delivering what parents need in a cost-effective way, rather than taking a blanket approach and providing services that parents do not require, or doing that in a way that is not correct.

We have answered that in all the FOIs and parliamentary questions.

On data sharing, I recently asked officials through Social Security Scotland to convene a roundtable on data sharing, because I was concerned that we were discussing why it is so difficult, rather than how we get it work. There are legal complexities—it is arguably too legally complex—but that is a UK issue. In our circumstances, how do we get it to work? We have turned the conversation around. That roundtable has taken place, and that is one part of the work that is being done on data sharing, because, as my officials know, I am quite interested in it.

On the question about what benefits children and what benefits parents, we cannot really disengage what impacts on a child from what impacts on a parent. That is why I mentioned the early discussion of a gendered analysis of the next delivery plan. When women are in poverty, children are in poverty. That is why it is so important that we reflect not just on how we assist women but, when we are looking at families, that women are an important part of the work. We cannot disentangle the two, nor do I think that the Government should get to the point where it second-guesses or judges a family for the decisions that parents or carers take.

On the final point, about universalism and targeting, we have been clear that we have no intention of taking anything away from people. I totally appreciate that we can have a debate about a targeted approach versus universalism as services develop or are introduced, but in the areas where we have taken a universal approach, it is important that that is what the Government has promised and what we have delivered. It is part of the package that, if we ask people to pay a little bit more tax through progressive taxation, there should be an understanding that there are services that are available to all that would not be available elsewhere in the UK as we move forward with progressive taxation. It is a balance, and part of the Government’s social contract is that some of those areas are universal.

I appreciate that people will have different views on certain aspects of that. Some people want us to go further with universalism and some people would suggest a more targeted approach for areas where we take a universal approach. Most stakeholders usually suggest adding more people to a service rather than taking a more targeted approach. It speaks to the challenging nature of the fiscal environment that we are in that the Government is asked to do more—public discourse on this is not about what can be taken away from people. The Scottish Government’s position is that, if a service or a provision is available at this time, we should not take it away from people.