Chamber and committees

The timing in relation to the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been laid out by the Fiscal Commission itself, and I note its remarks on the matter.

Clearly, the two-child benefit cap has been on the Scottish Government’s mind for some time, and our policy position has been exceptionally clear for many years that we believe that it should be taken away at source. We had hoped that that would happen with the change in the UK Government, but it did not. Therefore, in the run-up to the budget this year, the Scottish Government had discussions about how that could be done. Mr O’Kane will be aware of when we told the Scottish Fiscal Commission about that.

There is a distinction to be made between modelling the impact and modelling what we estimate can be achieved by any policy. I believe that robust analysis has been undertaken.

It is estimated that the Scottish child payment alone will keep 60,000 children out of relative poverty in 2024-25, although we will have to wait until we have the 2024-25 statistics to be able to see what the actual poverty rates are. Modelling has been done of the impact that we believe that our policies will have, based on our analysis, but there will be a time lag before the data on child poverty becomes available. Certainly, I am satisfied that the figures that are produced through modelling estimates are based on a range of assumptions, and that the process that allows the Government to model the impact of our policies is robust and transparent. It is important that we carry out modelling work to look at the impact of policies that we will undertake and to evaluate what difference they will make.

The full impact of the Scottish child payment on poverty levels that we already have data on is not yet clear, because that detail is still working its way through the data set. The benefit is making a difference on the ground, but the data that will allow us to determine the poverty levels in 2024-25 has not yet been published. At this point, our modelling enables us to estimate how many children will be kept out of poverty as a result of a range of measures, the Scottish child payment being just one of them.

It is a challenge for all of us to make sure that we have the correct data in front of us so that we can see the impact of our policies. I know that the committee has taken evidence and considered the importance of data in previous inquiries.

We are working actively with the DWP on that issue. The Scottish Government has been paying for a 100 per cent boost to the family resources survey’s Scottish sample since 2002, to try to improve that work. Sample sizes for many large population surveys are being affected by falling response rates—that is happening not just for the FRS but more widely, and we are looking at what can be done to mitigate that.

Analysts in the Scottish Government have also been working with the DWP since the Scottish child payment was included in the FRS questionnaire, to ensure that receipt of the Scottish child payment is accurately reflected in the data for eligible households in 2023-24.

So, work is on-going to improve the quality of the FRS data, and not only by the Scottish Government. As Mr O’Kane suggests, we are all keen to make sure that that data is as robust as possible. I hope that I can give him some reassurance that there is active and on-going consideration of the issue.

The data source for the statistics on the statutory targets cannot be disaggregated at a local level, but other work can be undertaken.

The Scottish Government has been working with the national partners group to look at the range of data that is available. The Scottish household survey provides breakdowns by local authority. Data from the DWP, HMRC and the children in low-income families survey are also valuable resources. Work is being undertaken through the child poverty practice accelerator fund, to look at what data could be used and how it could be used more effectively. That Scottish Government fund also assists various local authorities to look at different data sets and models, to see how they can be brought together. It goes back to the point that was raised earlier about the need for good practice to be shared across local authorities.

I take a very different view of that. We do not have a deficit; the Scottish Government cannot run a budget in deficit, as we must balance our budget every year. We have taken political choices to invest in social security. We have made a £1.1 billion investment in addition to our block grant adjustment, and just under half a billion pounds of that is for the Scottish child payment. Additional support is also provided by benefits such as the young carer grant that are not available elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have made those important investments. Clearly, in preparation for every budget, we have to look at the choices that the Government has taken to support low-income families, carers and disabled people, and we must ensure that, overall, we have a balanced budget. I disagree with Jeremy Balfour’s use of the word “deficit”; I would call it an investment.

It is difficult to think what we could have done had the act not been in place, because it has been in place for so long and is so integral to the way in which we work. As the committee has heard from other witnesses, it has driven a greater focus for delivery and increased investment in that area, at both national and local level. The ability to have that focus on delivery and accountability has assisted collaborative working across the Scottish Government and with local government, third sector partners, health boards and so on, with a shared understanding of the national mission.

Clearly, a number of policies have come from that. I mentioned the Scottish child payment. We also have our focus on the no one left behind approach, through employability, which has been part of the work of Government right across our different portfolios, to see what could be done—particularly with reference to the six priority family types.

Although it is difficult to know what things would have been like had the act not been in place, its being in place has allowed us to continue that focus and drive, and it has made it easier for people to hold the Government and other agencies to account.

We are back on to a genuinely useful discussion about universality versus targeting. There are myriad layers to that. I presume that the convener will not allow me to get into that today, but it is exceptionally important, because the targeting of resources is important. For some aspects of universality, there is also a principle that needs to be taken into account.

That is perhaps for a wider debate, but the impact of policies on different people is key, regardless of where we stand on targeting versus universal services. That is where the importance of the modelling and the analysis comes into play. It is important, obviously, that there is not just the Scottish Government’s work on the matter: there is also work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many other bodies. We challenge ourselves within Government to ensure that any information that is gathered about the impact of policies is addressed. If people believe that something should be done differently, that policy discussion needs to be aired.

Yes. That is exactly why the review and sense check of the “Best Start, Bright Futures” policy programme was undertaken. It was not just that we did the work for the delivery plan—obviously, we are now starting to undertake the work for the next delivery plan—then left it. We did that review to check in with the best evidence available in order to be able to analyse the programme.

Another important aspect is evaluation and monitoring of policies that are already in place. That is why it is important not just to publish the plan but to sense check it, whether through monitoring, evaluation or review.

A balance needs to be struck in what is happening in local areas. The ability to have flexibility in reporting is important, because councils need to be responsive to local circumstances. We will need to be conscious of the fact that more detailed guidance might run counter to that.

I am caught by the fact that, when we are before a committee or in the chamber, we are often encouraged not to dictate or drive a certain direction or way of reporting in great detail fthat becomes burdensome to local authorities, so there is a balance to be struck.

In saying that, I have mentioned that we refreshed the guidance in 2022. I am content to keep that under review, should the committee recommend that we look at it again with our local authority partners—I would seek their views on it. The guidance should be a tool for improvement, rather than something that gets in the way of what is happening.

There is a lot of discretion in the reports, which is important, because local authorities have to do a great many other strategic reports, such as those on children’s services plans and so on. It is important to have flexibility in how those plans all link together.

A great deal of work can be done through the Improvement Service and the peer support network to look at what works and information sharing. The national partners group is another important mechanism that supports local authorities and allows discussion on what is happening in local reports. That is another important area in which national and local government can have a connection, but I stress the importance of the work of the Improvement Service as part of that, because it is really important to know what works.

As we look to move forward with the fairer futures partnerships, we are also mindful of how we share that work without duplicating the system for sharing good practice that is already in place. How do we encourage more local authorities to join the work that is being done by the fairer futures partnerships, or to continue it in another guise, for example? That learning is exceptionally important.

Each report is reviewed by the members of the national partners group that I have mentioned, and feedback is offered to local areas to support the improvement of future plans. The national partners group also offers local areas a feedback meeting following the review of their report, with written feedback available on request. There is a feedback mechanism in there, but whether the offer is taken up and what local authorities might want to do with what is in the feedback are matters for them. They can certainly have those discussions. I hope that that gives some reassurance not only about what is in a plan but about continuous improvement and how future plans can be developed.