Chamber and committees

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.

It is important to consider that. The results would vary by example, but universalism taking away administrative costs is often cited in relation to free prescriptions. If you want to have a service, you have to look at the cost of delivery, and it is often the case that keeping a service as simple as possible is the most cost-effective way to deliver it. It will vary, but it is important that we consider that in relation to universalism.

It is important that we consider the financial sustainability of social security in the short, medium and long term, because it is not that far away in terms of fiscal planning.

I go back to the point that those increases in spend are, in effect, due largely to decisions that have been taken proactively by the Scottish Government—for example, on the Scottish child payment, which, from memory, costs just under £0.5 billion.

The biggest change that the Fiscal Commission’s forecasts show is due to forecast decreases in the Scottish Government block grant because of changes that are being made by the UK Government. Those changes will have a substantial impact.

I was going to say that I am hopeful about this, but I am not. Clearly, I do hope that there is a change of heart, and that, when the UK Government looks at the evidence from its own impact assessments, it will reflect on that and change its position, which would markedly change the forecasting that the Fiscal Commission has developed. Any changes that the UK Government makes to the winter fuel payment in the future will also assist. However, we do not know when any changes will be made and we do not know what those changes will be. Again, those cannot be included in the Fiscal Commission’s forecasts, which have to go on what the UK Government policy is at this point.

I accept that there is a challenge. The Government will need to make a decision every year about how it balances its budget. However, I go back to the point that any change to the level of spend in social security means, in essence, that people are asking us to reduce eligibility or to reduce the adequacy of benefits. Those are the only two ways in which benefit expenditure will come down, and the Government does not want to take those forward. I appreciate that that means that we will have to take difficult decisions elsewhere in the budget, but I am exceptionally uncomfortable about saying that the way to tackle the challenges is to take money away from disabled people, carers and low-income families.

If some policies are not delivering, that would be shown in the evaluation and we would look to ensure that those services or policies are redesigned so that they do deliver. We have mentioned early learning and childcare. We would look at whether that delivers and whether the model that we are proposing is the best way to deliver the policy, as well as what we are learning from the early adopter sites. There is a policy evaluation process to see whether we are getting what we expect from them and whether they are being delivered in a cost-effective manner.

I know that Liz Smith knows that it is not a black or white issue of taking away services or raising taxes. We need to look at our public service reform, which falls under the work that Ivan McKee is doing to deliver services in a better way. I go back to data sharing and to whole-family support. The way in which some services that are available to families have been delivered over time has made it exceptionally challenging for those families to get the support that they need, so can that be done in different ways to provide a better, more cost-effective service? We as a Government are looking at other ways to ensure that the policies and services that we are delivering, and the services that other people are delivering, either on our behalf or through their own powers, are effective and cost effective at the same time. I include that important third challenge that the Government is undertaking under Ivan McKee.

A great deal of work has been undertaken to ensure that the benefits that are available to people are being taken up. The benefit take-up strategy is an important part of social security and is one of the key areas that we need to look at in terms of the impact that the policy can have. I hope that the UK Government task force will also look at that area because, at the moment, only the Scottish Government is looking at benefit take-up encouragement in the round, although I appreciate that this UK Government has done some more work than previous UK Governments on certain benefits.

We are also looking at more work that we can do to assist families, particularly larger families, through the impact of the scrapping of the two-child cap. That is the next significant piece of work that is being undertaken. I think that the Fiscal Commission estimates that it will be paid to 42,000 children in Scotland. That is an important area. The Scottish Government’s modelling estimates that scrapping the two-child limit will result in 20,000 fewer children living in poverty in 2026-27. We know that the depth of poverty will be reduced for thousands more. That is the next area in which the Government will take action to assist in the social security field.

It has been widely recognised that the increase in national insurance is a tax on jobs. At an economic and a political level, how the UK Government expects to deliver growth while delivering a tax on jobs remains a puzzle to me.

The UK Government controls a lot more levers that can change and affect taxation and services. It could have made a number of changes to taxation and services. I simply say once again that I would not have chosen to balance the books on the backs of disabled people.

I am afraid that I do not have that level of information in front of me. I would be happy to provide that in writing.

I will.

I am concerned about parents of disabled children and larger families, and those issues also have an impact on a number of ethnic minority families. I am trying to make a point about intersectionality—often, a family could fit into more than one priority family group. Although it is important that we look at policies that will have an impact on each priority family group, I am conscious that a number of families fit into different priority groups at the same time.

When looking at what can help a lone parent, we need to consider the impact that we can make through childcare policies, the support that we can provide if they are disabled and the impact that we can make through employability support. Schemes are being undertaken to assist parents with employability. That is an important part of the work that can be done, particularly with lone parents.

I stress that there are six priority groups, so our work on providing whole-family holistic support is exceptionally important. I am mindful of the lone parents whom I met on a recent visit. They required not just parental employability support but assistance for both themselves and their children on a number of different matters. It is important that we look at it that way if we are taking a more holistic approach to dealing with the challenges that an individual is facing. You made a point about employability support for lone parents in particular. That is exactly why further support is coming forward this year for parental employability support.

There are a number of areas there that the UK Government has responsibility for. However, if it chooses not to act on those, the Scottish Government can mitigate. We are already mitigating the effect of the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, and we will move to mitigate the effect of the two-child cap as well. Some of the other areas are reserved or are to do with the economic context, which the Scottish Government does not have any control over.

We try to carry on with work that can assist the UK Government—for example, a great deal of work has been undertaken by Dr Allan in relation to the social tariff. All that work has been fed to the UK Government and we hope that the UK Government will take it on. Even when we do not have direct control over something, we are doing the best we can to do the research and to do the work to assist the UK Government. I hope that it takes that work up, including, for example, in relation to the social tariff.