Chamber and committees

Convener, I—

Like Jackie Dunbar, I have been listening intently. I am wondering whether the relationship with enforcement is not so much about the amount of the fine as about having effective enforcement in the first place. If someone throws something out of a car window knowing that they could be fined £80, they are pretty unlikely to do it. Likewise at £500. However, if they throw something out of the window thinking that they will not be detected, the size of the fine might not be the underlying deterrent. The deterrent is that you may be caught and a fine may be levied. What is your consideration of that point?

This is really just for clarity. I am sure that you are not suggesting that we should employ more police officers simply to have a force for detecting people throwing litter out of car windows. There may be other uses for police resources.

I apologise, convener. I was just—

That is very helpful. Perhaps Mr Werhnam could add a little bit to that response. Once universal credit is fully withdrawn, would there still be a negative impact if there was a tapered benefit run-on? There would obviously be a cost to that. Could there be an opportunity for the DWP and the Scottish Government to talk about that being an in-work incentive to get someone off universal credit? Could there be a co-produced plan for a benefit run-on that is financed by both the Scottish and UK Governments?

I will be brief. First, I thought that Professor Patrick gave an eloquent narrative on the two-child cap without actually mentioning it. It was a more eloquent one than any politician has given, and I thank her for putting that on the record.

My question is on the relationship between targets and monitoring. The Scottish Government modelling work that Mr O’Kane mentioned showed a fall in relative child poverty levels in Scotland from roughly 26 per cent to 19 per cent. However, the discourse on that was about the target being 18 per cent. The benefit of the progress that had been made seemed to dissipate and be lost among the discussion of lived experience.

Professor Patrick spoke about monitoring and comparing evaluations between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I represent Maryhill, but I am also interested to know what is happening in Merseyside and which factors make a difference there. It would be helpful if Professor Patrick could say a little more about how we could do that.

Professor Dorling mentioned how significant comparisons could be made by considering those issues across Europe, too. I hate alliteration, but I have already mentioned Maryhill and Merseyside, so I might want to know what is happening on child poverty in Marseille, for example. What are European nations doing, and how could we learn from each other? I ask Professor Dorling to say who could commission such work. If the Scottish Government were to do so, it could be accused of not being impartial in that process. If the issue is so significant that learning about it could benefit public policy, we would want to see robust independently led academic study not just in the UK but beyond it. I am sorry; I hope that that is brief enough.

That is really helpful. We are short of time but I think that Professor Tominey wants to come in before I move on to my next question.

My question is on whether we have universality or targeting. The current approach is not universal, because universal credit is not universal; it is about blanket coverage for those who are in receipt of universal credit.

The Scottish child payment is straightforward to administer and impactful—I think that that is clear. Maybe my numbers are a little bit wrong but, if we increase it by another £5 a week, that would cost another £90 million a year. If we had £90 million a year, should we put it all into the Scottish child payment or increase the best start grant and best start foods, pay a clothing grant twice a year or provide a Scottish child payment summer supplement rather than spreading it across the year? There is a debate about whether to target the money more or whether to make it as universal as possible and about how Government and Parliament look at that.

That is helpful. As ever, it is never straightforward.

An unintended consequence of the success, I suppose, of the Scottish child payment is that, as universal credit tapers, the Scottish child payment does not. Everyone in this Parliament and on this committee wants to see mums, dads and families get into not just work but well-paid work with hours that allow them to sustain their quality of life without relying on benefits. However, a cliff edge is created by the fact that, when universal credit stops completely, so does the Scottish child payment.

Do the witnesses have any comments on, or solutions to, that? I will roll the two aspects into one question: first, on tapering, should that happen along with tapering of universal credit—I am wary of taking money off people when they are still on universal credit—or should the Scottish child payment be maintained and then tapered once someone stops receiving universal credit?

I have made my apologies, Mr Simpson. Perhaps you can get on with it.