Chamber and committees

Is that not a black hole?

If we put that into the context of the next child poverty plan and the strategy behind that, are you saying that, in order to address some of the shortfalls, the Government’s intention is to try to ensure that the additional money is raised through progressive taxation, rather than by targeting the most effective policies and removing some of the policies that are not delivering in the way that we would like them to?

I accept that. It is very difficult when you cannot take things away easily. I absolutely understand that. However, there are examples of policy areas, two of which we have discussed this morning, where the policy of universalism is not as effective, in terms of the delivery and the cost basis, as we might wish.

Good morning. I have a technical question. The Scottish Government’s publication from March this year referred to two improvements in modelling—that was in part 5.1, if my memory serves me correctly. First, the Scottish Government has improved the modelling based on analysis of potential mitigation of the two-child cap. The second improvement is to the modelling of free school meals. The report says that the reason for the change to that modelling was that the Scottish Government changed from assuming full take-up to assuming a partial take-up measurement—that is, because free school meals are not being taken up to the full complement, the new modelling is better. That is my understanding of the Scottish Government’s modelling comment in that report.

Can I ask about the free school meals situation? There are still an awful lot of families who are not taking up their entitlement. Things have improved a little bit, but they are not that great. Does the modelling show whether those who are not taking up the free school meal entitlement are those from higher income backgrounds?

My reason for asking is that I am sure that, when we get the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report this afternoon, it will show that we are in very difficult fiscal circumstances again. If there are choices to be made about which policies are working, and if it is the case that free school meal take-up is not as strong as it could be—that there are people not wanting to take free school meals—perhaps that is an area in which the Government could be more targeting? Do you agree with that?

The corollary is that, if there is a large cohort of youngsters whose parents are a bit better off and who do not particularly want the free school meals in the way that we might expect, they are not part of the Scottish Government’s child poverty target. We want the uptake to be in the right place and to benefit those who are most in need. In my opinion, the Scottish Government would be well advised to look at that, because it is important to the very difficult choices that you, as cabinet secretary, will have to make.

Are you discussing that with local authorities? One of the people who was presenting to the NFUS in the Perth and Kinross area said that one of the procurement problems was that meals were being brought in from Dundee and costed more as a result. Many people, particularly those in farming communities, felt that some of the food in Perth and Kinross would have been better and cost less. Perth and Kinross Council allegedly did not have particularly good engagement with the NFUS on that. As I said, it is important to make the right choices about what is and is not working, and to ensure that the local authorities have bought into that.

I completely understand some of that, cabinet secretary. We can debate the politics in the chamber and in other areas of the Parliament although, factually, we have to accept the current circumstances. Based on the statistics that the SFC has published today, let us be honest that there is a big black hole in the amount of money that the Scottish Government is predicted to take in set against its projected spend. Will the Scottish Government pursue progressively higher tax rates to get extra revenue in, or is it open to looking at greater targeting for the policies that we have just been talking about, so that we are not spending quite so much in some areas? Is that the economic crux of the matter? Yesterday, at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, David Phillips spoke about behavioural changes because of changes to the tax policy.

I would like to ask two questions, if I may. First, in some situations, the terms of reference of public inquiries have changed—I think that that has happened in three out of 10 inquiries since 2007—and, therefore, there has been a potential for costs to increase. Is it your understanding that those terms of reference changed because the chair of the inquiry found unforeseen evidence that led them somewhere else and, therefore, they had to go back to the Scottish Government to ask for an amendment to the terms of reference?

Minister, you are correct in saying that, at the time, there was substantial stakeholder engagement—obviously, the bill has a substantial impact for the country. However, by and large, those stakeholders were telling you that what was proposed in the initial bill was not at all satisfactory and that, on a cost basis, it was going to be unaffordable. That is what was coming back and, as you know, four committees of the Parliament had considerable concerns about the original bill.

My question is about the co-design principle. If co-design is to work well, surely the stakeholders with whom the Scottish Government is engaging must be able to flag up those concerns early doors, so that we do not get into this kind of situation, in which there has been a very substantial change—part 1 of the bill has completely gone—and we are repurposing four attempts at a financial memorandum. Do you accept that the principle of co-design has not worked in this instance?