Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can I expand on a point, convener?

Colleagues will come on to ask about data and aspects such as modelling. John Dickie referenced the Scottish child payment and the efforts to understand facets such as the depth of its impact. More broadly, academic work has been commissioned on that, which the committee will be interested in.

I think that there was a submission that said that targets are not without controversy and, obviously, there is a political dimension to trying to reach targets. Do you think that there is a temptation not to get into the real detail? There was the issue in relation to the 100,000 figure for keeping children out of poverty as opposed to lifting them out of poverty. There is perhaps a temptation to lean on that without understanding the depth of what lies underneath it.

Do you think that we need to do more to understand the impact that the Government’s policies are having? Do you recognise the role that the committee can play in helping to understand some of that?

Good morning. My questions develop the theme of the measures. Will you give a general comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the poverty measures that were used as targets in the 2017 act? Perhaps you can also reflect on the influence of the choice of those measures on policy. What impact do the targets have on the policies that are chosen to be explored? I appreciate that those are broad questions, but I hope that they allow you to bring up various points.

John Dickie or Hannah Randolph, would either of you like to comment on the broader point?

I appreciate that we may all have realised at the same time. I can see nodding. I wonder whether, in the interests of time, anyone else needs to come in. Jamie, do you want to say more?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of Enable Scotland and was previously employed by it.

How, and when, was the decision to delay the bill communicated to your organisation?

I will start with Susan.

Following Maggie Chapman’s contribution, I am interested in what outcomes we would like to see. If we think about the particular challenges with other aspects of policy, there are concerns that non-residential care charges will not end by the end of the parliamentary session. We know that not everyone with a learning disability is receiving annual health checks, and that the human rights bill that would have helped to address some of those things is not going to progress during this session. What outcomes will we achieve, and what is your view on that? I appreciate that it is a big question.

Does anyone else want to add anything further?

I will follow on from many of those themes. The committee is trying to drill down beyond the data that has been collected and to look at targets

The 2017 act contains a number of national targets, and we are keen to understand their relevance in local areas—we have heard some points on that already. We are also keen to assess the extent to which local authorities feel that they can contribute to the national targets and whether it is the witnesses’ view that we are on track to meet some of them.

Can Martin Booth start on that? I am interested in what he said about the data that Glasgow City Council collects. What are your reflections on the targets?

Would anyone else like to comment?