Seòmar agus comataidhean

I gave the example of the job start payment. Westminster legislation was required to give us the powers to set that up. Theoretically, we could set up another benefit, but that would still have implications for reserved benefits. Even if we decided to do something ourselves, those implications would remain. Even with the powers, if we went forward with that, the challenges of how a new benefit would interact with UK benefits would still exist.

I ask the committee to forgive me—I am not exactly sure about the specific reference that Mr Wallace made in the letter. Clearly, analysis is done by the agency around how long it takes to process a case. That might not give the specific timeframes that Mr Balfour is looking for, but I am happy to refer back to the evidence session to see the exact question that was asked and the letter that was provided, and to provide the information.

I take very seriously, as I know the agency does, the issue of how long processing takes. We know that there is more to do on that issue, and I meet the agency regularly to discuss that and the changes that have been made to improve it.

Aspects around processing times are published in official statistics, so—if you will forgive me, Mr Balfour—I will take a further look at the specific reference that you made and come back with any further clarification that might be needed on that point.

Ms Don or committee members will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the focus in England is on working parents. If we are being asked to replicate what is happening down south, that would suggest taking away the offer that we have already made for people who are not in work, which would be of great concern to the Government.

I appreciate where the member is coming from. All the consequentials that are given to the Scottish Government are used. If the member wishes to see more money going into childcare, the simple fact is that it will have to come from somewhere else, and that will have to be taken into account. The consequentials are not sitting unused. We have already invested in childcare, as Ms Don has said, but the money must come from somewhere, if the member is suggesting that more should go into childcare.

We will be very happy to carry on that work once the consultation goes live. The Government has a good track record of working with those who are most directly impacted by benefits to help to shape the focus of any new benefit. That would include people who currently receive the benefit as well as those who perceive that there are barriers to them receiving such a benefit. I am happy to reaffirm my colleague’s commitment.

We work closely with the UK Government, despite our many differences on policy issues. The area around devolved social security is a joint programme, so we need to work very carefully.

This is just a simple matter of fact about where the powers lie in devolution and about what we can do without there being consequences for reserved issues. It is a statement of fact that we have all worked hard to see where the boundaries could be pushed, but no one wants to get into a position where we are endangering people’s benefits.

I am afraid that the parental transition fund has just run its course as a concept. However, the principle behind it was to support parents, and we have already tried to do what we can in that area. From the member’s time on the previous Social Security Committee, he will be well aware of the job start payment and the work that we undertook on that. We do what we can within the powers that we have, but there are limits to that. Then it is about making sure that what we have can be used most effectively. That goes into Neil Gray’s responsibility on employability and further support that we can give.

I mentioned in my introductory remarks—Julie Humphreys has just touched on it, too—the modelling that is being done on the 90,000 children who have been lifted out of poverty because of Scottish Government policies. It is a very important aspect of what we do.

Let me put that in context with regard to the impact on the Scottish Government budget of delivering such policies. We have allocated almost £3 billion last year and this year to support policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible from the cost of living crisis, and we recognise that as a very important aspect of the Government’s work. That is a significant investment and it is the right thing to do, but everything that we do in that area means that we are not doing something somewhere else.

A specific example is the £127 million that we used to mitigate specific UK Government welfare policies. I think that it was Mr Doris who suggested, in a recent debate, that we should view the Scottish child payment, which amounts to more than £400 million, as a mitigation measure, because—to be frank—if universal credit was at a sufficient level, there might be no need for the Scottish Government to continue to support children to the extent that we are doing.

Mitigation is clearly important, and we need to do it, but it is not without its implications for other parts of the budget. I am happy to go into more detail on that almost £3 billion, either now or in writing, should that be of use to the committee.

I take the points that Mr Doris has raised very seriously. The Government is very keen to ensure that we support families during the most difficult financial times. That is exactly why we have best start foods, for which we are suggesting changes to income thresholds, as the committee will be aware. It is why we have the pregnancy and baby, early learning and school age payments. It is also—as Mr Doris mentioned—why the school clothing grant is being uplifted in line with inflation.

I recognise that there are always calls for us to do more. We will work carefully with the committee and others on prioritisation, because a number of different calls for funding require us all to think about how we prioritise the many ways that we could further assist families. I appreciate that it is a very difficult time for many people.

The member again raises a very important point; that is exactly why this area is one that we and local government were very keen to have at the heart of the Verity house agreement, in which we have a shared objective on tackling child poverty. There is a great deal of work that goes on within that scope between the Government and COSLA and, separately, between the Government and local authorities.

The committee will be aware of the requirements around local child poverty action reports, which are local government’s responsibility, but the issue is not just about local authorities—there are many other aspects to it. Julie Humphreys, do you want to provide any further detail?

It is a simple process during the budget process. If the member wishes money to be moved, if she is not satisfied with what is in childcare when she sees the budget when it is produced, then it needs to come from somewhere else. I suggest that, if the member wishes to use consequentials differently, her party should produce a balanced budget suggesting where that money would come from.