Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Clearly, the Scottish child payment has made a difference. We hear that directly from stakeholders and in some of the evidence that I quoted in my introductory remarks with regard to the importance of the payment.

It is clear that there are calls for the level of the payment to be further increased, and I appreciate where those calls are coming from. It is important, however, to add a bit of context. I remember that, when the Scottish child payment was initially launched, campaigners were asking for £5 per week per eligible child, and we are now at £25 per week. I hope that that shows the committee the very serious consideration that is being given across Government to see what can be done to increase the payment.

The challenge, as the committee has heard in previous answers this morning, concerns the financial situation in which we find ourselves, and the current context. As the First Minister has made clear, we will look at what we can do on the Scottish child payment, and on any other anti-poverty measures, to see what more can be done, but it will always have to be done within the current financial context.

We will consider an increase very seriously in the run-up to the next budget, along with the other asks—and there are many—that people would wish us to take forward in relation to these issues, but it would have to be done within the financial reality of the situation that we are in.

That comes down to the legislative background of how the Scottish child payment was set up. I remind members that the benefit was established within 18 months, which was the quickest delivery of a benefit anywhere in the UK. That shows the importance that the Government placed on the benefit at the time. To do that, it was necessary to deliver it as a top-up to current reserved benefits. Someone needs to be in receipt of universal credit, for example, to be able to receive the Scottish child payment. Given the legislative underpinning of the Scottish child payment, it is therefore not possible to allow payment of the benefit to someone who is not in receipt of, for example, universal credit. It is not possible, given the way that the Scottish child pavement was set up. However, I hope that I have explained to members why we set it up in the way that we did.

The number of individuals who are being sanctioned is of great concern, particularly when you look at the numbers pre-pandemic, post-pandemic and during the pandemic. For the sake of time, I am happy to provide written information to the committee on the sanctions that are currently impacting people. The Scottish Government is greatly concerned about the impact of sanctions on people, and it is imperative that we have in place something such as the Scottish welfare fund to assist people, which is why we remain committed to funding it. It is delivered by local authorities, which are responsible for ensuring its promotion. We work with local authorities on that, and we consider with them, as always, what more can be done to ensure that people are aware of it.

I recognise Marie McNair’s point about the type of individuals who can be impacted by sanctions. Some of them are in the priority groups that we have identified in “Best Start, Bright Futures”. It is a concern when anyone is sanctioned, but the fact that the people who are getting hit hardest are some of the most vulnerable in our society is of even greater concern.