Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are back on to a genuinely useful discussion about universality versus targeting. There are myriad layers to that. I presume that the convener will not allow me to get into that today, but it is exceptionally important, because the targeting of resources is important. For some aspects of universality, there is also a principle that needs to be taken into account.

That is perhaps for a wider debate, but the impact of policies on different people is key, regardless of where we stand on targeting versus universal services. That is where the importance of the modelling and the analysis comes into play. It is important, obviously, that there is not just the Scottish Government’s work on the matter: there is also work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many other bodies. We challenge ourselves within Government to ensure that any information that is gathered about the impact of policies is addressed. If people believe that something should be done differently, that policy discussion needs to be aired.

Yes. That is exactly why the review and sense check of the “Best Start, Bright Futures” policy programme was undertaken. It was not just that we did the work for the delivery plan—obviously, we are now starting to undertake the work for the next delivery plan—then left it. We did that review to check in with the best evidence available in order to be able to analyse the programme.

Another important aspect is evaluation and monitoring of policies that are already in place. That is why it is important not just to publish the plan but to sense check it, whether through monitoring, evaluation or review.

A balance needs to be struck in what is happening in local areas. The ability to have flexibility in reporting is important, because councils need to be responsive to local circumstances. We will need to be conscious of the fact that more detailed guidance might run counter to that.

I am caught by the fact that, when we are before a committee or in the chamber, we are often encouraged not to dictate or drive a certain direction or way of reporting in great detail fthat becomes burdensome to local authorities, so there is a balance to be struck.

In saying that, I have mentioned that we refreshed the guidance in 2022. I am content to keep that under review, should the committee recommend that we look at it again with our local authority partners—I would seek their views on it. The guidance should be a tool for improvement, rather than something that gets in the way of what is happening.

There is a lot of discretion in the reports, which is important, because local authorities have to do a great many other strategic reports, such as those on children’s services plans and so on. It is important to have flexibility in how those plans all link together.

A great deal of work can be done through the Improvement Service and the peer support network to look at what works and information sharing. The national partners group is another important mechanism that supports local authorities and allows discussion on what is happening in local reports. That is another important area in which national and local government can have a connection, but I stress the importance of the work of the Improvement Service as part of that, because it is really important to know what works.

As we look to move forward with the fairer futures partnerships, we are also mindful of how we share that work without duplicating the system for sharing good practice that is already in place. How do we encourage more local authorities to join the work that is being done by the fairer futures partnerships, or to continue it in another guise, for example? That learning is exceptionally important.

Each report is reviewed by the members of the national partners group that I have mentioned, and feedback is offered to local areas to support the improvement of future plans. The national partners group also offers local areas a feedback meeting following the review of their report, with written feedback available on request. There is a feedback mechanism in there, but whether the offer is taken up and what local authorities might want to do with what is in the feedback are matters for them. They can certainly have those discussions. I hope that that gives some reassurance not only about what is in a plan but about continuous improvement and how future plans can be developed.

The act does not include any specific enforcement provisions if one of the targets is not met—that is how it was passed. That said, I know that stakeholders are keen to press us to pick up the pace with delivering on the poverty targets. I believe that the budget that we set out yesterday does that. I am sure that we will have further discussions about that in the new year, but we are keen to restate our absolute determination to meet those targets.

It would be fair to say that all that presents an additional layer of challenge. We knew that, when the act was passed, we did not have control over certain aspects—for example, over 85 per cent of the social security system—and none of us could have foreseen at that time the other events that Mr MacDonald has highlighted and which have buffeted us all, throughout the UK, and presented additional challenges.

I believe that the work that has been undertaken by the Government has demonstrably made a difference. It is not just the Scottish Government that has said that: stakeholders, too, have pointed to the fact that child poverty is lower in Scotland, because of the work that has been undertaken by the Scottish Government. However, it still remains far too high, and we need to focus our minds on that.

The new UK Government faces a major test in this area. It has set up a task force to look at it, which is welcome, but a task force also needs to come up with conclusions and recommendations and then move on to implementation. If, for example, the UK Government would take heed of the work that has been done by the End Child Poverty coalition, which has looked at the ask of that Government on legally binding goals for child poverty and for it to take action on, for example, the two-child cap and fundamental reform, we would get two Governments working in the same space.

There is a real opportunity for that to happen. My understanding is that the UK task force will report early in the new year. I have had a number of meetings with UK Government ministers to talk about what is happening, and what we wish to happen, in Scotland. I await the report with great interest—and, more important, those who are living in poverty will be awaiting it, too.

The task force will report next year—that is, in 2025—at which stage we will already be undertaking work on our approach to the next child poverty delivery plan. Therefore, things will overlap. It will give us a better idea of what we need to do up here and, indeed, how much support and change are happening elsewhere, which remains to be seen.

We are already doing a lot of work to improve the take-up of the Scottish child payment. Take-up is already exceptionally high, although we are keen never to rest on our laurels—if we know that families out there should receive it but do not, we need to work together to tackle that. Work to drive take-up goes on within Social Security Scotland, but we are keen to work with other partners, too.

Always, as we work through that, we need to work out what data people want, what they are going to do with it and the legal basis for sharing information. We are already working with local authorities to see what can be done between the agency and councils to share information on the Scottish child payment. However, we cannot just give councils that information; for that to have a legal basis, we have to work out why councils want the information and what they are going to do with it.

That might seem obvious and something that could happen quickly. I would like it to be quicker—as would the agency and councils. However, we need to go through due process. I assure the committee that we are all very keen to see what can be done to use the data as effectively and efficiently as possible. Despite my fear of boring the committee by talking about it again, I will say that the legal basis for data sharing is absolutely integral to what we do.

The DWP would give different information to local authorities. It would give more detailed information, depending on what they wanted and how they would use it. Much more information is held by the DWP and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. They, too, must work on a legal basis. That leads us to the legal gateway that needs to be created under the Digital Economy Act 2017.

We have used that legislation and have worked with local authorities in the past—for example, to get further information on two-year-olds who are eligible for free early learning and childcare. That took a great deal of time to set up, which is no criticism of the previous UK Government but a simple fact about how that had to be done through regulations. It can be a long and protracted process, which is exceptionally frustrating for everybody involved.

I do not think that it is the fault of the Government. It is a necessity of the system that we have, at both the UK level and the Scottish level. Again, it would be up to local authorities to decide what information they want and to determine who—whether the UK or the Scottish Government—has it and how they would wish to use it. They would then have to go through the legal processes for that.

The estimate for take-up of the Scottish child payment in Glasgow that the Scottish Government works on is 89 per cent for 2023-24. That is produced through rigorous analytical processes within the Government. However, clearly, I have noted what Glasgow City Council has said. Officials will reach out and work with the council to see why we have that discrepancy, because it is important that we get to the bottom of that.

Even if it is the higher 89 per cent Scottish Government figure, that still leaves too many families who do not have access to a payment that they are entitled to. In relation to Scottish child payment take-up, it is important that we think about whether there may be particular families who are not accessing the support that they are entitled to.

Last week, I think, Paul O’Kane asked me a question about ethnic minority families. That is an important example of the fact that, even with high take-up rates, we need to work on particular priority family groups, whether that is in relation to the Scottish child payment or other things. I hope that that reassures Mr Doris that we believe that the take-up is higher but that, regardless of that, we are keen to work with the council to understand where the figure came from and how we can improve it.