 Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Our first item of business today is a decision to take items 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We are all agreed. We now turn to our next item of business, which is an evidence session on the resource spending review. I welcome to the meeting Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, and Kate Forbes, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy, and their officials. Joining us in person today is Gemma Dalton, who is the public spending team leader. We also have Kevin Stevens, who is the head of strategic and programme finance. Good morning, and thanks for coming in early with us today. That's fantastic. Joining us remotely is Julie Humphries, who is the deputy director of tackling child poverty and financial wellbeing. Sarah O'Donnell, who is the strategic lead for finance and governance, and Joanne Farrow, who is the deputy director of employability. I'll hand over to the cabinet secretaries to make their opening statements. Shona Robison, do you want to go first? Thank you very much, convener, and thanks for inviting us to the committee alongside Kate Forbes to help you to explore the impact of the resource spending review on social justice and social security. Tackling child poverty is our national mission and, of course, one of our four resource spending review priorities. When we published Best Art Bright Futures in March, we set out our actions to tackle child poverty, including increasing social security support, taking action on employability and fair work, and investing in more warm, affordable homes. The resource spending review underpins key actions to tackle child poverty, including childcare, transport and employability. Notably, it commits more than £23 billion for social security payments that will provide direct support to over 1 million people in Scotland each year. That includes almost £1.8 billion for the Scottish child payment, which will increase to £25 per eligible child per week when the payment is extended to under 16s at the end of the year. Modelling, which was conducted as part of developing the Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan, projected that, with progress to date and the package of measures planned, around 17 per cent of children will live in relative poverty in 2020-23-24, 60,000 fewer than when the Child Poverty Scotland Act was passed in 2017, which will drive child poverty in Scotland to the lowest level in 30 years against what is a very challenging backdrop. Importantly, the action set out lay the foundation for the transformation in our economy and public services that will be required to meet the 2030 targets and set Scotland on a path to sustained poverty reduction. As we navigate the cost of living crisis, the interventions, both currently and over the next four years, will be all the more vital in supporting household incomes. Through the budget for 2022-23, the Scottish Government has allocated almost £3 billion to a range of supports that will contribute to mitigating the impact of the increased cost of living on households. That includes work to tackle child poverty, reduce inequalities and support financial wellbeing alongside social security payments that are not available anywhere else in the UK. The resource spending review provides a multi-year funding framework that will bring to life our tackling child poverty delivery plan and provide direct support to those who need it most. I look forward to hearing your questions later. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, and if I can hear from Kate Forbes now. I thank the committee for its input to the resource spending review. As I have already said publicly, this is a particularly challenging time to be setting out a resource spending review. Obviously, we are recovering from the pandemic. There is an unprecedented cost of living crisis and there is very significant volatility in the fiscal outlook. When the UK Government published its spending review last autumn, which is the basis on which our spending review is drafted, inflation was 3.1 per cent. As members will know, just yesterday inflation reached the heights of just over 9 per cent, a 40-year high, and is due to increase further. Despite that, the reason we proceeded with our spending review is in order to give our partners as much clarity and transparency as possible. The resource spending review sets out how we will spend £180 billion over the next few years. In light of some of the challenges, we set out a number of priorities in order to try and focus where we would spend our money over the next few years. Those include the long-term ambitions of tackling child poverty, addressing the climate crisis, strengthening the public sector and growing a stronger and fairer economy. Despite the challenging circumstances, we have set out an ambitious spending review that maximises that £180 billion over those four key areas. We have also chosen to prioritise social security in this spending review. The social security allocation shows the strength of our commitment towards building a modern social security system that has dignity, fairness and respect at its heart. Quite clearly, that will enable us and help us to meet our child poverty targets. The last point to make before I stop is that, obviously, this is not a budget and detailed tax and spending plans will still be a matter for the annual budget process. This is a spending review that is essentially a planning document. It shows our commitment to delivering on our key priorities. I look forward to the committee's questions. Thank you very much and welcome to you both. I will turn now to questions from members. I know that members have quite a lot of questions to get through. We have a specific amount of time allotted this morning to that, so if members and cabinet secretaries could keep their answers concise, that would be fantastic. I am going to kick us off this morning. The question that I am going to ask and the cabinet secretary for social justice has already alluded to it. Yesterday, the public finance minister mentioned the figure around about £3 billion that we know has been deployed in this financial year across a range of supports that are helping to mitigate the impacts of the cost of living increases that we are seeing across the whole of the UK. Could the cabinet secretary perhaps expand on that for us and outline to the committee how the Scottish Government believes that that aligns to the priorities that are set out in the resource spending review and specifically areas that the committee is interested in, if that would be very helpful for us? The £3 billion is a range of supports that will contribute to mitigating the impact of the increased cost of living on households. It includes work to tackle child poverty, reduce inequalities and support financial wellbeing alongside social security payments that are not available anywhere else in the UK. We can certainly furnish the committee with the list of supports that it covers, but it will not surprise you to hear it. It covers the doubling of the Scottish child payment and then the extension to £25. Our five family benefits, the uprating of our eight Scottish social security payments by 6 per cent, the fuel and security fund, the carers allowance supplement, discretionary housing payments, support to free school meals. There is a list that would probably take me too long to go through, but it is fice to say that all of those things are areas that are really important at the moment to support low-income households, and we believe that it provides a rounded package that is a considerable investment in supporting the cost of living. The only comment that I would make is that a lot of that £3 billion worth of investment is unique in Scotland. As members will understand, within a fixed budget, there are ways in which we can pass on consequentials that come from the UK Government, or there are decisions that we make to prioritise within our budget. By definition, if you prioritise one area, you cannot prioritise everything, so we have very intentionally prioritised seeking to support families right now with the increased costs that they are facing. We have tried to be conscious of inflation despite the fact that our own budget is not inflation proof. For example, with the Scottish child payment, since April it has gone up by 100 per cent and is due to rise again by 150 per cent in December, in comparison with inflation at around 9 per cent. We have also upgraded social security benefits by the rate of inflation at the time of the budget. We are trying to help families as those costs increase, but that is from a position where our budget was set at a time when inflation was just about 3 per cent. Those are conscious choices to help families, but it is an extremely challenging piece of work to manage a budget that is not inflation proof despite what families are facing. I will move now to questions from members. We will start off with Emma Roddick, who is in the room, and then Pam Duncan-Glancy, who joins us remotely. The first set of questions are round about the prioritising of social security. Emma? Good morning, convener. I wanted to pick up, first of all, on the expectation laid out to the Finance Committee that short-term spend on social security around poverty will mean that, in the longer term, fewer require that support. I wonder if you could explain a bit more about how long-term finances are expected to be improved to deliver that support. I will pick up on that one. The point that I was making to the Finance Committee in its line of questioning was commenting on the fact that the gap between what the Scottish Government spends on social security and what we receive from the UK Government is set to increase by more than £1 billion over the next few years. That has been a very intentional choice. You cannot talk about putting fairness and dignity at the heart of social security and then not put your money where your mouth is. In fact, all members in the chamber—I do not think that anybody has ever voted against—were to put fairness when it comes to social security, so it is right that that funding is there. On the other side, we have been very intentional about investing in increasing the Scottish child payment. Alongside, for example, significant investment in employability support for families in order to support payment of the living wage or support families into work, the reason that we have been doing that is because we want to reduce child poverty. To be effective will ultimately be to see Scottish child payments in the round reduce over the long term because we all want to be in a position where there are fewer children in poverty and therefore fewer children eligible. I was very clear with the Finance Committee that I am talking about the long term here if we are to be effective in that. Now, there will be other areas where we will rightly continue to invest in social security. For example, in terms of disability benefit and so on, because we have put fairness and dignity at the heart, those payments will quite rightly continue. The point that I was making is that we ultimately want those forms of support to deliver an outcome, and that outcome is reducing the number of children in poverty. Therefore, by extension, that reduces the number of eligible families because they no longer need that support. Can we move on to questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy, who joins us remotely, and then over to Jeremy Balfour, who is in the room. Pam Duncan-Glancy, thank you convener, and good morning. First of all, please let me apologize for not being able to join you in person this morning. I hope that you can pick up what I am saying from where you are, and welcome also to both cabinet secretaries and for your European statements, which I find helpful. I guess that my first question is probably for cabinet secretary Kate Forbes, if that's okay. The point that you have made about the budget that you have—I think that you used the term not inflation-proof—and the difficulties that you have managing it. You are quite right to point out that it is about choices. I wonder therefore whether you can set out why you chose in the bank consequentials for the cost of living payments to give £150 to basically the same group of people that the Tories chose to give it to, as opposed to targeting it to the four groups of people that the Scottish Labour Party suggested could help lift pensioners, disabled people, carers and people in low incomes out of poverty. I am very happy to answer that question. The priority at the time was to balance the need for effective targeting, which is essentially what you are talking about. You talked about four groups of people, so effective targeting. Also, in consultation and with COSLA understanding how we could deploy that funding as quickly as possible. I do not think that it is often that politicians stand up and accept that processes or schemes are imperfect, but I am pretty sure that, when I announced this, I accepted that it was imperfect, but it was imperfect for a purpose. That purpose was to try and get funding out as quickly as possible. We had looked quite carefully at, for example, mirroring what had been done with the low-income payments, the low-income winter payments, that had been deployed by local government over the winter period. That had taken months and months to deploy. My view was that, in April, families did not have months and months and months to wait for funding. Therefore, council tax, although it is, by its design, imperfect, was the fastest way of putting money out the door. The other two elements to that is that we have a council tax reduction scheme that is unique in the UK. It does not exist elsewhere. It captures, if memory serves, about 394,000 households on the basis of low income. It is not just based on property values, but on income. We could use that to reach families, including pensioners, who might not be in bands A to D. The third thing that we did was increase the fuel insecurity fund. We did seek to target, as effectively as possible, within the commitment that I made to deploy the funding as quickly as possible. I appreciated the ideas and suggestions from a number of different stakeholders. They were all carefully considered, but all of them would have taken longer to deploy by probably a matter of six months to nine months. Secondly, they did not reach as many people as possible. I am interested in why it would have taken nine months to make payments to, for example, people who were receiving caterer's allowance supplement. I am assuming that the Government already knows who those people are and where they are. I am interested in that. I have a further question on the social security theme, but not related to the minus your questions. As you know, through the course of the pandemic, we have increased support for carers. In terms of whether or not we can go further than that, we have said that if resources become available through the course of this financial year, carers will be a priority. What I would point out is that, since the launch of the carers allowance supplement in 2018 up to the end of 2021, we have invested £188 million in carers allowance supplement, which has supported more than 126,000 carers. There was a carers allowance supplement payment paid just on 10 June, worth £245.70. In addition to that, we have support for young carers. We are supporting carers, but, as Pam Duncan-Glancy knows, we have said that, should additional resources become available in what is a very tight fiscal environment, carers are a priority within that. Forgive me, cabinet secretary, but my question was not specifically about the support that you have given on paid carers, although I have a number of questions about that, some of which I raised yesterday in the chamber. However, it was more about the length of time that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said that it would take to have reached the groups of people that would have targeted that resource that came from the banner consequentials better. It was not so much about the support that you have given on paid carers, it was more about why would it take nine months to reach those four groups when they already know where they are. It is a process question, and how come it takes that long to do that? I can pick up on that. It was for memory over £200 million. In order to deploy that full amount as quickly as possible, that was the most effective way. When it comes to the point that I made between six to nine months, that is mirrored on the time that it took for the low-income payments to be deployed. Working with COSLA to understand the fastest way of delivering money, carers are one group that needs additional support, and Shona Robison has outlined what support is being provided. They are not the only group. There are significant groups of pensioners and households with children. There are groups of people that do not fit into any of those three categories, who also need help and support. At a time like this, there is a huge group of people who are needing help and support. We will continue to try to deploy funding through the schemes that we have already in place. If you will recall, the announcement was made in the middle of February that the money was coming completely unexpectedly. We had about two or three weeks to not only figure out a way of deploying it quickly but to put it in people's pockets within a matter of weeks. To do that right across as many people as possible who are struggling required us to move at pace. There are a number of different schemes that you could identify to create that jigsaw, as it were, of getting help out. That in the round, to deploy that full 200 million pounds plus, would have taken a significant length of time. That is not to say, though, that the ideas and the suggestions around carers allowance and other things are not still live and very pertinent. As Shona Robison said, if we can do more, then we absolutely will do more. However, to get that money out in the round without overcomplicating systems, working with COSLA and responding to their very helpful feedback, that was the fastest way to deploy it. Thank you for that. Perhaps something that the committee and the cabinet secretary can discuss again in the future about the time that it might take to deploy money in a circumstance such as the cost-loving crisis. My final question is about the fact that, as we all know, more and more people are falling into poverty just now, and the cost of living crisis is, of course, increasing. I wonder if both cabinet secretaries could perhaps set out how the Government is using funds to challenge the causes, but not the symptoms of poverty. I appreciate that both cabinet secretaries set out at the beginning of their aspiration for the reduction in people eligible for loans such as the Scottish Government. I appreciate that. Did you set out how the spending plans that you have support people to stay out of poverty in the long-term and ensure that aspects of the social security bill related to that remain manageable? I could kick off. Kate will want to pick up a bit more of the detail in terms of employability, but the key for me is the balance of spending within the child poverty plan. As Pam Duncan-Glancy will know when I set out the plan to Parliament, I was very clear that, as well as the support of money in people's pockets in the here and now primarily through the Scottish child payment, it was really important to tackle some of the root causes of poverty. We know that those are many and complex, but one of the key aspects of that plan was to support parents into employment. It is pretty clear that the traditional employability supports were missing a whole cohort of parents for reasons that we probably could spend the whole day talking about, but essentially the doors that are provided to traditional employability programmes were not doors that were either known to parents who were struggling or they were not attractive enough in terms of the support that was supplied. We set out our ambitions to change that and to really look at more bespoke support to parents moving into employment. We are tackling things such as childcare issues that are barriers to parents getting into employment. We set out a significant investment in employability programmes that is targeted at parents to try to move parents into employment, because we know that that is the best way out of poverty. We have a target of supporting 12,000 parents into employment over the course of the plan. We would make a big change in terms of structural inequalities and poverty within families. I think that the plan set out a balance, Kate. I do not know if you want to say more about employability in your side. It is very specific to my own portfolio in finance and economy, where, like every other portfolio, there is a very challenging outlook. However, if you look at all the lines, the one line that you will see going up by a significant margin over the next five years is the employability line, and that is almost entirely driven by our commitments around tackling child poverty. Quite clearly, employability has a key role to play in doing exactly what Pam Duncan-Glancy has just identified, which is the root causes. Families who are not in secure, well-paid employment to try to support families and secure well-paid employment through the new offer to parents and the no-one left behind approach. Going back to where I identified the four priorities that we have by their very nature, if you prioritise in one area, you have to de-prioritise elsewhere. In my own portfolio, you will see that prioritisation very clearly in the employability line, which is intentionally designed to try and significantly expand employability services to get to our child poverty targets. I now move on to a question from Jeremy Balfour, thank you. Good morning, and I thank you both for coming along with your officials. I wonder if I can just follow that one up with the Cabinet Secretary of Finance. One of the areas that we have seen post-Covid is that people with disability are struggling more to get into employability than even before Covid, and the figure is growing greater. Obviously, many people with disability are also in poverty. Have you any specific measures going forward over the next few years to tackle particularly those with disability who are looking to get into employability? Yes, that is the short answer, and I am happy on the policy question if Shona Robison has anything to add. The funding that goes up by about £100 million for memory over the next five years is about a wraparound services at where for those who are furthest from the job market. That will include disabled people, and it is about a very intentional investment. Understanding that this is very labour and financially intensive to work alongside people for 12 months and then to continue to support them when they are in work. The committee might be happy to follow up on the specific policy areas, but from a financial perspective the point that I would make is that there is funding there, and we have to remember that that is extremely financially intensive if we are serious about it. My last point on that is that there are the moral imperatives that you have identified about supporting disabled people into employment. There are also the economic imperatives, because at a time where unemployment is at 3.2 per cent we are essentially at full employment, and we know how much businesses and so on are desperately looking for workers. Although economic inactivity, if I can use that phrase, is reducing, it is about 21.9 per cent according to the last stats. There are people there who I am sure would be very keen to work if we can provide the right support, and that has a huge economic impact as well as that sort of moral impact. I am grateful if we could have a bit more of our own policy. One of the issues, and I generally do not mean much to look at that, but the figure seems to be going in the opposite direction in England. I have asked lots of people why that is the case, and I do not think that anyone has an answer for it, but I do wonder whether there is anything going on. Is it to do with population? Is it to do with age? I generally do not know the answer, but I do not know if there has been any work done either within Scotland. I think that it is something that we need to ask the UK Government as well. Why are the figures getting different compared to two borders where you have very similar employment laws in several businesses? Maybe that is something to reflect on as well. My main question to get the community back on board is that, as you will be aware, there is an independent review going on of ADP at the moment. Obviously, the mobility issue has been dealt with first, and I think that next year we will have a full review of the whole benefit. I think that there is within the disability community an expectation that this review might want to have a divergence between what is happening in England compared to what is happening under the new ADP. Is there a realistic prospect of making disability benefits more generous if the review felt that that was appropriate, and how would that be financed? Let me start answering that by making the point that we are all ready at the moment to create a fairer system of disability assistance that has a culture of encouraging people with disabilities to access their rights and entitlements by making significant improvements to the application and the decision making processes. In fact, I am sure that Jeremy Balfour will be aware of the new social security advocacy service that was launched in January, which is doing a tremendous job in supporting people with disabilities to access and apply for social security Scotland assistance. It is proactive to encourage people to apply. As you will also know, the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast that more people will be eligible for ADP than PIP, and that awards are expected to be higher than PIP, demonstrating the impact of those improvements in the hearing now. I will come on to the review, but it is important to recognise that that is already the case because of a change in culture. By 2026-27, we expect to invest more than £500 million per year over and above the level of funding that we receive from the UK Government through the block grant adjustment. On the independent review of ADP, I do not want to pre-empt what the review will come out with in terms of expectations around changes to the way that ADP is delivered, but whatever comes out of that will be required to be resourced. We need to manage that within our resources. It is fair to say that we have, because of the projections of the Scottish Fiscal Commission and because it is the right thing to do, prioritised the spend for social security. Kate might want to say something about the fiscal framework and the need for it. Having sat on the committee previously, we spent a lot of time interrogating the fiscal framework and its detail, but it is so restrictive in enabling us to be able to increase the size of the cake in terms of the restriction on borrowing. I will not get into the details because Kate knows far better than I do, but we have a commitment around an increasing trajectory of social security spend. We have prioritised that in the RSR, but it would be extremely helpful to us as a Government to be able to have a more flexible framework. I might have said it already, but the Scottish Fiscal Commission's forecasts bind us to what we spend, but they bind us to having to meet demand-led schemes, which is absolutely right. I know that the committee has expressed an interest in that before, but the discussions about the fiscal framework often fixate on taxation and borrowing. One of the biggest changes that we have seen in the past few years is, of course, trying to manage the volatility in a demand-led scheme. I have to allow quite rightly for sufficient budget to meet demand. I cannot say, for example, in this year of volatility that we are going to allocate £4.2 billion, which is the figure that we have allocated for social security, and get to January only to realise that the demand is £4.6 billion, and I need to identify £400 million from within a fixed budget, which you cannot do. You cannot identify £400 million from within a fixed budget within a matter of weeks. That is almost the entirety of some portfolios. You have to manage the demand-led schemes, but the level of risk there is so substantial that I think that we need the tools in the budget to manage that. Talking about if AADP becomes more generous—obviously, our schemes are more generous already by a margin of £1.3 billion over the next few years—to manage a more generous scheme in my technical world requires me to be able to meet that demand with the right tools. If there is error, so if the Scottish Fiscal Commission is wrong in their forecasts, which every economist is, because nobody can predict to the precise penny what something is going to cost, it is not being wrong. It is just the nature of their job. Every other Government would borrow for the shortfall. What they would not do is go digging in other pots of money from other portfolios to take that, scupper those areas and fund the shortfall. I cannot do that. My borrowing allowance for forecast error is £300 million. Already, you will have seen from the tax position that we are forecast to have to meet a gap that is significantly higher. That is before we even talk about social security. The reason why I bring it up in answer to Jeremy Balfour's question is that we should all have a genuine interest in ensuring that there are tools in place to manage demand-led schemes, because it may sound technical, dull and irrelevant, but it makes all the difference in the world to the individuals who are eligible for those schemes. I appreciate that. I will finish with this remark. The system may be easier to apply, but we still know that none of the criteria in regard to benefits that people are getting under PIP compared to ADP now have changed. I might get a nicer letter from Social Security Scotland to say no, but it will still be a no. That is where the disability community is looking for some kind of work on, but I will leave it there. It would be worth looking at the Scottish Fiscal Commission's assumptions, because the Scottish Fiscal Commission's assumptions assume that more people will be eligible for ADP than PIP. It might be worth it. I do not know if you have the SFC in front of you, but I am unpacking why they believe that. It is their assumptions, rather than my assumptions. Thank you very much. Before we move on to questions about the impact of flat cash allocations on tele-poverty, I want to stick briefly with the demand-led conversation that we are having at the moment with regard to uptake of benefits. We know that a lot of benefits are not taken up at a UK Government level. Obviously, that has an impact on the resources that come to us in relation to the envelope that we get. I am wondering how we can ensure that we prioritise at both Scottish Government levels to make sure that people uptake the benefits that we already have here, but also at a UK level, how can we work with them to make sure that they have a campaign that allows people to recognise what they are entitled to and increase that uptake, which will then help to passport people on to benefits here and to potentially increase the money that we have available in Scotland for that. You make an important point. As you will be aware, ensuring that people access the social security benefits to which they are entitled, we see as a duty and priority of the Scottish Government, you will be aware of the second benefit take-up strategy that was published last October, which set out how we are working to ensure that people can access the support that they are entitled to. At the heart of that is a recognition that benefit take-up is really part of a bigger picture in terms of maximising income. That is so important at the moment in terms of the cost of living. We are investing £10 million over the current Parliament to increase access to advice in accessible settings. That includes expanding the welfare advice and health partnerships through location in GP surgeries. That is working really well so that GPs and other health staff are able to signpost someone just down the corridor to find out what people might be entitled to because they may be at the doctors because of worries about debt and money and that impacting on their mental health. We are really joining the dots there. Obviously, we would encourage the UK Government to take up a more joined-up approach to promotion of benefits as well. We will seek to work with them where we can. There are clearly a number of reserve benefits that are gate-openers to support such as the Scottish child payment in terms of universal credit. We would encourage the UK Government to do more around that, particularly at the moment, around the promotion of entitlements and awareness-raising of what people might be entitled to. I will move on to questions about flat cash allocations and the impact on child poverty. I will start with Deputy convener Natalie Dawn to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy, who is remote. I appreciate the comments that have already been made on employability in the focus and steps that have already been taken towards that priority so far. In terms of the flat cash allocations for skills and tertiary education, what impact could that have on the ability of those sectors to improve parents' employment prospects going forward? I will leave it there for just now, thank you. The point that I would make about that is that there are a number of lines or a number of portfolios in the resource spending review that are all contributing to that wider picture of employability. You can, of course, look at the education and skills line. You can also look at the employability lines in my own portfolio. That is where, as I said, prioritising one area by extension means not prioritising other areas. What I have done in my portfolio is prioritising employability. The reason why I mentioned that is because we have to become more flexible in our support to parents if we are going to tackle child poverty. I do not think that you can just look at perhaps the more conventional skills routes so that you can look at higher education and further education quite rightly and scrutinise that. However, in my own portfolio around employability, what I am excited about is the significant increase in investment around no one left behind, the significant investment in a new commitment, which is the offer to parents. That brings together a range of services and support, including employability, but also childcare, health, support to access transport and family wellbeing. In other words, a wraparound support that focuses on families that are at the greatest risk of experiencing poverty. This year, we have up to £113 million that has been allocated to employability services. That includes up to £81 million to support delivery of the commitments on the second tackling child poverty delivery plan. You then see that trajectory across the RSR. I would dispute the premise of the question because we need to look in a far more flexible way at employability. Therefore, we need to look at the RSR in the round. My last point, and then I will stop talking, is that the four priorities identified, one of which is tackling child poverty, has to run through every portfolio. It cannot just be Shona Robison's job to tackle child poverty. It has to be my job in financing employability. It has to be the health secretary's job. It has to be the constitution secretary's job. It is all of our jobs and all of us should be prioritising that, which is what you see in my portfolio. In terms of the local government allocations, the flat cash local government allocations, and you mentioned the early learning and childcare expansion, do those allocations take into account the future costs of early learning and childcare, for example, free school meals expansion? Do you mention the volatility early on? Is there an element of that in the review? I am happy to answer on the local government, but it is probably a policy question. Clearly, the local government settlement overall is challenging in the circumstances where we have already set out quite clearly that we have prioritised social security spend. You have a pot of money and you cannot spend it twice. Having said that, a lot of the support to support people through costs of living are routed through local government, so it is worth just reiterating that point, whether it is discretionary housing payments or the welfare fund, etc. As I am sure Kate would hasten to add, there was additional money added at stage 2 to local government in terms of the budget bill, £120 million. Final decisions around the annual local government settlement and the level of funding provided for things such as early learning and childcare expansion are taken through the annual budget process. The RSR sets out the framework, but the budget sets out the actual money that will be allocated. That is the top-line answer to your question. We currently invest in the delivery of early learning and childcare over £1 billion per year in the delivery of the 1,140 hours. That is a big commitment. You will also be aware that, in programme for government, we are committed to building a system of school-age childcare to support children and families and develop a new offer of early learning and childcare for one- and two-year-olds, starting with those who would benefit most. We are very much linking back into the child poverty plan and supporting those families who need it most. It is a big financial commitment and a big priority. We know that going back to that parental employability, we know that affordable childcare is absolutely key. I hope that answers your question. That is obviously a review. As you have said, those decisions will be made in the budget. That is why I was just asking about the kind of volatility in terms of whether we do not necessarily know where we are at in terms of inflation and everything. As always, we are running over time. We have a number of questions to get through. I will bring Pam Duncan-Glancy in on that and then hand over to Jerry Balfour as well before we move on to the next section. I am keen to talk a little bit about the child poverty delivery plan in the context of the flat cash elsewhere outside the social security portfolio. I know that both cabinet secretaries this morning have been talking about the rates of child poverty at 17 per cent, but they will also be aware that both Save the Children and the Joseph Remtree Foundation published independent analysis this week. That said, and I quote, it is hard to conclude that the child poverty plan fully delivers a comprehensive set of activity that will meet its lofty ambitions. A stronger prescription is needed to meet the diagnosis. The committee will concur that we have heard some evidence from third sector organisations to say that the plan uses the term lofty and ambitious, but that the detail is a bit like. In actual fact, some of what they have said in the independent report this week is that you are likely to miss the targets and that families might have to, in a quote, freeze or eat. I know that those are quite strong words, but they are coming from independent analysis, and I wonder if you could comment on how you expect to meet the child poverty targets in the context of that report. In particular, it appears that it took quite some time to get to the point of taking enough action, and it is possible that the only option now is through the Scottish child payment. Of course, it is important to look elsewhere. What is the plan to meet those targets now that it looks like you are going to miss them? First of all, I welcome the latest report from GRF and Save the Children. We continue to work with them and other key stakeholders to take forward our work on child poverty. First of all, on the plan, we have set out significant resources to deliver the plan that I set out. The RSR allocates up to £300 million for tackling child poverty and social justice. It also commits more than £23 billion through social security payments in the next four years, with almost £1.8 billion for the Scottish child payment. The report welcomes the plan, and I quote from the plan that it is a strong diagnosis of the struggle that many families are currently experiencing poverty face. In many respects, the plan also correctly identifies the areas where additional action is needed. The organisations at the time of the plan welcomed the balance within the plan of putting money into people's pockets, reducing costs and employability. The three pillars were absolutely what we were advised to do in terms of the balance of the plan. As I set out in my opening remarks, the modelling that we have done around the plan that I set out to the Parliament would deliver a 17 per cent of children living in relative poverty, which would meet the relative poverty target. The modelling that JRF and Save the Children have done is a different system of modelling that has reached their conclusions. I can bring Julie Humphries in if you want to know more about the difference in the modelling, but it is a different modelling system. The absolute child poverty target is extremely difficult to meet in the times of rising inflation because it is very linked to inflation and would be extremely difficult to chase that target by using the Scottish child payment. For example, the modelling that we did showed that, at that point, it will be even higher now because inflation has gone up. You would have needed to have set a Scottish child payment of around £55 per week per child to chase that target because it is so linked to inflation. Inflation has now risen since that, but the plan was published, so it would be even higher. I am afraid that that is just not a sustainable position. That is why the other things that we are doing, such as mitigating the benefit cap and all those other supports, is an attempt to tackle and target those families that are absolutely the poorest and it is more likely to shift that absolute poverty target. I do not underestimate the challenge here and we welcome that scrutiny brought by organisations that are absolutely dedicated to it. We have said on a number of occasions that we will keep the Scottish child payment under review. I know that the organisation's concern had asked for a Scottish child payment of £40 over the course by the end of this parliamentary term. Of course, we will keep the Scottish child payment under review, but we have to have it in balance with those other elements of employability to make sure that we are encouraging people to take up fair work opportunities where they can and remove the barriers for them to do so. Thank you for that answer, cabinet secretary. Of course, that is the case and increasing employability options has to be the way forward so that people can get out and stay out of poverty. At this point, and probably at the beginning of this parliamentary session, organisations were already saying that action on reducing the structural inequality that exists in society has not been significant enough and therefore the only option was to use things, mechanisms such as the Scottish child payment. I take the point that the modelling said that it was a slightly different modelling, but it has also said in that report that it used the same finars and modelling that the Government used and still could not get to the point that it did. I am really interested to hear what more are you going to do to make sure that you do meet those targets. Even by the Government's own estimation, we might just get there. By independent analysis, we won't. It is fair to say that more is needed. What other actions is the Government going to take? Firstly, on the modelling, we have not kept that secret. It was laid out in full transparency as part of the plan so that everybody can see the modelling and the way that it was done to get to the 17 per cent part. It was driven by, in large, by the increase in Scottish child payment, going to £25 by the end of this year, but it was also supported by the work around parental employability. All the other areas that we are investing in are mitigating the benefit cap with up to £10 million of investment each year that will help around 4,000 Scottish households, mainly single parents, and those that are really, really struggling. We are investing at least £500 million over the life of this Parliament in the whole family wellbeing funding to give families access to the help that they need, where and when they need it, so that, again, we would bespoke supports. In addition, all the other aspects, because Kate Forbes quite rightly pointed out that it is not just for me and my portfolio interests to tackle child poverty, it is about the early learning and childcare support. It is about the skills support. It is about all the other elements from across Government that can help to support families and drive down poverty levels, but we will continue to look at what more we can do, and that is the work that has been going on across Government as we speak to identify are there other levers that we need to use, and we will remain open to that. Thank you very much. We have ran to our allotted time, but what I am going to have to do at this point is to bring members in who have not spoken yet, so I want to allow Miles Briggs to have some questions and Paul MacLennan, who is online, to have a couple of questions. The rest of the questions that members rightly have that they want to put to the cabinet secretaries will put them in writing, because we need to make sure that we leave enough time this morning for the last evidence session. We have our inquiry that we need to report on quickly, so I will bring Miles Briggs in at the moment and then head to Paul. Good morning, cabinet secretaries and new officials. Thank you for joining us this morning. I wanted to ask, with regard to reports today, that there is £41 million, which the Scottish Government has received from the UK Government to alleviate the cost of living crisis, which now has not been allocated, where that additional resource is likely to be allocated to and whether or not Parliament will have a statement before we go into recess about that. I take that at the moment. A few comments that I would make about that. First of all, at a time of extreme volatility, I would make a point that costings that we perhaps established a few weeks ago are inevitably going to rise. Where we had perhaps forecast that a particular pot of funding was going to meet a number of people, it is highly likely that, in light of inflation, either the demand is going to increase or the additional support that we are required to give is going to increase. I make that as a budget management point where, in terms of additional consequentials, they do not sit there as it were unused. I think that that is quite important, so we have got to manage a budget so that I do not get to January and then discover that there is still more demand. I make that point in terms of managing the budget. The second point in terms of that funding is that I think that things are probably going to become even more challenging than they are right now. We know that, if inflation is at 9.1 per cent, the Bank of England has forecasted it to rise to 11 per cent. I am not being political here when I say that the UK Government is absolutely adamant that it is not going to do anything further on the cost of living right now because of what they perceive to be the risks of contributing to inflation. I cannot foresee any further consequentials coming down the line, so I also think that we need to make sure that any funding that we have in hand is used well but is used to cover the rest of the year. Those are the two considerations when it comes to that funding. I do not have much more to add right now, apart from making the point that every single penny that is for the cost of living is going on cost of living measures. We have set out already today that £3 billion figure. We had been using the £770 million figure of additional resources on cost of living. I can make one final third point, which is that I believe that pay is directly one of our cost of living measures. Right now, we are engaged with a number of pay negotiations quite rightly. We are conscious of other negotiations on going right now. I think that you have to see pay as a cost of living measure. Those three areas are my context setting for how we are managing all funding, including the £41 million figure, which is why I do not have a more definitive answer. It would not be particularly wise to allocate funding without being conscious of those three pressures, but I do not know if Shona has anything else to add. I think that just to reiterate the £3 billion point, every £1 a prisoner, I guess, is the same goes, but it is already providing support to households not available anywhere else in the UK, particularly to low-income families. The consequentials that Miles Briggs refers to are obviously the consequentials from the household support fund that was routed through local government in England, but we already provide a range of supports, some routed through local government as well that are well in excess of that. I would not want the impression that we are given that somehow the money was being spent on things to support low-income households in England that are not being supported here in Scotland because we have already gone well beyond some of those with the supports. We continue to look at what more we can do within the financial constraints that we have. In the interests of time, I will try to merge my questions around the Equality and Fairer Scotland statement. I wanted to ask specifically whether the Scottish Government has gone further in the statement about presenting, even in broad terms, how it is sought to minimise the impact of real-term cuts in some budget areas. Local government being one of those in the budget with the £250 million cut that they have seen because that will impact, as the cabinet secretary has already said on policy agendas, which local government are tasked with delivering free school meals, as some in this committee have been very passionate about looking at. The ability for councils, for example, to be able to write off school meal debt is being impacted. I wondered where the cabinet secretary had looked at that unintended consequence sometimes on other budget areas and delivering the portfolio agenda as well. The resource spending review sets out broad-pamp parameters, so it is a lot more strategic than a budget would be. That is where the Equality and Fairer Scotland statement is very similar in terms of its approach to the resource spending review. It takes a strategic lens. I will keep my comments brief. The resource spending review does not replace a budget, so it does not have anything lower than level 2, so level 2 is comparatively quite high level. It is quite difficult to get into the depth of specific lines that would normally be published in a budget at level 3 and level 4, and that does constrain how detailed an equality and fairer Scotland statement can be. Within that, as Briggs mentioned, free school meals. We have given a priority to the expansion of free school meals. We see it as a vital support, and that has been expanded to include primary four and five pupils during 2021 and 2022. It is supported this financial year with £40.2 million of additional funding, and we are going to work with local government and other partners on the delivery and implementation of the further expansion. I think that there may be many criticisms, but I am not sure that free school meals can fairly be one of them. In terms of our partnership with local government going forward, it is made just worth making this point that we are keen to work with local government around a new fiscal framework. That is about getting the balance right of flexibilities. We obviously want to discuss that much further with Parliament in terms of what that looks like, but we are keen to take that forward when we have already started to have very positive discussions with the new COSLA presidential team. In terms of identifying, we have already discussed policies around tackling child poverty. What works for the Government undertaking to analyse how resources are being targeted in policies? We have had this discussion with regard to children and temporary accommodation, on a number of occasions. For example, the cost of £27,000 per case does not seem to be well utilised resource. I wondered where that wider reform of where resources are being allocated is taking place. The resource spending review was an opportunity to interrogate the areas of spend. We see that the affordable housing supply programme is a key lever of addressing poverty and child poverty. That is why we have the £3.6 billion of investment. Within that are other challenges. We have discussed on a number of occasions around the challenges of temporary accommodation. We are working with local government on reducing the need and use of temporary accommodation. The funding of it is an issue that has been discussed with local government on a number of occasions. I remember that committee again was looking at the cost of temporary accommodation, particularly for those who are in work and the challenges that that brings. That is primarily a local government issue, and there is a reliance on housing benefit revenues in terms of funding. I am happy to come back with a bit more detail about the work that we are doing around temporary accommodation in the interests of time. I will move to the final questions for this session to Paul McLeanon, who is online. Over to you, Paul. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary, and apologies. I can't be with yourself and the committee room today. I was really just trying to expand a little more on the fiscal framework that Kate Forbes mentioned earlier on. This morning, I just noticed, for example, that we are talking about the vacancies of Government forecasting. The Government OBR had forecast the cost of Government borrowing interest to be £87 billion and now come out this morning and say that that is going to be over £100 billion. That highlights the vacancies of the 20 forecast. There is an extra £13 billion literally just being added on. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned, of course, about the fiscal framework and the restrictions of that. At the moment that you talked about increased borrowing powers, and I think that you had mentioned that it was around about £300 million, we could look at that at the moment. Is there an estimated figure that you think that the Scottish Government should be looking at to give us that flexibility, particularly in the way that, as you said, demand-led spend, and also about the impact on spillover issues? I don't want to tackle those two issues. I've got one other question after that, but those are the two main ones for me at the moment regarding the fiscal framework. Sure. I'll start with borrowing, and I've already outlined the reasons for borrowing, and just as a reminder, we can only borrow for two main reasons, but when it comes to resource, it's largely entirely just for forecast error, and that's £300 million. Again, just to put this in context, £300 million out of a budget that's £45 billion give or take is pretty small. If you look at the reconciliation figures that are required over the next few years, I need to emphasise the point that, to manage reconciliations, which is the result of forecast error—it's not the result of policy decisions necessarily, it's literally the result of forecast error—we have got to use actual spending power to deal with that. I'm talking about actual money that would go to the health service, actual money that would go on social security, actual money that would go on all the priorities that I'm sure everybody has around the Parliament. This is literally just about smoothing budgets, so if you've got a big reconciliation required as we do next year and the year after, you could see a big cliff edge for the health service. We have avoided that through prudent and careful budget management, but resource borrowing is not an intangible irrelevant thing out here on the side that accountants worry about. It actually has a direct impact. You asked me straight up what should be required. I think that we should have the same powers as local government, which is to borrow according to affordability. That's what grown-up Governments do—they borrow according to affordability. We're obviously engaged in a review of the fiscal framework right now with the UK Government. I will be making that case. I have a compromise position, which I probably shouldn't confess in public, but my compromise position is to at least index it to the budget, because as a budget increases inevitably with inflation, those limits of that £300 million remain fixed, so it's going to become an ever-decreasing proportion of the budget. As Shona Robison said, I could probably bore for Scotland on the fiscal framework, so I'm going to stop there, but I hope that that helps to answer your question. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The other one was on the issue of the spillover issues. I don't know if you want to touch a wee bit more on that. In the meeting term, the strategic framework mentioned about still issues and about the restrictions about the spillover, I don't know if you want to touch on that. You kind of answered me the next question. We're just talking about how the discussions are going with the UK Government and its enemy, and did you get a timescale when we expected to get an answer back regarding the discussions that you're having with them regarding the fiscal framework? I'm delighted to be welcoming the chief secretary to the treasury to Edinburgh on Monday, so we will be meeting to discuss the spillover dispute and the fiscal framework. We are hoping to announce details about the independent report, which has to precede the review, and that independent report will be, by its nature, independent. We are a little bit behind time, which is unfortunate, because that independent report should theoretically have been completed by the end of last year, and we should be in the territory of a review, and I think that we just need to move as quickly as possible. On the spillover dispute, I am extremely keen that we get a resolution to that. Again, it's just real money, and there's a disagreement about the methodology of basically what the Scottish Government is entitled to. The principle has been agreed, so both Governments agree that the Scottish Government is entitled to additional funding as a result of UK Government policy changes on income tax, so that that principle has been conceded. What we are still in discussions about is what the quantum of funding is, because that is not as clear-cut. Obviously, I have a duty to represent the Scottish Government in this regard, and to make sure that, if there is a principle there, there is a question of fairness at stake. I think that we can see that more fiscal flexibility would certainly help the committee and yourself in that. We will gather on members' questions that we didn't get to put to you both, and we will write to you with them. We will suspend briefly for a changeover of witnesses. Thank you and welcome back this morning. We now turn to our next item of business, which is the final evidence session on our inquiry into low-income and debt problems. I welcome back to the meeting, Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government. For the first time this morning, Tom Arthur, who is the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth. We have all of their officials in the room, everybody is in the room today with us. We have Elaine Moyer, who is the head of financial wellbeing unit at the Scottish Government, Robin Haynes, who is the head of council tax and alternative local tax policies at the Scottish Government, and we have Alex Reid, who is the head of policy development at the bank in Bankruptcy. Good morning. I believe that both the cabinet secretary and the minister will make a short opening statement over to you, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, convener. I am acutely aware that households across the country are facing a serious cost of living crisis, and those on the lowest incomes are being hit the hardest, with many households likely to carry an increased burden of debt. As I said in the previous session, through the budget for 2022-23, the Scottish Government has allocated almost £3 billion to a range of supports that will contribute to mitigating the impact of the increased cost of living on households. That includes work to tackle child poverty, reduce inequalities and support financial wellbeing alongside social security payments that are not available anywhere else in the UK. That includes investing £83 million for discretionary housing payments, including £68.1 million to mitigate the bedroom tax and an additional £14.9 million to mitigate the damaging impact of other UK Government welfare cuts. Responding to the crisis, we also took the decision to upgrade eight Scottish benefits by 6 per cent and invest a further £10 million in our fuel insecurity fund to support households at risk of severely rationing their energy use or self-disconnecting. Our Scottish welfare fund provides a vital and important safety net to those most in need, and we have committed £41 million to the fund again this year. It is a significant financial support for those living in Scotland that will provide protection for those on lowest incomes. Ensuring that people have enough money to live on and that they are receiving all the benefits and entitlements that they should and that they are appropriately supported around their debts are priorities for Government. That is why we are committed to maximising benefit take-up. As shown in our benefit take-up strategy, we are investing over £12 million this year to support free advice services to help people to maximise their incomes and manage their debt. We know that there is more to do, and that is why we are committed to increasing the accessibility of advice over this parliamentary term. We will continue to work with advice services to understand and respond to the ongoing impacts of the rising cost of living and ensure that our limited resources support people who are struggling the most. I have had the opportunity to read through much of the evidence given in previous sessions, including from those who have experienced the pressures of debt and low income. That evidence has provided a stark and salient reminder of the pressures being faced both by households across the country and by those who are trying to help them. There is a reason why we are talking about a cost of living crisis. Numbers of personal insolvencies dropped significantly during the pandemic, but are now rising again. There can be little doubt about rising inflation. Not just on energy costs, it will bring more people into unsustainable debt. There are, of course, whole categories of debt that individuals do not necessarily choose to incur—council tax, benefit repayments and other involuntary debts. Here, we must look at the system itself so that we are not asking those who cannot afford to pay towards what are, in effect, the costs of the state. The cabinet secretary has set out much of what we have been doing recently on this front to put extra money into people's pockets. On the debt solutions available, I believe that we have a very strong foundation. High-quality advice is at the centre of our solutions. It is a prerequisite for accessing them. We believe that that is exactly the right approach. We have reduced the fees for accessing bankruptcy and removed those completely for the most financially vulnerable. We continue to take action. We have made changes to the coronavirus recovery and reform bill to continue the extended moratorium period of six months beyond the end of September. We support John Mason's amendment on bank arrestments, and it was good to see the changes to the moratorium gaining cross-party support at stage 2. I believe that giving people time and space to consider the right solution can, in fact, deliver benefits to all sides, creditors included. Although we cannot take that too far, we would only be harming the interests of those on low incomes if we made creditors unwilling to lend to them. I do know what we have more to do, and we are in the midst of a stakeholder-led review of debt solutions. I welcome any suggestions that the committee might have for where we should focus our attention. I turn to questions from members. To kick us off, we are going to hear from Paul MacLennan, who is online, who will ask some questions about accessing money advice. That will be followed by questions about the delivery of money advice. A few weeks ago, three or four of us from the committee met people with lived experience. It was a very worthwhile exercise. There was one particular chap who mentioned the financial problems that he got himself into. He mentioned social prescribing and was mentioned. He literally said that referral saved his life. He gave us an example, and then I am just wondering what your views are on the role of social prescribing in regard to accessing debt advice. We have seen that one example. I am sure that there would be many others, but I want to see what your thoughts are on the role of social prescribing in this regard. It is really important. I am aware of the case that Paul MacLennan talks about and how that is a very powerful testimony. The key thing here is the 200 community link workers that are located in general practices across Scotland that we have funded through the primary care improvement fund. They are now a well-established component of multidisciplinary teams in primary care, because we know that someone may present to their GP with stress and mental health issues. What underlies that are worries about money, about debt, and being able to then sample someone in the hearing now just along the corridor to someone who can help to look at the money situation, entitlements and options around debt management is so important. That is why the value of community link workers is that testimony that you can multiply many times around the value. The experience and insight of community link workers are crucial in helping us to plan future policy. The Scottish Government commissioned Voluntary Health Scotland to develop a new national network and community of practice for community link workers, so we can build on that expertise, but I think that they do a crucial job. Thank you, convener. That was my question on that. Thank you very much. We will move on to questions around the delivery of money advice, but, to start us off, we have Pam Duncan-Glancy, who is online, to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Over to you, Pam. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the minister and hello again to the cabinet secretary. Thank you for the opening statements. I coleyconclerc that one of the most important things here is high quality advice. The committee has heard from various advice providers that, in fact, they are themselves absolutely burst at the seams. One citizen advice, for example, told us that the staff working in those bureaus are actually going to bed at night worrying about the same money problems that they are having to support people through the day for, so they are really in a very difficult environment right now. Yet, at the same time, we have seen about a 10-year decline in the funding for money advice services. Can I ask the cabinet secretary and the minister how they would address that? Do they accept that people need more, not fewer, services at this point? First of all, it is important to note that, for 2022-23, the Scottish Government is investing over £12 million to support the provision of free income maximisation and welfare and debt advice through our support to advice services. At the same time, I think that we would want to acknowledge that, like every other sector, the advice sector is under pressure due to the cost of living crisis. The impact of Covid is still felt. The cost of living crisis and the Scottish Government's commitment to tackling child poverty requires a framework for Scottish Government-funded advice services that goes beyond debt advice to provide accessible, holistic services that will help people to maximise their incomes and provide the support that they require. We are committed to reviewing the way that advice is funded by the Scottish Government. We are awaiting advice on a refreshed approach later in this year that will take account of, for example, the improvement services work on funding models for the debt advice levy and other models, such as the Welsh single advice fund. We understand the pressure, and we are looking at how best we can address those. Funding is just one component of that. We are aware, and I want to put on record my thanks to all the work that the advice services are doing at this moment in time. Can you confirm whether or not that review will look at the three-year funding proposals and update the committee on how you are implementing three-year funding proposals, particularly in money advice services? The First Minister said recently that we know how much importance the third sector places on multi-year funding settlements. We will continue to work with the sector on the issue of fair and stable funding and try to move to multi-year funding where possible. That is very much in line with the discussions that we have been having with third sector organisations that, of course, want to move to multi-year funding. One of the constraints that we have had as a Government is that we have not had multi-year funding, but we have had the opportunity through the RSR to set out our funding priorities. Tackling poverty and child poverty in particular is clearly one of those key priorities. That is very much on the table in the short answer. Do you expect that a three-year funding cycle is imminently going to be implemented? It has to be part of the discussions with the third sector. It is not just about multi-year funding, it is also about some of the reviews and the way that we are going to be delivering services. There are discussions to be had with the third sector about making sure that they are working collaboratively in the way that they need to avoid duplication. The multi-year funding discussions need to be part of a wider discussion with the third sector going forward. However, we will continue to have those discussions with the third sector representatives going forward. I am happy to keep the committee appraised of how that is going. Thank you very much for that, Pam. You have helped to ask Jeremy Balfour's questions for him. I am now going to move on to Faisal Chowdry, who joins us online, who has questions round about the delivery of money advice. Over to you, Faisal. Thank you very much, convener. Pam has asked my question as well. I was just going to text you that as well. I am sorry that I am not here with you guys. Good morning to everyone. Hello. It is always helpful when members ask other members questions that allow us to move swiftly on to the next one. I am going to now come back to Jeremy Balfour, who has a question for us on digital exclusion. Jeremy, please. Good morning, minister. Good morning again, cabinet secretary. It feels like the good old days when we used to all be on committee together here, so it is nice to see you both here. Clearly, and rightly so, digital way forward in regard to applying for benefits is important and has saved many people a lot of time. However, there are particularly roles with disability issues or the people who find online three night forms really hard or there is digital exclusion. I suppose that I am just trying to explore how do we get the balance between not excluding people for applying for benefits because they cannot use the online system. Will the Government give a commitment that they will still be able to use a telephone or a paper copy if that is appropriate? Luckily, there are a couple of questions left that I have not been asked, but I think that you raised an important point. First, on digital exclusion and then on non-digital support. The Scottish Government is in the process of identifying priority groups to support over the next four years, and initially that is going to focus on the sixth child poverty family types. The user research being undertaken on the initial phases of Connecting Scotland will assist with that approach. It is really trying to make sure that the resources and support through Connecting Scotland are reaching those who need it most. That work continues, but you are right to point out that for some, for a variety of reasons, the digital world is difficult for them. It is important that there is a balance. In the previous session, I mentioned that the new Social Security Advocacy Service, which was launched back in January, is supporting people with disabilities to access and apply for social security assistance. That is absolutely that space of sometimes face-to-face support in order to take people through the process, whether that is online or through paper processes. While we all want to have more efficient—most people now will access their support online, it is important to have those other options. The work of the Social Security Advocacy Service is going to be really important in that space. I am happy to furnish the committee with more details about that, if that would be helpful. I move on to questions around about debt and mental health. I will start with my colleague Emma Roddick, who is in the room. Thank you, convener. We have heard from quite a lot of witnesses, particularly those in the experts by experience group, how mental health issues were made worse or prevented them to access advice services, especially where there was trauma. Is the Scottish Government aware of this difficulty? Is it doing specific work to encourage services to become trauma informed? I think that you make an important point. First of all, we recognise very much that we need to understand the impact that debt and money worries can have on mental health. We are working with stakeholders to tackle the issue and make sure that our services have the reach that they need to have. In our mental health transition and recovery plan, we committed to further develop a response to those whose mental health has been affected by issues relating to debt. We are working closely with a range of organisations, including Citizens Advice Scotland, to tackle that. We have worked with support in mind Scotland and the money and pension service on the development of a money and mental health toolkit. The toolkit is designed to help people to understand, manage and improve their financial health and mental wellbeing. It is going to be distributed very soon, mainly through GP practices, with some distribution among social prescribing networks and Public Health Scotland. It is also going to be able to be downloaded from the Mental Health and Money Advice Scotland website. We understand those linkages, and we are trying to make sure that that is built in to the services that are provided. I will move on to some other issues that were raised by witnesses. Kirsty from CPag told us in May that she believes that there is a direct correlation between the two-child limit and food bank use. The Government Law Centre told us that the removal of the £20 UC uplift made the difference between people having to use food banks or not. Inclusion told us that the five-week wait for UC sets woke up to fail. What analysis has the Scottish Government done of the overall impact of those and other UK Government welfare policies? You might be aware of the Scottish Government welfare reform report on households with children, which was published back in April. If not, it is definitely worth having a look at that, because it found that reversing key welfare reforms, some of which you have just mentioned, would bring around 70,000 people out of poverty, including 30,000 children. It looked at the removal of the £20 per week uplift, the two-child limit, the removal of the family element and the benefit freeze. It looked at things like the UC work allowance and taper rate, which has been a positive move on that. It would essentially help to put £780 million more per year into the pockets of Scottish households if those reforms were reversed. On our mitigation, we have spent a lot of money. I outlined some in my opening remarks around the mitigation of the bedroom tax or the benefit cap. I would just make the point that, if we did not have to mitigate those and those decisions were reversed at source, we would obviously be able to spend that money that we currently spend on discretionary housing payments and the benefit cap on other supports. We would reiterate our call, as I do, when I meet my counterparts in the DWP and UK Government, that that would be the best way forward for us all, if that was to be done. Thank you for that, yes. It is clear that there is quite a contrast there. You will be aware about a new analysis that shows that independent European countries, comparable to Scotland, often with a similar population, are wealthier and fairer than the UK. Poverty rates are lower if your children live in poverty and pensioner poverty is lower. What would the opportunities be if we, like they do, had additional powers at our disposal? I think that the first point to make is that it is never the best system you would not design as a welfare system delivered by two Governments in two different ways. The interaction and the interface there is difficult. The complexity around the whole-case transfer at the moment has, even just down to systems, trying to reconcile systems. That is before you get into the end-user experience of trying to navigate all of that complexity. Of course, the fact that we have underlying entitlements in terms of Scottish child payment at the moment, obviously, is a trigger benefit. It is a complexity that if we were designing a system in Scotland for Scotland, we would do that quite differently and we would be able to build a system that is more coherent and would be able to build on some of the dignity and fairness principles that are at the heart of Social Security Scotland. Having said that, we are doing what we can in the package of five family benefits, just worth reiterating, is worth up to over £10,000 by the time a first family's child turns six. That is not available at anything like that anywhere else in the UK, so we are trying to use the system that we have to put money into people's pockets. We will move to questions from Paul McClellan on debt and mental health as well. Thank you, convener. Last week, I hosted a parliamentary reception from the Scottish mental health partnership. We were talking about the refresh of the mental health and wellbeing strategy. In discussions at the event, they did mention that debt is now playing another increasing part in people coming to them with mental health issues. How can we ensure that debt and mental health is included in the refresh of the mental health and wellbeing strategy, and how can we measure, is there any metrics that we can bring to that and talk about how effective that is being? I think that it is important. When I answered the question earlier on about the money and mental health toolkit, it shows that it is very much on the mind of people who are not just working on the health side of things, who really understand and get this in terms of the relationship between money worries and mental health. The toolkit is going to be really, really important. The support that is being rolled out in terms of those link workers, providing that front-line support and that social prescribing and signposting is critical, and it will be even more critical going forward. Thank you very much. We have great questions around changes to the legal framework, and I will bring in Jeremy Balfour to ask a few of you. We had quite a long discussion with a number of groups around the whole issue of bankruptcy and how that should work. There are a couple of questions to you, minister. The first one is, in regard to the fees for applying for bankruptcy, I wonder what consideration the Scottish Government has given to the moving restriction that everyone can only go through a minimal assessment bankruptcy once every 10 years. Is there any thought that that could be a reduced amount? If it was, would that require primary legislation or could it be done by secondary legislation? I am conscious that that is a matter that has been raised. It is important to recognise that the map is a 10-year period for the full administration bankruptcy that is a five-year period. I can understand the reasons in rationale that are presented, because it is often the case that the map is the best solution for someone because of their particular circumstances, but we also have to recognise that, as I am sure that we all do, the significance of the step of sequestration. If we are seeing a situation where someone would have multiple bankruptcies within a limited period of a decade, that suggests more fundamental issues that have to be addressed. However, as the committee is aware, we are in the process of conducting a wider review. The working groups have reported that we will continue to engage with stakeholders and will be consulting later this year. I look forward to the report that the committee will produce out of this inquiry to understand the committee's views more fully. I recognise the rationale behind calls for allowing one to access the map process more than once within a 10-year period, but I think that it is something that we have to consider carefully. On the process for changing that, I am going to ask if Alex would be able to respond. Yes, so this is on whether the committee is changed by secondary legislation. I perhaps need to defer back to the committee on that. We are writing that there are general deregulation-making powers in the Bankers of Scotland Act 2016 to vary time periods and amounts, but I seek advice on that and revert just on writing as to whether the particular change on the 10-year period would be something that would fall within secondary legislation. My second question came as a bit of a surprise to me as we heard the evidence was that, at the moment, a lot of the debt that people are dealing with is council tax debt, it is rent to rears. I am just wondering, and I have already done a question of ignorance moment, is there a legal duty for councils to pursue that, so do councils have to pursue that vigorously? And if not, have you had any discussions with COSLA in regard to at least maybe mitigating that in the short term in regard to pursuing that? Because the evidence that we have got is that, at the moment, clearly things may change in the number of months ahead, but at the moment most of people's debt seems to be not private debt, it seems to be debt that is owed to local authorities. I am just wondering from a purely legal perspective, do they have to pursue that? And secondly, what discussions have you had with COSLA? I will ask Robin, if there is specifically any legal obligation, but of course, in due respect to the autonomy of local authorities in this matter, we would recognise that in general local authorities will always seek to engage with individuals who are in arrears to work out a mutually agreed scheme of addressing any debt that is in place, but if there is any particular legal obligation, I will ask Robin to comment. There is no legal obligation to pursue is my understanding, although liability is set out in law as in council tax liability. As the minister described, recovery of unpaid council tax is a matter for each individual's councils owned administrative practices, and as the minister said, the key thing is to secure engagement from those creditors to the council. With regard to any specific engagement with COSLA, whether it is for Government to propose legislation, Parliament decides whether or not to enact legislation, we can set the framework for how the local taxation operates. The administration of that is a matter for local authorities who are, of course, democratically accountable. In terms of all aspects of engagement, I have, of course, a respect for the autonomy of local government in these matters as a paramount. I absolutely understand that, minister. I suppose that what I am trying to pursue is, and maybe even if you can come back to write them a committee, is my understanding was that there is a duty on local authorities to take action by taking a court action, so that they become a secure creditor in regard to any debt that would build up, but that, obviously, then leads to pressure for people then to have that as a burden on them. I am just wondering if that is my correct understanding, and if so, had there been any thought in regard to, even for a short term, as we go through this crisis, waive in that, and would that require a statutory legal changes in any law? My understanding is that local authorities have the power to write off debt of any type if they chose to do so, provided that there is no expectation of recovery. Ministers do not have the power to require local authorities to write off debts, obviously. In terms of any decision making, it has to be on the basis of individual circumstances. It would be a very difficult message to send out if there was a wholesale, even if resources could be found in the current climate, given the reliance for local services on council tax collection. We have to be very cautious there. I know that there is work going on with the improvement service, and I am trying to improve the way that council tax is collected. It is worth making the point that we have the council tax reduction scheme in Scotland, which means that no one should have to meet a council tax liability that they are unable to afford. Our role through the reduction scheme is to try and protect those who are on low incomes to make sure that they are not requiring to pay a council tax rate that they cannot afford. The reduction scheme has been important and has benefited a lot of people. I have avoided many falling into arrears, so I want to add that. I want to clarify further the engagement with COSLA. COSLA does not have a formal role in debt work, but we would encourage COSLA to share good practice among its members. Before we move on to questions about creditor processes, we will start with Deputy convener Natalie Dawn. I will round about the council tax reduction scheme, which is something unique to Scotland. Many households are availing themselves of it. We heard from quite a few of the witnesses that sometimes it was a confusing landscape, depending on the local authority that they were in. Their letters were not always clear as to how the benefit was calculated. Is there any role for the Scottish Government to help to make the guidance very clear and the process is a lot more simpler for people to uptake? That is something that we could certainly take away and consider if we think that there is perhaps best practice that could be supported in terms of what some local authorities are doing. I accept the point that it can be confusing. One of the areas that we are looking at is to try and have single sources of information and support. It might be that we can pull in some of those local authority-delivered supports to make sure that people going in and looking at what they might be entitled to can get a bit more clarity around that from a single source of advice. We can certainly take away and look at that, whether there is anything more that we need to do around guidance. That follows on from my colleagues' comments. Some of the points have been covered already, but that is an important point. The committee has heard a lot of reports about the divergence between local authorities and the methods of collecting public debt. For example, benefit letters can be difficult to read. There is little time between a missed payment and debt being passed over to collection agencies. With those agencies, the methods used can be really, really distressing at times, with some being quite incessant more so than others. In relation to earnings assessments that can be put in place, we have heard that we know that those are not means tested. That is really, really concerning when we think about families or single parents or just people in different situations. Going forward, would it be possible for there to be some form of national standard that would give us peace of mind that collection will be carried out with more decency and respect in mind, ensuring a national standard across all local authorities? I appreciate that the responsibilities are with the local authorities, but it would just be really good if we knew that there was one size fits all method for how that was carried out. I will hand over to Tom in a second. I think that the recommendations from this committee, if there are some for COSLA and for local government, I think that it is important that they hear that in terms of what is good practice and not so good practice. I would point back to the report on the collaborative council tax collection, not the most interesting of titles, but the important one by the improvement service, which highlights the existing good practice by some local authorities to improve council tax collection outcomes and the way that that is done. They are obviously recognising an issue there, but the fact that the improvement service has got involved in looking at what the good practice is, and we would want to encourage local authorities to look at that report and the recommendations of it. However, if the committee can add weight to that in terms of your recommendations, then, if there are some for local government to look at and for COSLA in particular, that is something that may well be welcomed to us. Tom, did you not even see a new minister? I would echo the cabinet secretary's points and recognise that it is not for government to mandate local authorities how they manage debt. I think that the work of this committee will be very important in informing how local authorities choose to consider how they conduct their processes. That is helpful to set that scene. I will move to questions from Miles Briggs on this to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and your officials. Thanks for joining us. Further to that line of question, I wanted to ask what consideration therefore the Scottish Government has been given to improving debt management through a public sector debt management strategy. We heard earlier from the cabinet secretary about the importance of link workers, but to look at it across not just local government but NHS education services as well to link in people. One of the things that we have heard is that sometimes people are not having early intervention or looking for that support, so whether or not there is an opportunity across government, across public services to try to build this in as well. I think that there is. The national level work around benefit take-up information provision of whether you are entitled, trying to encourage people to take up their entitlements. There are obviously a number of platforms that can be used to promote that information, but there is nothing that really beats that human interaction. Therefore, whether it is the support around schools and trying to encourage every part of the public sector to see their role in helping to promote information and advice, I visited a school with the cabinet secretary for finance recently, where the teacher was very clear that they saw part of their role in supporting families, particularly those low-income families. They had advice evenings where they would bring in advice givers and encourage and incentivise parents to come along so that they could get that information. It is about using all of the opportunities in the GP surgery, in the school, health visitors and the interaction in trying to signpost people. Although our take-up rates are pretty good for Scottish child payments sitting up beyond 80 per cent, that still means that 20 per cent of people who are entitled are not getting that really important support, so we need to look at all of those avenues. It has been raised already with regard to writing off public sector debt. We have heard a lot of evidence around free school meals debts. Some of the PQs that I have put down have come back saying that that is for local authorities to decide. They will then tell us that they do not have the resources to do that. I wondered in terms of the wider strategy around where that debt is sitting now and will be sitting, because we know and have heard evidence that council tax debt is likely to be increasing during the cost of living crisis. It is one of the areas that people will decide not to, they cannot pay and will not be able to at this stage. I wondered where the Government is on that and the potential writing off of some of that debt. School meals being a priority area for all of us as well. I refer back to the discretion that local authorities have in individual cases. On the first point about public sector debt and whatever sphere that is, if Scottish Government was to use resources to do that, resources are not available for other things in a tight financial environment. That is the first thing to state, which might be an obvious point, but I want to state anyway. The second point is that we have to be careful about what that signals. If you have to write off an entire, as I mentioned earlier, council tax debt, what signal does that send to people around the relative priority of paying council tax, which funds local services? You could end up in a bit of a spiral situation of undermining that as an important contributor to public finances. Having said that, in individual cases, whether it is local authorities or indeed Social Security Scotland, we would want and would encourage authorities to take a sympathetic view to those individual circumstances where there is no likelihood of repayment being made. Local authorities have that discretion and they use it already in cases of council tax debt or school meal debt. It is right to look at cases on an individual basis rather than across the board. Similarly, Social Security Scotland, when recovering an overpayment, for example, on devolved assistance, is very careful not to push people into hardship as a result, so they will work with the person to look at their wider financial situation and the affordability of any repayment. There is a recognition across services, whether it is local government or Social Security Scotland, that, at this moment in time, people are struggling and they want to be as helpful as they can be, but that has to be done on individual circumstances, rather than on a blanket approach. It is okay to take us back a minute or two to the questions on digital inclusion and forgive me for taking us back to that set, whether or not she believes that anyone who needs support to access debt advice online will have that support, particularly people from low incomes. As I said, Connecting Scotland is looking at identifying priority groups to support over the next four years. That is likely to focus on the six child poverty family types. That very much times with the child poverty delivery plan. The research that is being undertaken by Connecting Scotland is looking at what would help the most in supporting people. Is it about the devices of being able to use or connectivity issues? I think that that research is going to be important so that the next phase of the work of Connecting Scotland is helping those who need it most. I am happy to make sure that Connecting Scotland keeps the committee appraised of that work. Thank you. That is really helpful. During the pandemic, I understand that mobile phone companies, for example, were able to offer people access to the NHS websites without using data, so it meant that it was effectively free for them to access those. Has the Government considered asking mobile phone companies if they would do the same thing for debt advice? I am not aware of whether that has been done. It is something that we can follow up on and check whether that discussion has taken place around debt advice. Can we come back to the committee on that specific point? That would be helpful. Pam, do you have further questions? I do. I will read the part on public debt. We have already spoken about the difference in the collection of public debt and private debt, particularly around council tax. The poverty alliance in particular set out that it was an extremely complicated situation for people to understand fully their access and right to council tax reduction and when they might have slipped in and out of that on the basis of their income. Will the Government support the proposal for local authorities to write out to people to make explicit what the council tax entitlement and to reduction of council tax reduction is and when this changes right back out to them again so that people do not fall in and out inadvertently and then end up with public debt to debt? I am looking at council tax reduction in particular. It is a very sophisticated scheme and seeks to target support as closely as possible based on things like income and savings and need in household circumstances. Just to unpack that a little bit, if you look at income, it is quite easy to calculate for some of the civil servants in front of you. We have one job, we get a salary a year and we get a P60, but for more complicated circumstances, for example, somebody is on universal credit, has a number of zero hours contract jobs and has a little bit of income that fluctuates. Defining that income is achieved within the council tax reduction system and presenting that to individuals perhaps in a proformer, or potentially even recalculated on the monthly basis, risks Dell using everyone who gets council tax reduction with an awful lot of paperwork every month. I think that is why local authorities choose to provide summaries of entitlement when they issue council tax bills. I think that they would also argue that, to varying degrees of effectiveness, they support people in accessing it. The bottom line being that it is in no local authority's interest for someone who should be getting council tax reduction to fall into arrears when they should be getting that reduction. I recognise that it is a tricky balance, but there is a risk of Dell using people with too much information. I would also add that, if someone is uncertain about how the calculation of their council tax reduction is achieved, local authorities certainly should be helping them to understand that calculation. Pam, I was just going to add that it might be something that we could pick up with COSLA around other ways that we could work together to promote information. I know that that is a bit different from writing out to individuals, but there may be complexities around that that would generate numerous letters on a weekly basis. That might be quite difficult for people rather than helpful. The point about making sure that we provide clear information to people in case people are slipping through the net, although the point that Robin was making about it is not in the local authority's interest to not make sure that people are aware of the council tax reduction scheme. However, if there is more that we can do to promote information and clarity, I am happy to pick up with COSLA to discuss that. I appreciate that commitment. I hope that, as you said, we can get the balance right between deluging people with a lot of information and letters. I take that point. I mean, there are people who do not want any more letters than absolutely necessary. We can get the balance right between that and having the current situation, which appears to be not quite getting enough information, would be helpful. My last question is about the care charges. I wonder whether either of the cabinet secretaries are in a position to update the committee on whether they are aware of the numbers of people who are in debt because of social care charges. I do not have that information to hand, but something that we could certainly furnish the committee with, if that is a follow-up of that, would be okay? I think that that would be helpful for us. Thank you very much for that. Before I bring it to a close, I do not know whether any other members have any other questions. I just have two. One of them is round about the arrestment of wages. We did hear from quite a number of people that the amount of money that people were being left with in their bank after the arrestment of wages for debts was not enough for them to then address their immediate needs. There was no consideration taken of the composition of that household, whether it was a single person or somebody with a big family. Is there anything within the Scottish Government's powers that they could use to help to mitigate that? I am conscious that there was stakeholder interest in that area. The committee will appreciate that there is a degree of complexity around that matter, but I am happy to take it away and consider it very carefully. I think that, with any of those matters, we have always got to be careful given the complexity that we do not, with the best intention, end up creating unintended consequences. With that, and as part of the broader work that we are doing in our wider review of statutory debt solutions, that is something that I am happy to consider. I do not know if there is anything that you would want to add, Alex. No, I think that that could form part of the review of diligence, which is on-going. The earnings at arrestment issue is slightly different to the bank arrestment issue, which has been addressed in part in the recovery and reform bill. That process is, in fact, separated out the calculation of the bank arrestment protected minimum balance from earnings at arrestment. However, there could be separate issues to consider on earnings at arrestment. Okay, thanks very much for that. I would appreciate, as you said, out minister, coming back to us with some information on that. Thank you. A final question is round about the Scottish Welfare Fund, and we do know that that is something that people who have given us evidence and those that are supporting them is used extensively. I was wondering if there is any update on how that review is progressing at the moment. So, it is an important fund, as you said. I should also point out that local authorities many of them top up the allocation of the welfare fund, and in these difficult times, that is making a big difference. The independent review, which was externally contracted, is under way with the first phase of research nearly complete and the second phase beginning next month. The aim is to develop a credible evidence base that can inform future policy improvements, including any decisions about the level of funding but also the delivery of the fund and the criteria and the guidance. It is a substantial programme of work. I know that there is a keenness to get it done as quickly as possible, but it is a substantial programme of work that has been externally contracted and includes a review of the existing evidence as well as qualitative research with all 32 local authorities, key stakeholders and, importantly, applicants to the fund. It will take several months to do the work of the scale and complexity properly. We need to do it once and do it well so that it generates reliable conclusions based on credible evidence. We are expecting that the final report on findings will be published early next year. I should also say that it is being supported and guided by a review advisory group, which includes representatives from a range of internal and external stakeholders, but I am happy to keep the committee appraised of the progress of that review. Thank you very much for that. That was helpful to hear and I think that we would appreciate being kept in the loop with that. Thank you both for coming along and to your officials as well. I now conclude the public part of the meeting today and we will move into private session.