 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the ninth meeting of the Social Security Committee for 2017. Good morning, minister, and I hope that you're not too out of breath in that respect. Could you remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones and other devices to silent mode so that they don't disrupt the meeting? Apologies have been received from Mark Griffin and we've gone to agenda item one. I want to welcome Richard Leonard to the first meeting of this committee. I could invite you, Richard, to declare any relevant interests. Thanks very much, convener. I don't have any relevant interests to declare. Thank you very much. Item agenda two is decision in taking business in private. Item six is to consider our approach to our timetable for the social security bill and work programme. Does the committee agree to take this item in private? Thank you very much. Item three, our next item, is the child poverty bill. Today is the last of the committee's formal evidence sessions on the bill. I welcome Angela Constance, cabinet secretary for communities, social security and equalities, and also the team of officials who are Gillian Cross, bill team leader, and Paul Tyler, head of social security strategy. I can invite the cabinet secretary to give an opening statement. Thank you, convener, and good morning, convener, and very good morning to committee members. I'm grateful to you for inviting me to give evidence as part of your scrutiny of the Child Poverty Scotland bill. I want to start by extending my thanks to all of those who have given their time and their expertise during the development of this bill and have helped us get to this point. I hope to assure committee members this morning that the provisions set out in the bill provide the robust framework that we need for monitoring, measuring and reporting on child poverty with four ambitious income targets at its very heart. As we are all aware, in 2015-16, poverty statistics published in March showed an increase in child poverty rates in Scotland. 26 per cent of children in Scotland were living in relative poverty after housing costs. I know that members will agree that those numbers are absolutely unacceptable. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has projected that child poverty at a UK level will increase further in the next few years, due in part to welfare changes imposed by the UK Government. On top of the damaging programme of welfare cuts that the UK Government announced in 2015, it intended to repeal large parts of the Child Poverty Act 2010, including the four UK-wide income targets. The Scottish Government was very vocal in its opposition to that. With this bill, the Scottish Government is making a very clear statement. The first is that child poverty is neither acceptable nor inevitable. That is why our targets, set on an after-housing cost basis, are even more stretching than those in the original 2010 act. Second, that income is central to poverty or lack of income is central to poverty. A view that is strongly shared by our stakeholders, and that is why the four targets at the heart of the bill are focused on a range of aspects to do with low income. If passed by Parliament, the bill will establish that Scotland is the only part of the UK that has statutory income targets. All of that is in stark contrast to the UK Government, who repealed the original income targets, abolished the Child Poverty Unit and removed the Child Poverty Remap from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. Our consultation on the bill was held between August and October last year, and it saw a broad range of individuals and organisations responding overwhelmingly. They supported the proposals for statutory income targets and for national and local reporting requirements. That has been complemented by our on-going engagement with stakeholders, many of whom you have heard from during your own stage 1 considerations. Those stakeholders have warmly welcomed the bill and the reinstatement of income targets. They share our vision and bring with them their wealth of experience and will be making use of it in the development of the associated delivery plans. On publication of the bill, Peter Kelly, director of the Poverty Alliance, said, The publication of this legislation is very welcome. Too many children in Scotland have their lives blighted both now and into their future as a result of poverty. By taking a more strategic approach and setting realistic targets, we can ensure that Scotland becomes a leader in tackling child poverty. The bill convener will galvanise action across all Government portfolios and will build on a range of work that the Scottish Government already has under the way to tackle poverty and inequality. Specifically, it is made up of three key elements that I will set out in turn. Firstly, it places a duty in Scottish ministers to meet four income targets by 2030. Those targets are ambitious and provide a clear picture of the fairer Scotland that I am sure we all want to see. I know that one of the key issues raised in evidence has been around interim targets. I am open to this idea. I would be very interested to hear the committee's views on interim targets and particularly how we ensure that any interim measure is realistic and achievable and also effective in maintaining the momentum towards our ultimate aim of eradicating child poverty. Secondly, the bill places a duty in Scottish ministers to produce regular delivery plans. The first of which will be published by April 2018. Each delivery plan will set out clearly the measures that Scottish ministers will take to meet the child poverty targets. Ministers will also be required to report annually on progress towards meeting the targets. As part of the process of developing the delivery plan, we will build on the child poverty measurement framework. The framework was developed with a range of stakeholders and experts and covers the wide range of drivers and impacts that poverty has on the lives of children and their families. We have committed to reviewing the framework with a view to including an updated version as part of the delivery plan that will be published in April next year. I know that the subject has already come up in the committee's evidence sessions so far in the session last week. Panel members from Fife and Dundee were supportive of the overall focus on income measures but highlighted the need for a wider dashboard of indicators. I absolutely agree with that assessment and that is why I think that the revised measurement framework will be crucial to the success of the delivery plan. Again, I am keen to hear committee's views on that also. Finally, the bill places a duty on local authorities and health boards to produce annual local child poverty action reports, outlining the action that they have taken to reduce child poverty. I will also shortly bring forward proposals for an overarching socio-economic duty that will require public bodies, including local authorities and health boards, to take socioeconomic disadvantage into account when they are planning at a strategic level. The child poverty bill duty will complement the socioeconomic duty by requiring those bodies to set out the action that they are taking at a local level to reduce child poverty. The local duty has been the subject of extensive discussions with a variety of stakeholders, including COSLA, NHS Health Scotland and a number of local authorities. It is clear from those discussions that there is a real appetite to involve community planning partnerships in the reporting and providing a joined-up local focus to tackling child poverty. We have therefore been working to establish a reference group that will help to develop guidance for local authorities and health boards on the reporting duty. Finally, convener, I believe that we must be ambitious for our children and our young people, and we have to take decisive action to end child poverty in our country. I am confident that the targets and the robust framework underpinning them provide the focus that we need. I am open to hear committee's views on how we can work together to improve this legislation, which I am sure we can all agree is absolutely critical. As of our convener, I am always happy to be answering colleagues' questions and to have constructive dialogue with the committee. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I can just start off and thank you for your contribution. You mentioned about the difficulties or, you know, ambition as well. The policy memorandum describes the targets in the bill as stretching and ambitious but realistic. How much of a challenge do you see reaching these targets? Or will it be a challenge? Yes, it will be a challenge. I believe that the targets are achievable with the right focus, the right commitment, the right policies in place, as reflected in the delivery plan. It is not easy. It won't be easy. We know from organisations like the Institute of Fiscal Studies that child poverty is likely to rise and rise across the UK to over 30 per cent in terms of relative child poverty. Given that we have had statutory income targets and given that child poverty is currently on the increase and is predicted to increase, I feel that it would be wholly unacceptable and a dereliction of duty to downgrade the importance of child poverty by not having statutory income targets. Of course, while I will point out that, as a Government, we do not have all the resources or all the powers that I would like to see, nonetheless, as a country and as individuals, there is nothing more important than our children's future. Our priority has to be eradicating child poverty. Thank you very much. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome your openness to considering interim targets and you will be aware of the evidence that has been given to the committee on that matter. You have referred to the act as providing a robust framework, and I think that it is probably not a source of disagreement that the act itself does not provide an individual right of action that an individual could go to court to enforce, but there may be reasons for that, namely that it is a framework piece of legislation for Government policy. Do you agree that in those circumstances it is even more important that targets be set for interim so that progress can be reviewed, not necessarily just as a question of saying, have we met the targets or not, but also to review progress towards those targets and the approach being adopted? I think that it was Naomi Eisenstadt who gave evidence to the committee that interim targets would and could be useful in that respect. I am open to revisiting the issue of interim targets and coming back with proposals for stage 2. I think that interim targets can be helpful in terms of keeping that momentum, ensuring that progress has been made, diminishing the risk of drift, and helping us to break down the overall ambition. The overall ambition is to meet the very ambitious statutory income targets, eradicate child poverty and interim targets, and to help to identify the milestones or the stepping-stones of the interim steps to achieving that. I would say in terms of my own thoughts about how matters around interim targets should be framed. They need to be realistic, achievable and to help us on our way. They need to be driven by evidence, and there is a crucial point about data projections and the trajectory of child poverty. I am open to the principle of the bill, the face of the bill saying that we should have interim targets. We would have to be careful about setting the interim target on the face of the bill, given that the work that we have commenced in terms of the work that we need to do prior to the delivery plan about understanding the projections and the trajectory of child poverty at a Scottish level, that that work is still on-going. Perhaps, just to follow up on that, do you feel that the scrutiny provisions in the bill are sufficient or, as some witnesses have pointed out, there might be more appropriate or stricter scrutiny provisions at a parliamentary level? I am not suggesting judicial scrutiny because there are different forms of scrutiny, but could the bill be improved in terms of how Parliament is involved in scrutiny of interim progress or the requirements set out in the bill that you refer to as duties placed in the Scottish ministers? The fact that there is annual reporting, we would lay that annual report to Parliament, and I suppose it would be up to Parliament, Opposition parties and, indeed, committee to make of any annual report what they wish and to use the means that they have to hold the Government to account. In terms of the production of annual reports and, indeed, the overarching delivery plans, we want to be doing that in the style of co-production. For the delivery plans, we would want to produce draft delivery plans for consultation. I mean, annual reports will need to be done on an annual basis, so there is a regularity there. We are bringing this agenda by not sweeping child poverty under the carpet. We are bringing this agenda to Parliament, and to wider civic Scotland. I do not have any doubts that the Parliament or the committee will scrutinise this bill or how we are meeting the aims of this bill in due course. Adam Dawkins. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome this bill, and I am interested in exploring with you ways in which we might be able to work to make it even stronger. In your opening remarks, you said that the bill has provisions for monitoring, measuring and reporting of child poverty. I agree with you that monitoring, measuring and reporting of child poverty is important, but would you agree with me that even more important is tackling and reducing child poverty? Yes. That is a goal. Absolutely. You need to have a process or a way of tackling such a huge problem. We need to have a mechanism that keeps us focused, a mechanism that evaluates throughout our journey what works, what is less effective and where our priorities should be. Tackling child poverty is even more important than monitoring, measuring it and reporting on it. However, the bill does not contain any provisions that enable you or require you, and the Scottish ministers generally, to tackle or reduce child poverty. The targets are all focused on income. They are not focused on statutory duties that you or the Scottish ministers have to take in order to achieve the ambition of reducing child poverty in Scotland. Is that right? I think that there are two aspects to Mr Tomkins' questions. I would contend that the Scottish ministers have a duty to monitor, measure and report on child poverty. Child poverty is a very important foundation to achieving our ambitions. I know that the bill describes a technical bill, a framework bill, but it is laying very important foundations. Although we all know, as parliamentarians, that legislating on its own is rarely sufficient in itself, we are all mature enough as parliamentarians to agree that. It puts the cornerstones in place. It is about getting the foundation right, and it does place duties on ministers. The important thing about the targets and I will speak about policy and delivery plans. The important issue about targets is that we have a small, selected, focused targets where there is very broad agreement about the importance of income. Poverty is defined in many ways. There are many aspects of poverty. There are multiple drivers, but at its core is lack of income. Of course, we can debate the issues around why poorer families have lower income. At its core is that lack of income, and we need to be focused on that. Of course, the measurements are broader with the measurement framework. We know that our work is placed in the wider context of the economy. None of us have a crystal ball about what will happen between now and 2030. I do not want to mention the B word, but Brexit will unfold. It is important that our delivery plans are flexible and responsive to changing needs. There are opportunities that we would have, such as the 2010 UK act, where it listed areas that could be covered. Again, I am not adverse to the bill listing areas that the delivery plan should address or cover. To be transparent with the committee, my only concern would be that that list would be too narrow when we want to be able to respond to the evidence and respond to emergent need. It could be an indicative list, not an exhaustive list, of matters that delivery plans must by law include. You would be open to that. It could be an exemplar. Would you be open to going even further and looking at adding to the bill targets in addition to income-related targets? It is an issue that I have explored with a number of witnesses. John Dickie from Chalpo Action Group said that he was enthusiastic about this and others have echoed that. We all know that the First Minister has made it the defining mission of this Government to close the attainment gap in Scottish schools. We also all know that one of the many underlying drivers of poverty is educational under attainment. Would you be open to having some kind of duty added to the bill that ministers must take steps to close the attainment gap as a means of reducing and tackling child poverty in Scotland? If not, why not? I can forgive Mr Tomkins for that question, because he was not around in the last Parliament. There are some members on this committee who sat in the previous education committee in the last department and would have followed and contributed to the passage of the Education Scotland Act 2016, which places duties on ministers and local authorities to address and reduce the attainment gap. A lot of that work that underpins how we are going to do that is in and around the national improvement framework. I would contend that those duties already exist. If I could lay out in a broader sense, the overarching duty, if you like, is going to be the socioeconomic duty. The four strands underpinning that are three strands that already exist in terms of the duties that ministers and local authorities have in relation to the Education Scotland Act. The Community Empowerment Act is important. The Landmark Children and Young People Act includes local authorities and ministers of duties around there, not least for looked after children. The other cornerstone for that is the child poverty bill. Last question. That socioeconomic duty that you have been talking about this morning, is that coming in this bill or in a separate legislation? That will come in separately. We will be bringing forward proposals about how we are going to do that shortly. Again, that goes back to the Scotland Act. It is a duty that laid dormant under the 210 UK Qualities Act. We now have some very discrete powers or potential powers as a result of the Scotland Act and then around the Qualities legislation. We want to bring forward the socioeconomic duty. We will be doing that shortly. We will be bringing forward a consultation. We want to ensure, particularly for local authorities, that we proceed in a manner where duties are streamlined and there are no overburdening people. Thank you very much. Thank you. Pauline McNeill. Thank you. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. My questions follow on much of the same theme, because I heard that there would be a socioeconomic duty, which is to come later. What I am a little bit concerned about is that, while those are all principles, I would fully support. You said at the beginning that there is a need to focus. I would like the bill to be more focused on some of those issues contained within it rather than being in different places. I am interested in whether you think that there should in fact be a statutory duty to include in the delivery plan a requirement to take specific measures. We all have different opinions about what specific measures might actually lift children at poverty. I feel that the bill would benefit if there was a much more powerful statutory duty to include in the delivery plan, which is probably the operational side of the bill itself. I would be interested to know what your view on that would be. I understand the motivation of the question, but if we want to galvanise activity within Government, outwith Government, if we want to be in a position to respond to changing economic circumstances, whether that is positive or negative economic circumstances or, indeed, other big global events, we will need to be flexible. I think that, similarly to the 2010 child poverty act, we can include things that should be covered. There are commitments that we are not going to stray from, so we know, for example, that affordable housing has a contribution to make to all four indicators, that increasing the supply of affordable housing will help us to address all of the four targets. We know that measures around targeting support for people who are unemployed, single parents or have disability. We know that there is a body of evidence about the contribution that childcare makes. I think that there are platforms that could be included as examples of what should be in the delivery plan, but it is really important that we are robust with our delivery plans and that we take an evidence-based approach. Some measures we know are effective, but they will have an impact in the longer term. There are other measures that will have a more direct impact on changing the targets, but all of that, of course, is in the context of what is happening with welfare reform and the economy. It is really important that, if the bill is too prescriptive, our response to child poverty will be less responsive and less flexible. We want, through the poverty and inequality commission, for those experts in the field to be informing and helping us to develop the delivery plan. There is a danger that it might not be prescriptive enough. I take that point, which is why I am interested in whether there should be a statutory duty for it. The example that you give is, in fact, a target in itself to build 35,000 affordable houses. That is a target in itself. It is a measure that arguably makes a massive contribution, but it is not quantifiable. However, there are measures where there is some evidence, for example, as other members have been pursuing in the committee on the £5 of what my child benefits. There are quite widespread consensus that there would be specific ways that you could measure how you could take children out of poverty. I would have a concern that the bill would be too wide. Following on from that, you talked about some discussion about local duty. Obviously, we have heard from local authorities that they are doing excellent work in Fife and D and in the home city of Glasgow. I have been talking to the local people there. What do you mean by that? How do you see the relationship between the work that those local authorities are doing and what would be included in the delivery plan? I think that it is important to stress that this is a very focused bill. The focus and purpose that it has has been overwhelmingly supported and welcomed by stakeholders. Of course, issues in terms of housing and our targets, in particular for social rent, would have a very prominent role in any delivery plan. One of the reasons, and again, there is a reasonable body of evidence to support this, is that, while child poverty is way too high, it is lower than the UK. If you take the three-year average, it is a relative child poverty in Scotland that is lower than any of the other home nations. That is a contribution of affordable housing and our policies on that. It is important and, again, this has come through in some of the evidence from stakeholders that the bill is not over complicated. We need that focus and that mechanism to help us tackle a massive problem that costs the UK, in monetary terms, £29 billion, according to Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That is very important when it comes to our partners and local government. Local government, along with our partners in health, will have a duty to produce reports about the progress that they are making locally. The duty to achieve the income targets will rest with the Scottish ministers. That is in the context of looking at the overall responsibilities that local authorities have in reducing educational inequalities. As Naomi Eisenstadt said, we want local authorities to be reporting on their progress, but they should have the freedom to be able to do what works at a local level without that being prescribed from the top or, indeed, in the bill. Ben Macpherson, you want to come in on a supplementary question? It is in a similar theme, but it will question itself. Sorry, Alison Johnston is coming in on the question. I will put you down for the question. Thank you, convener. First, I will focus on the issue of scrutiny again. The child poverty action group in their evidence speaks of the need for independence scrutiny. I would like to understand why the Poverty and Inequality Commission mentioned in your Government's paper your plan for a fairer Scotland, would they perhaps be a body who may provide that scrutiny? You have not followed the blueprint set up by the UK Government with their commission originally. I am just wondering why that decision was made. No, I have not followed the blueprint that the UK Government had originally followed. Quite simply and bluntly, because I do not see any added advantage to that in that a different Government of a different colour came in and, despite the UK-wide commission being a statutory body, fundamentally changed its role and purpose. We have a manifesto commitment to establish a poverty and inequality commission. The chair of that commission will have to be independent. We will be scrupulous in terms of identifying individuals who will be appointed on the basis of their expertise. They will have a role in advising ministers, like other advisory bodies or individuals. The committee will be able to engage with that body in the way that you have engaged with the poverty adviser. I was absolutely clear that I want the Poverty and Inequality Commission established so that it can help us to develop the first delivery plan. It will have an important role in annual reports. I would expect them to be very engaged in that process. I do not want to be too pre-emptive about making an earlier announcement about the Poverty and Inequality Commission, because I was conscious that there is stage 1 proceedings for this bill. I was also conscious that in terms of Civic Scotland and the Oxfam, we are keen to pull together their own thinking to inform that process. Is it your view that the Poverty and Inequality Commission will be in a position to be truly independent and as critical as they need to be? It will be full of independent-minded individuals. I suppose that it will be appointed by ministers, as is the norm with advisory bodies that advise the Government, but I think that we have a good track record on pointing credible independent individuals in terms of Caleania Lyle, the Racial Equality Framework Advisor, and Naomi Eisenstadt, the Poverty Advisor. We have a clear commitment to establish a Poverty and Inequality Commission, and that is a real opportunity for experts, including those with that lived experience of poverty, to be really advising Government, to help us to galvanise that cross-portfolio work, that Team Scotland approach to tackling child poverty, and to take a real hard look at the evidence, because it is the evidence that should inform what we do, when and why. The work on income maximisation, there is a lot of evidence to show that it has been very successful, health care, welfare children, I will mention them again. I would like to understand your views on how important that work on income maximisation is in reducing child poverty, and whether there should be a provision in the bill to offer all parents or guardians access to income maximisation advice as a right? I think that that is something that has been considered in terms of the social security bill, in terms of, I mean, income maximisation clearly has a role to addressing poverty. We know that there are many benefits that are underclaimed. I think that that is perhaps more an issue for pensioner poverty. I was once very struck by a presentation by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, where they said that if we could get all pensioners to claim what they were entitled to, we would, you know, nearby eradicate pensioner poverty. The issue with child poverty is somewhat more complex in that quite often the poorer families are indeed claiming what they are entitled to. The issue is often about that level of entitlement in terms of what they are entitled to as a family via tax credits. I should have said in terms of that indicative list or an example of what should be covered in the delivery plan. I think that there is a role for income maximisation certainly. I find myself slightly odds with Adam Tomkins assertion that the child poverty action group were suggesting that educational attainment should be one of the measures because their evidence is contrary to that view. One thing that they are clear about is what they are suggesting that we use social security powers to reduce child poverty. Pauline McNeill mentioned in particular that £5 a week top-up-to-child benefit. Do you have a view on that? I have a view on both matters. Educational attainment is both a cause and a consequence of poverty and it is reflected in our current child poverty measurement framework. That broader dashboard covers issues to do with numeracy, literacy and exam performance. There may be more sophisticated ways and other ways to connect the child poverty measurement framework with, for example, the national improvement framework in education. We are committed to reviewing the measurement framework to ensure that we have the right measurements. In terms of top-up-to-child benefit, I am on record numerous times saying that we should indeed be debating these matters. We should be debating the use and application of new social security powers. In short, my view of the current proposal to top-up child benefit is that it is not a bad idea, but I do not think that it is the best idea. That goes back to my exchange with Mark Griffin in chamber a few weeks ago that to top child benefit up by £5, an almost not quite universal benefit, applies to people on incomes up to £50,000 to £60,000. That would cost per annum £250 million. Seven out of ten of the children that would benefit from that would not be children in poverty. What we know from the history of child poverty in the UK is that there is indeed a place for targeted measures to increase income. My concern about the child benefit top-up is that it is just the vast majority of the money that would not be directed at children who are currently living in poverty. We need to be thoroughly debating and discussing these matters. Adam Tomkins, do you want to come in on this? On Alison Johnstone's question about poverty and inequality commission, is that going to be a statutory commission or an ad hoc commission? No, we do not have any plans to make a statutory commission. Just for the reasons that I have outlined to Alison Johnstone that the UK body was indeed statutory, but it did not stop radical changes being made to the body by a different Government. Also, in terms of timescales, if it to be a statutory body, it would not be established in time for the publication of the first delivery plan, which has to be published next April. Ruth Maguire, thanks for being here. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to ask you about some local level stuff. I know that we have covered some of it. The local authorities and partner health boards are going to report annually on the activity that they are undertaking. We have had quite a few calls in both RIN and oral evidence for there to be a duty on local partnerships to set out their plans on what they are going to do to tackle it in the future, as well as just reporting on what they have done. It was just to hear your views on that first. We looked very closely at that. In terms of my dialogue with COSLA, it was certainly our shared instinct to be looking at making duties applicable to community planning partnerships. However, I have very strong advice that that was just not possible. It is because community planning partnerships, unlike health boards or local authorities, are not legally constituted bodies and it is not the community planning partnerships that actually employ people. With a little bit of regret, we could not really pursue that option. That is why the reporting duty is on health boards and local authorities. They will need to exercise their duties and partnerships, and that inevitably brings in and involves community planning partnerships. Thank you. We heard about lots of good work that is on-going in local areas. One of the other concerns that was raised was about the availability of robust data to measure just how well the actions and what impact they were having. I would like to hear your view on that. I suppose that I would like to say as well that I think we want to be careful that looking for more and more robust data does not stop action. It is not from that perspective, but what is your opinion on that? I agree that we need enough data to inform the action. We do not want to be tying everybody from Government to local authority officers on the front line generating data. There needs to be a proportionate response, and it is more about the right data and the quality of data. While some local authorities have reasonable data at a local level, there is an acceptance that they would prefer better local information. That is something that we have given a commitment to work with them through the reference group that I referred to in my opening statement. We have also been doing some very interesting work around SIMD and how that work at a local level could be adapted to give us more insights into child poverty and we did a bit of a pilot project around Orkney in terms of how we could use analytics around SIMD to tell us more about child poverty in Orkney. That is something that we could share with the committee if the committee is interested. That certainly sounds very interesting. Richard Leonard. Thank you very much and good morning Cabinet Secretary. Really, just to continue on that theme, you mentioned about unclaimed benefits and your estimation was that unclaimed benefits are more an issue for the pensioner population than the population as a whole, and that may be true. As I understand it, in Glasgow, for example, there have been moves to put in place automatic free school meal entitlement. School clothing grants have been done on an automatic basis. The figure that I saw was that out of 25,000 eligible families and additional 5,000 or more have now received benefits that they are entitled to or grants that they are entitled to that otherwise they would not have got. The barriers to families' claiming were due to the complexity of the forms. Sometimes English was not the first language and also a concern that they would lose out on other benefits. Do you see a role for that automatic entitlement approach at either a local or a national level? No, I do. I do not do more. I hope that I did not give that impression from the importance of income maximisation for families. I just think in terms of how we maximise income for different groups. We actually need a different approach. Although it is always a good opportunity to have general income maximisation campaigns, they always need a follow-up approach as well. It is more targeted to families and to older people. I think that there is a space for measures that cut out bureaucracy or stigma. For many families, there is a stigma associated around free school meals, school clothing grants, attending a food bank and such. I do not think that level of detail is for the face of the bill. You can encapsulate the need for income maximisation measures in the bill to be reflected in delivery plans. There is a case for those types of initiatives, either at a national or a local level. It is important that we are not over-prescriptive with local government. Perhaps you could develop that and shed some light on your current thinking about what you expect to be in those local delivery plans. What kind of measures are you looking at that you would expect local authority or local health board to report back on an annual basis? We are certainly producing or will produce some guidance around what we expect from our partners and local government from the work that we are doing in the reference group. The reference group will be made up of people appointed from a range of local authorities. I am conscious that the nature of child poverty will be very different in different parts of the country. That is because I will Scotland as a small country. Local economies are very different and have different challenges and indeed have different strengths. We will set out what we expect from local authorities because there needs to be some parameters and consistency in reporting. Nonetheless, local authorities need to have the space to be as democratically elected bodies to respond to the needs of their communities. You would be expecting them to take action to tackle poverty and not simply counting the levels of poverty locally. It will need all of us to take action to eradicate child poverty. There is an important place for reporting because that is about transparency and creating a shared understanding about the scale and nature of the issue. We want to develop... I give this as a personal commitment to committee. We want to develop more of a consensus on what works so that tackling child poverty is an agenda that we all feel that we have a contribution to make and that we can all work together on. I have some experience of that given the work that I did a number of years ago around youth employment. When I became the Minister for Youth Employment it was 113,000 unemployed young Scots. It was at 25 per cent. It was highly politicised. We had a lot of very robust parliamentary exchanges. The work that was produced particularly around developing Scotland's Young Workforce we managed to build a consensus around that. I do not know any party in this Parliament that is not committed to the development Scotland's Young Workforce agenda. We have seen tremendous progress around youth employment. Obviously something that is hugely affected by the context of the economy but Scotland now has the third most youth unemployment rate in Europe. That is because we worked together local national government third sector. We developed the shared understanding of the issue of shared understanding of what works and I think went forward. On a team Scotland approach all the arrows are flying in the one direction and that is what we are going to do in relation to child poverty. George Adam. Thank you convener and good morning cabinet secretary. I brought up last week following on from some of the information that we have already discussed. In Glasgow there was a number of academics who sat there and fell out with one another in only a way that academics could not in a polite manner. The one thing that they did agree on was the fact that there was not enough data. Basically the SIMD was the only show in town for them and they said there was some flaws with that being the only thing available to them. Now when we are talking to Dundee and Fife that was particularly interesting because they actually said although they are split by a spread of water it might have been the Atlantic Ocean as far as they are concerned because they did not exchange a lot of views with one another. Is that not the point of this whole bill is actually gathering that data and focusing on it and making sure that Dundee and Fife actually said when they were here with each other last week that gave them the opportunity to exchange ideas and it is one of the first times that they have done that. Is that not the whole point where we can actually use a former councillor and myself as a former councillor and know that there is great work happening in local authorities? It is just a case that I may be focusing on the authorities to make sure that we share some of that expertise and try to make that difference. I think that it is an old cliche that I am a former social worker and in my profession we spoke at length about sharing best practice. We still say that in many fields and sectors across the country but it remains true that it should just not be insurmountable where a small country where there are barriers to sharing good practice we just have to find ways to deal with that. I think that a great unanimity or consensus around the importance of the four statutory income targets in terms of the measurement framework I think that we need to involve people more in reviewing that and the issue about data in some areas there is a lack of Scottish data as well as local authority data and that is about the trajectory of child poverty. We know that across the UK its trajectory as predicted here and now is that it is going to go up but we want to have a better handle on that at a Scottish level so that it informs our actions but it is data with a purpose we want. We do not want to be creating a industry that generates data that nobody reads or nobody uses and needs to be proportionate and in terms of the work that we do with the reference group that involves local authorities involves the third sector that we want to get the right we are taking a hands on approach to help local government to get the right analytics and the right data. On that point Cabinet Secretary about data with a purpose I was very interested in what you were talking about earlier and how it is alone in this bill will feed in to various bills that we have had in the past and bills that are coming in the future and I found that as a foundation stone for all that because one of the things that you are going to have to measure is the impact of legislation that comes from other places Westminster the child tax credit situation is a classic example of some of the data that will come up in the information because that will affect on child poverty because no woman worth her salt would fill in that form even when you see the actual form in the so-called drape clause situation so is it not a case that yes we can measure that data and it is all working together but we still have that issue where there could be legislation as you mentioned earlier on about the impact of welfare reform we could still have that problem affecting us and this will be probably a data that we can actually highlight at a very basic level it is about reporting measuring and adapting what we do and there is a real role for the poverty and inequality commission in that when they are supporting government to develop delivery plans based on evidence a real core part of that is evaluating what we currently do as a government existing policies that is also about evaluating new policies but they will also evaluate the UK wide context and indeed the wider impact of the economy and welfare reform and the challenge is immense I wouldn't be coming to Parliament with a child poverty bill if I didn't think we could do this or work together to achieve our ambition but it's true that some of what we're doing in terms of mitigation is to stop things getting worse for people as opposed to spending a resource to make things better but that scrutiny of existing and new policies will apply to the Scottish Government and to the UK Government and also to local government it's about what's effective, what's going to work there is a substantial body of evidence there but there are knowledge gaps and there's gaps in the data Ben Macpherson Thank you, convener he spoke earlier about the complex nature of child poverty but it's principally based around monetary concerns and that's why I support the holistic foundational focus of focusing on income targets within the wider context of the economy and I'd just like to ask around that in terms of delivery plans we heard evidence from the Joseph Renty foundation that they supported that a new delivery plan be published early in the next and subsequent parliamentary terms rather than the end of them and that was in order to help support accountability but also strategy within the parliamentary term and as far as I can remember they suggested a cyclical basis of delivery plans on perhaps a three-year cycle I'd just be interested to get your thoughts on that in terms of the delivery plans being able to be flexible and responsive to need just earlier and also considering, as George Adam just mentioned and you also mentioned in your opening remarks the fact that delivery plans will need to consider the negative and prohibitive effect potentially of UK Government policy In short, convener I've listened to the stage 1 evidence where I think it was a Joseph Renty foundation was saying that the timing of the delivery plans should be tweaked we'll listen to other people's views about that I'm relaxed about that I believe annual reporting is focused in terms of scrutiny and accountability and transparency in terms of ensuring that the forefront of our minds and the political debate and our activities in Parliament that we're always focused on child poverty and eradicating child poverty I think there are debates about you know what period should delivery plans cover I mean the existing child poverty strategy covers of operating a three-year period some people say it needs a bit longer to demonstrate more change bearing in mind that eradication of child poverty is indeed possible within a generation you know the changes that we see on a year basis are more subtle and some of of our own thinking and thinking we've seen from stakeholders is that a three-year cycle tends to come back in the middle of parliamentary cycles so I'm quite relaxed about the timing of the delivery plans but I do think they need to be long enough to give Government as partners a run at it so I think a five-year period is about right but as always we'll be listening closely to others Thank you Pauline McEar, you wanted to come back in in the ministry? Yeah, it was kind of a follow-on from Alison Dawson's question about automation of benefits and in the context of Richard Leonard's question the work that's been done in Glasgow where it does show that there's many unclaimed benefits and that has made a dramatic difference because you can use the data so anyone in housing benefit for example you know they have a certain entitlement so you just send out the checks but given that would it not make sense to look at bringing that duty also into the one that you talked about in the social security bill or the poverty bill I mean given that the Government if the bill passes into law would be required to do the first delivery plan in 2018 it would certainly bring that focus a bit sooner to the Parliament it's just something I thought was worth considering I think the evidence around automation is really interesting and it's great examples of what can be done that cuts through bureaucracy and gets to folk and need more quicker but I suppose when I go back to my earlier comments convener this is a focused bill I think the place for more detail around opportunities around automation are actually for the delivery plan and it may be that there's a way encapsulating in the bill that if the bill had pointers about what should be covered in the delivery plan encapsulating something about modern efficient approaches I'm just genuinely concerned that if we are overly specific in the face of the bill that the world around us will change before we know it and we're stuck in ways that have become complicated but I genuinely think that there's a great merit to more automated processes and that intelligent use of data Thank you very much Can I just follow up with two questions which I had wanted to raise one was on the back of Ruth Maguire and Richard Leonard's question about local authorities and health boards as well and basically looking forward rather than looking backwards to the proposed requirement on local authorities and health boards to report on activity do you wonder if that goes far enough or if local partners should be required to also set out their own intended actions to tackle child poverty I think that bearing in mind the overall responsibilities and duties that local government have in terms of the Children and Young People Act in terms of the Education Scotland Act their responsibilities and approaches that they have at their disposal under community empowerment I think that we've got the right balance of duties and responsibilities and local authorities because all of that will be encapsulated by the socioeconomic duty and inevitably it's an issue for the reference group and the guidance that a progress report is both forward and backwards looking and because it's evaluating evidence it is core evaluating what works Thank you for that there's just one other small question which I was intended to come in on at the back of George Adams and you'd mentioned it yourself the Poverty and Inequality Commission and basically could you perhaps clarify what the intended remit and role is for the Poverty and Inequality Commission and what its relationship is going to be with the current ministerial advisory group? I will be hoping to say more about the Poverty and Inequality Commission at some point in the near future as I indicated earlier in earlier responses the Poverty and Inequality Commission is about advising ministers using their expertise helping to ensure that cross-government connectivity and connecting us with the wider world and the wider evidence We are giving great thought to the future of the ministerial advisory group on child poverty that group I've been engaging with prior to today as part of our work in preparation for the child poverty bill and that group will as a minimum remain as the bill passes through Parliament and becomes bedded in In terms of the future we need to be upfront and actively question whether we will need both a Poverty and Inequality Commission and a ministerial advisory group on child poverty Now that's not a debate or discussion that is resolved in terms of the hearer now but I'm advising committee that we're giving that some thought because again in the same way that you need the right range of data you need the right range of advisory groups and experts who don't necessarily want a cluttered landscape when we're trying to get real focus and real drive in this area Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary and thank you to the officials for coming along as well I know all this meeting to a close and thank you very much and we'll continue in private