Chamber and committees

Good morning. It is good to see you again, Bill. I want to pick up on a comment that you made about the importance of affordable travel. That is obviously a big barrier for many people in the Highlands and Islands. The plan discusses the complexity of rural poverty. I am particularly encouraged by the work that has been done on housing and the fact that evidence has been taken from the Anchor project in Shetland. Are there other aspects of rural poverty that you think need more attention?

As always, I am struggling with the contradictions in our hybrid social security system. The Scottish Government wants to give money to parents to tackle child poverty, and it wants to help those same parents into work. The Government relies on universal credit, which is a reserved income-based benefit, to provide the data to determine who receives the Scottish child payment. Is it possible to do both those things when, under universal credit, a person who is in work might lose their benefits? In essence, can the policies to tackle child poverty be as effective as possible while they are being delivered under a hybrid social security model that is led by two Governments that have fundamentally different ideologies?

That is probably for Philip Whyte and Jack Evans.

Good morning, minister. In the evidence session with kinship carers last week, their wish to have a more consistent approach towards how kinship care is defined came through very strongly. Some had one child in one category and one child in another. They told us that they wanted one clear definition: that children in their care were looked after and could therefore receive the same support as other care-experienced children.

Will the Scottish Government consider a clearer and more consistent approach to the definition of those in kinship care, whether through legislation or otherwise?

Good morning, minister. You touched on the need for increases to disability and carers benefits to be linked to the UK rate. Do you believe that the UK Government should be uprating those benefits, which would, in turn, allow the Scottish Government to do the same?

Minister, it is possible that, after the case transfer, people who are currently on DLA might not end up staying on ADP. Do you think that that situation will be uncommon? Where it happens, will the data be monitored so that we can get a full picture of why it has happened and consider whether any changes to support or criteria should be made in the future?

Yes, that was helpful—thank you.

My first question is about child poverty. We expect that, by reducing child poverty, we will create budget savings in other areas, but it is hard to solidly link underspends or reductions in spend elsewhere to a reduction in child poverty. Can you suggest ways in which we can monitor those effects as effectively as possible? How can we evidence knock-on effects and evaluate success on that level?

My other question is about the fiscal framework review. It is fair to say that a hybrid social security model comes with a lot of challenges. We hear a lot about the limitations on future planning because of the threat of changes to the block grant, the extra costs of diverging from UK policy and so on. Does having a hybrid reserved and devolved social security system make financial sense? Can we ever protect the social security budget from risks effectively while we are so intrinsically tied to UK policy decisions?

On the topic of budget scrutiny, is it more important for those of us who are tasked with scrutinising social security to make use of the medium-term financial strategy than it is for other committees?

I direct that question to Emma Congreve.

It is good to meet you virtually, minister. Thank you for giving us your time this morning.

My question is very much along the same lines as that of my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy, but I would like a bit more clarity on policy change. You said that you agree that no further changes to ADP are possible at this time, and that that will be for the Scottish criteria in future. Do you appreciate that although there has been devolution of some social security powers, there are limits to those powers? We are not yet entirely clear on where those limits are or on what can be done without risking the eligibility of claimants of devolved benefits to continue to receive their reserved benefits. Is it your intention to reconcile that and to facilitate the Scottish Government’s policy wishes on devolved benefits?

In a previous response, Andrew Latto advised that further costs that are associated with changing eligibility, due to more disabled people being eligible, would result in the Scottish Government being charged for the difference. If it is your intention, as you say, to get disability benefits to all who need it, should the DWP not be leading on changing eligibility to make sure that that happens with reserved benefits, rather than punishing the Scottish Government for doing so?