Chamber and committees

Thank you for that really comprehensive and helpful answer. How much does the effect of income distribution on poverty rates explain some of the projections in the modelling?

I also have another question, which is for Peter Kelly. The Poverty Alliance noted that social security is not yet adequate—members and others will know that I share its impatience for action on that, in particular on the adult disability payment and carers allowance—so could you talk about how we can start to address that and what we need to do now?

My first question was a short supplementary for Bill Scott, and the second one was for Peter Kelly.

Yes, please. That was all really helpful. I think that there is a real challenge for us in how we gather information and intelligence then use them to react quickly in times of crisis. As you said, we absolutely need to do that.

I have a question for Jack Evans on the actions that are in the plan. How much action does it contain to address poverty in the priority groups?

That is really helpful. As ever, people will be unsurprised to hear that I hope that the pace will be quick and that the actions will follow to meet the ideas in the plan.

On the point about addressing the poverty of the priority groups, I note that Close the Gap published a blog post this week in which it says that the plan represents a regression in relation to gendered analysis and women’s poverty. Do the witnesses share that view?

Good morning. Thank you for all the evidence that you submitted in advance of the meeting and for all the work that you have done this year and, indeed, in previous years. It has been—and still is—a really tough time for a lot of the people whom you represent.

I want to start with a question for Bill Scott. In its submission, the Poverty and Inequality Commission says that it is looking for “greater pace and scale” and increased investment. How does the delivery plan compare with those expectations? Does it include the stronger focus on evidence that you had wanted, and does it contain enough on social security to address the cost of living crisis at the moment?

Thank you for allowing me to come in again, convener.

On district heating, some people might be aware of the experience of residents in Wyndford in Glasgow, where a system was introduced on their doorstep, which was supposed to benefit them by reducing fuel costs in heating their homes. However, that has not happened—in fact, some of the costs are now increasing. It would be interesting to hear from Alison Watson about what we can do to ensure that, where community energy systems are put in place, they definitely begin to reduce fuel poverty for households.

While I am speaking, I have another question for Alison. The message that we should build social houses that are the right size, in the right place, with the right amenities around them seems clear, and it is absolutely the answer. What is preventing us from getting there? Why are we not doing that?

Thank you.

Good morning, panel. Thank you for the evidence that you submitted in advance, and for all the information on the issue that you have shared to date with the committee and others.

I take the point that the plan is not written as a cost of living plan. However, it has been written during a cost of living crisis that is—I hope—the biggest that any of us will ever live through. Although the modelling suggests that we will meet the initial relative poverty target—only just, but we will get there, nonetheless—it does not feel like that for people on the ground. Things do not feel optimistic at all. It does not meet the sniff test, I guess; it is just not quite right. Is the modelling optimistic? Given the circumstances that we hear about from people who live in poverty, and their experience right now, will we still be saying, in a year’s time, the same thing about possibly meeting the targets?

I am sorry; anybody could probably answer; I do not want to target the question specifically.

I thank everyone for their answers so far.

Following on from the themes that we have been discussing concerning intersectionality, you might be aware that Close the Gap published a blog post this week that highlights some concerns, which I share, about the delivery plan. It says:

“This was a time for building on the actions in the previous Child Poverty Delivery Plan and applying increasing focus on women’s poverty. Instead, the sharp focus on women’s poverty is diluted within this Plan.”

It also says that

“there are no actions explicitly designed to address this beyond a vague commitment to continue taking targeted action on the gender pay gap”

and that there is instead

“a continued reliance on pre-existing strategies and interventions which are not well-gendered including No One Left Behind, Individual Training Accounts and the Flexible Workforce Development Fund.”

That is, obviously, quite concerning, given what we have heard about this morning about the need to focus on addressing women’s equality in the workplace, in particular. I think that everyone in this discussion today agrees about how important that is.

What could we do specifically to redress that imbalance and ensure that we progress the work that the previous plan started on women’s equality in the workplace? I direct that question to Bill Scott and Marion Davies.

Thank you, Peter, for that helpful answer, and I thank Bill Scott for the additional information that he provided.

My final question on this theme is for Claire Telfer. The submission from Save the Children notes that

“Any delay in implementation to the planned increase to the SCP will put meeting the interim targets at risk.”

We can all understand that. Are you worried about that? What should we be doing for the children who are on bridging payments and are not getting the additional money at all?