Chamber and committees

Can you confirm whether the review will look at the three-year funding proposals? Can you update the committee on how you are implementing three-year funding proposals, particularly for money advice services?

Good morning, minister, and hello again, cabinet secretary. Thank you for your opening statements.

I wholly concur that high-quality advice is one of the most important issues. The committee has heard from various advice providers that they are absolutely burst at the seams. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland told us that staff working in the bureaux are actually going to bed at night worrying about the same money problems for which they are having to support people during the day. Money advice services are in a very difficult environment right now, but we have seen a 10-year decline in funding for those services. How will the cabinet secretary and the minister address that? Do they accept that people need more and not fewer services at this point?

I appreciate that commitment, cabinet secretary. I take the point about striking the balance and not deluging people with a lot of information and letters. People do not want any more letters than absolutely necessary. If we can get the right balance between that and the current situation, which appears to be that people do not quite get enough information, that would be helpful.

My last question relates to social care charges. Is the cabinet secretary in a position to update the committee on whether she is aware of the number of people who are in debt because of such charges?

I want to take us back to the questions on digital inclusion. Forgive me for—[Inaudible.] Do you believe that anyone who needs support to access debt advice online, particularly those on low incomes, will have that support?

Thank you, that is helpful.

During the pandemic, mobile phone companies were able to offer people access to NHS websites without their having to use data. That meant that it was effectively free for people to access those sites. Has the Government considered asking mobile phone companies whether they would do the same thing for debt advice?

Do you expect the implementation of a three-year funding cycle to be imminent?

Thank you, but forgive me, cabinet secretary, my question was not specifically about the support that the Government has given unpaid carers—although I have a number of questions about that, some of which I raised in the chamber yesterday. My question was about the length of time that the cabinet secretary for finance said that it would take to reach the groups of people to whom the resource that came from the Barnett consequentials would have been better targeted. It was not so much about the support that the Government has given to unpaid carers, but about why it would take nine months to reach those four groups, when we already know where they are. The question is why the process takes so long.

Perhaps the committee and the cabinet secretaries can have a future discussion about how long it takes to deploy money in circumstances such as the cost of living crisis.

As we all know, more and more people are falling into poverty and the cost of living crisis is growing. Will the cabinet secretaries set out how the Government is using funds to challenge the causes, rather than the symptoms, of poverty? I appreciate that both cabinet secretaries began by setting out their aspirations to reduce the number of people who are eligible for payments such as the Scottish child payment. Will you explain how your spending plans will support people to stay out of poverty in the long term and ensure that any social security costs pertaining to that remain manageable?

Good morning. First, I apologise for not being able to join you in person, and I hope that you can pick up what I am saying from where you are. I also welcome both cabinet secretaries and their opening statements, which I found helpful.

My first question is probably for cabinet secretary Kate Forbes. You made the point that your budget is “not inflation proofed” and you set out the difficulties that you have in managing it. You are right to point out that it is about choices. Will you therefore set out why you chose to use the Barnett consequentials from the cost of living payments to give £150 each 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—pensioners, disabled people, carers and people on low incomes—who that payment could help to lift out of poverty, as the Scottish Labour Party suggested?

I am interested in why it would have taken nine months to make payments to people who are, for example, receiving the carers allowance supplement, because I assume that the Government already knows who and where those people are.

I also have a further question that falls under the theme of social security, but it is not related to my initial questions, so I will hold on to it.