Chamber and committees

I am pleased to see this affirmative instrument, which seems to fall in line with the Government’s approach, as it is ambitious in its intent but cautious and careful in the roll-out. The £60 million of additional money that is being spent on carers in Scotland is evidence of that ambition.

You mentioned a backdating protocol that exists so that individuals do not lose out, and you alluded to an individual moving from a local authority that is part of the pilot to one that is not, or vice versa. How will that be identified by Social Security Scotland, and how will people be encouraged to fill in the appropriate forms in order to get that backdating of benefit?

That is helpful. Thank you.

No matter what your answer is, Mr Evans, I will not have a follow-up question after this, so the last word will be yours.

If you had a choice—and please make one on this occasion if you can—between meeting the interim target of 18 per cent or missing it by a whisker and taking the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to lift a huge number of people out of deep and enduring poverty—including those who are just on the artificial line of not being technically in poverty—would you rather meet the target or move a huge number of people away from enduring poverty?

This is an interesting evidence session. I will rewind ever so slightly. Mr Balfour mentioned a deficit in social security in Scotland. For clarity, there is not a deficit—the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland spend £1.2 billion more on doing the right thing and protecting the most vulnerable people in society than they would have done had they stuck to UK Westminster policies. That is the policy choice in Scotland, and it should not be portrayed as a deficit. It is important to put that on the record, given the exchange that we are having with witnesses today about political priorities and policy choices.

I have made that point now, convener, but we have to make policy choices in Scotland—of course we do. Some of the questions on targeting that I was going to ask have been mopped up by Mr Mason. I am conscious that putting the Scottish child payment up to £30 would cost around an additional £60 million. If we then increased it to £40, that would cost £170 million on top of that. It is quite reasonable to ask not about how we would raise the revenue but about whether this Parliament would need to identify £50 million, £100 million or £150 million. My goodness, Mr Sinclair—I am afraid that I do not have any of those amounts of money available to me. If we did identify it, how would it be best spent? I know that the answer is not an either/or, but our committee needs a steer when we scrutinise the budgets for these things.

Mr Evans spoke about early years and children. We have best start foods and the best start grant. We could, in theory, give a Scottish child payment supplement to families in receipt of that suite of benefits. We hope that we know the ages of young people who are getting the Scottish child payment, so we could have a supplement for teenagers. Mr Sinclair was perhaps suggesting that. Many families tell me that summer is the most expensive time of year, so I have suggested that there could be a June payment, which would be a double payment—a summer supplement—to help out at that difficult time of year.

There are lots of policy choices that the Scottish Government has to consider, and the witnesses we have here today are experts whose opinions we value. Can I twist your arms and get you to say where you would target money as and when it becomes available?

Mr Sinclair, that answer was helpful, but do you or do you not support a supplement to the Scottish child payment for certain targeted groups that might be more likely to be at risk of deep and enduring poverty? I am not sure what your position is.

I was just checking, and the best start foods grant is extended to those without recourse to public funds. That connects my earlier suggestions on targeting with Mr Sinclair’s points.

I have a brief question for Stephen Sinclair, because he spoke about counterfactuals. All three witnesses have spoken about last week’s evidence regarding the need for better data. One suggestion that we heard from last week’s witnesses was about the need for a study comparing the experience in Scotland with that in other parts of the UK, which might help with some of the counterfactuals.

I made a point last week about Maryhill, which I represent. I would like to know how the lived experience of families in poverty in Maryhill compares with that of families in Merseyside. That would help us to analyse the difference that the Scottish child payment has or has not made and to look at any actions that are meant to tackle child poverty in Merseyside. Does Stephen Sinclair have a view on whether a comparative study would be helpful?

To try to paraphrase your answer, you are almost saying that we should give the chief entrepreneur a bit of breathing space to do what he is doing, because the success will be seen in the medium to long term. You mentioned 10 years, and I note that you also said that you would not be in your post in 10 years’ time.

However, how do we evaluate in the short term? Sometimes, short-term evaluations and targets can be a bit artificial, and we move on to the next thing rather than sticking with something for the long term. How do we do short-term evaluation in a meaningful way, so that the committee can scrutinise it? Are you indicating that the Government is thinking that that two-year post could be a four, six or 10-year post? I am conscious that the two-year appointment will lapse this summer.

I have another question, although I am happy not to ask it, convener. I am not sure what the timescale is.

It is about the city region and growth deals that are now in place across the whole of Scotland. A few years ago, that was never the intention; it was only certain areas of Scotland that were to get additional attention, but now it is the case that, if an area does not have a growth deal or a city region deal, something is going wrong, and such deals cover the whole country.

How are we ensuring that the scale of investment that is required is boosting economic performance in the way that we would like? How are we ensuring that the investment is strategic? Are the deals delivering against ambitions? That is a very general question, which is just to give the committee a starting position in case we do some work on that area in the future.