Chamber and committees

Okay—thank you.

My question has been mostly answered, but it gives me an opportunity to use an acronym that I was not aware existed until preparing for today’s meeting: LULUCF—land use, land-use change and forestry.

The cabinet secretary alluded to the Fiscal Commission’s report. That states that it is 40 per cent per person more expensive to meet our climate obligations in Scotland because of the nature of our landscape. That is where a bit of partnership working with the UK Government is perhaps needed so that we—that is, Scotland but also the wider UK—can do everything that we need to. Have there been any discussions in relation to that to date? If Scotland does reforesting and peatland restoration well, will that help the UK to meet its overall climate change targets? Is that a joint endeavour?

Convener, I—

My question is on whether we have universality or targeting. The current approach is not universal, because universal credit is not universal; it is about blanket coverage for those who are in receipt of universal credit.

The Scottish child payment is straightforward to administer and impactful—I think that that is clear. Maybe my numbers are a little bit wrong but, if we increase it by another £5 a week, that would cost another £90 million a year. If we had £90 million a year, should we put it all into the Scottish child payment or increase the best start grant and best start foods, pay a clothing grant twice a year or provide a Scottish child payment summer supplement rather than spreading it across the year? There is a debate about whether to target the money more or whether to make it as universal as possible and about how Government and Parliament look at that.

That is very helpful. Perhaps Mr Werhnam could add a little bit to that response. Once universal credit is fully withdrawn, would there still be a negative impact if there was a tapered benefit run-on? There would obviously be a cost to that. Could there be an opportunity for the DWP and the Scottish Government to talk about that being an in-work incentive to get someone off universal credit? Could there be a co-produced plan for a benefit run-on that is financed by both the Scottish and UK Governments?

I will be brief. First, I thought that Professor Patrick gave an eloquent narrative on the two-child cap without actually mentioning it. It was a more eloquent one than any politician has given, and I thank her for putting that on the record.

My question is on the relationship between targets and monitoring. The Scottish Government modelling work that Mr O’Kane mentioned showed a fall in relative child poverty levels in Scotland from roughly 26 per cent to 19 per cent. However, the discourse on that was about the target being 18 per cent. The benefit of the progress that had been made seemed to dissipate and be lost among the discussion of lived experience.

Professor Patrick spoke about monitoring and comparing evaluations between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I represent Maryhill, but I am also interested to know what is happening in Merseyside and which factors make a difference there. It would be helpful if Professor Patrick could say a little more about how we could do that.

Professor Dorling mentioned how significant comparisons could be made by considering those issues across Europe, too. I hate alliteration, but I have already mentioned Maryhill and Merseyside, so I might want to know what is happening on child poverty in Marseille, for example. What are European nations doing, and how could we learn from each other? I ask Professor Dorling to say who could commission such work. If the Scottish Government were to do so, it could be accused of not being impartial in that process. If the issue is so significant that learning about it could benefit public policy, we would want to see robust independently led academic study not just in the UK but beyond it. I am sorry; I hope that that is brief enough.

That is really helpful. We are short of time but I think that Professor Tominey wants to come in before I move on to my next question.

That is helpful. As ever, it is never straightforward.

An unintended consequence of the success, I suppose, of the Scottish child payment is that, as universal credit tapers, the Scottish child payment does not. Everyone in this Parliament and on this committee wants to see mums, dads and families get into not just work but well-paid work with hours that allow them to sustain their quality of life without relying on benefits. However, a cliff edge is created by the fact that, when universal credit stops completely, so does the Scottish child payment.

Do the witnesses have any comments on, or solutions to, that? I will roll the two aspects into one question: first, on tapering, should that happen along with tapering of universal credit—I am wary of taking money off people when they are still on universal credit—or should the Scottish child payment be maintained and then tapered once someone stops receiving universal credit?

Mr Lumsden is absolutely right. I will say a little bit more about that later. I also note that everything that I just listed that the Government suggests could be in the strategy would not have to be in it either; those things “may” be included. Likewise, in my amendments 217 and 218, bulk uplift and garden waste “may” be included, but there would be no compulsion. As I said, I believe that not listing those items is an omission. Ideally, they would be in a code of practice that would empower action in that area, if it is considered appropriate.

To be fair, I believe relatively strongly that, in an ideal world, they would be in any such code of practice. I am increasingly concerned about small-scale, often everyday, fly-tipping in urban areas, particularly in the area of Glasgow that I represent, Maryhill and Springburn. I have spoken to colleagues in the Parliament, and I know that there is a wider issue with that. Some of it is unintended fly-tipping, where people put out mattresses, couches, fridges and other items in a place that five or 10 years ago was the collection point for bulk uplifts, although that service no longer exists in the local authority area. Some of it, I have to acknowledge, is unintentional in that way. I also believe that charges are an issue.

Although there is no statutory duty for local authorities to offer bulk uplifts or garden waste provision, they all have strategies on it already. Thirty-one of 32 local authorities charge for bulk uplifts; Fife is the only local authority that does not. Of those 31 local authorities, two have an annual fee—you pay your fee and you get a bulk uplift over the course of the year—and the rest have a variety of methods. Some are per item and some are for bundles of items. Glasgow City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and East Lothian Council, for example, charge a household £5 per item for bulk uplifts, but East Renfrewshire Council, among others, has bundled charges, where uplift of up to five items is £40 and six to 10 items is £50. It varies across the country; for example, Inverclyde Council and Aberdeenshire Council have similar models to East Renfrewshire’s. There is a patchwork of provision.

I should point out that seven councils have reductions or exemptions for low-income households or households that are local authority tenants, but most councils do not. I say bluntly that, if someone is in a flat, has no garden, has no car and is on a low income, and there are charges in place, when they have to get rid of a carpet, a sofa, a mattress, a fridge or whatever, which maybe that household struggled to purchase in the first place, there is always a chance—although I would hope that it would not—that occasional fly-tipping might happen as a result.

There will be a relationship between the charging regime in each local authority area and the pattern of fly-tipping that we see across the country. We have already heard about issues with data on fly-tipping. There is not enough data on it more generally, and this will be another area on which we do not have enough information.

Earlier, we also heard about a householder duty of care when they have contracted a “man with a van”—I think that that was the expression used—or a person with a van, to discard their bulk-uplift items. We are putting the duty of care on householders for what those contractors do, but they are effectively competitors with the local authority, if it offers a similar service. Again, there is a direct connection to local authority strategies.

We need greater consistency in this area. We need to look at that relationship when local authorities offer bulk uplift and garden waste removal.

I should also point out that six local authorities offer no garden waste service whatsoever. In six local authorities, there is no garden waste service, and seven offer it for free. Again, there is a patchwork of provision across the country.

I do not suggest that having a consideration of bulk uplift and garden waste in the code of practice would change all that. I merely ask that during the co-production process these issues are looked at as a matter of course, as what should be in the code of practice is decided.

I started off by saying that these are probing amendments, and they remain probing amendments. However, the more that I have heard of the debate, the more I feel compelled to say that this matter must be resolved somehow. If that is not done through these amendments, I would certainly welcome further conversation with the minister.

I have made my apologies, Mr Simpson. Perhaps you can get on with it.