Chamber and committees

Thank you very much.

I remind people that Colin Beattie is with us, but is joining us remotely.

You have outlined some of the key messages in the report, some of which are quite startling—from gaps in data to your assessment that

“It is not possible to assess the success of the ... first four-year plan”

and that there has not been a demonstrable

“clear shift to preventing child poverty.”

Those are quite important messages and, as you have set out, there are areas in which you are keen that improvements be made.

You finished by explaining that you plan to carry out more work. Will you elaborate on that a little? What further work is already in train or is likely? Will you tell us a little about the timetable that you have set yourself for that?

Thanks. You mentioned at one point that Covid has had an effect, which we fully appreciate. However, the committee also wants to understand whether the foundations are in place to deliver the data, notwithstanding external factors.

We are interested to hear your views on the robustness of the data and on the time lag, because—I presume—that makes it exceptionally difficult for policy makers to base their decisions on current evidence. Parliament has legislated for statutory targets to be met, but if there is no data to understand what progress is being made or what regress is taking place, that makes it pretty hard to give any meaning to the targets that have been set.

Your briefing mentions that new data on levels of child poverty in 2020-21 are expected in 2023. Have you any expectation that that data will be more robust? Will it be better? Will it address the deficiencies that you outlined in the briefing? I am happy for you to bring in the other members of your team, as needed.

On that last point—and this covers part, though not the full extent, of the evidence that we have taken this morning—you say quite critically in the briefing paper:

“Gaps in data and not enough involvement of children and families with lived experience of poverty are hindering the development of sufficiently targeted policies”.

That lack of involvement is actually having an effect on the policy-making process and therefore the outcomes, and it is absolutely critical, is it not, to the approach that is adopted if we are going to get these things right.

There is another issue with regard to employability that I am bound to ask you to clarify. Am I not right in thinking that two out of three children living in poverty in Scotland live in households with at least one adult in work? This situation has come about not because there is a big unemployment problem, but because people are not being very well paid when they go out to work.

Thank you, director general, for that opening statement. We have quite a number of questions that we want to put to you. They cover much of the ground that you outlined in your opening statement, which was helpful. I turn first of all to Craig Hoy.

Thank you. I want to give Willie Coffey the opportunity to put his questions to the witnesses now. I will then bring in Colin Beattie.

In our first evidence session this morning, we will consider “Progress Review of Scottish Government Relationships with Public Bodies”. I am pleased to welcome the Scottish Government witnesses in the committee room. Paul Johnston is director general communities; Mary McAllan is director of Covid recovery and public service reform; and Catriona Maclean is deputy director public bodies support unit.

Colin Beattie, who is the fifth member of the committee, is joining us remotely. I will bring him in shortly.

I invite the director general to make an opening statement, after which we will have questions. We have copies of the review report that was produced for you and your response to the recommendations in it.

Thanks. That would be helpful.

I move on to another area. A couple of minutes ago, Mr Johnston, you said that fewer people are carrying out the role and that it is about how that workload is managed. However, at the same time, new public bodies are being created.

I am interested in the railways, for example—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. As I understand it, under the structure from 1 April this year, Scottish ministers act through Transport Scotland, which has oversight of Scottish Rail Holdings, which in turn has oversight of ScotRail Trains Limited, and—who knows?—after this weekend, maybe the Caledonian sleeper will be added to that list. How does that relationship work in practice? I know that it is not within your directorate, but I want to understand how the sponsor arrangement operates when a new public body is created.

We are living in times that are quite different even from those in 2017, when the legislation was drafted.

Finally, we turn to questions from the committee’s deputy convener, Sharon Dowey.

I will just follow up on Colin Beattie’s questions. It would be useful for us to understand what the vacancy rate is now and what it was at the time of the report.

I am also interested in the fact that sponsor roles are not seen as “sexy”—somebody says that in the report; I am not sure that it is the view of the report. I am not sure what that means. People in sponsor roles are in bands A to C. The salary range starts off in the low £20,000s in band A, but goes up to about £76,000 in band C. Are you having difficulty in attracting people to the higher-paid posts or to the lower-paid posts? Where is the problem in that spectrum of pay grades?