Bringing Hope, Building Futures: Tackling child poverty delivery plan 2026-2031 – annex 2: Analysis of consultation and engagement

4. Reducing the costs of living and maximising incomes from social security

Chapter 4 considers responses to the next strategic theme, “Reducing the costs of living and maximising incomes from social security to allow families to live dignified lives and meet their basic needs”. This includes the use of social security, affordable homes, and advice services.

It was clear from responses that increased assistance, provided through social security benefits, and to address the cost of living, are key factors in improving outcomes for families living in poverty. Others acknowledged the importance of high-quality, safe, affordable, and accessible housing for all families, as well as advocating for changes to the collection of public debt.

The analysis focuses on responses to Question 3, Question 4, and Question 5, where respondents were asked about programmes and support that are working well, policies or approaches that should change, and ideas for alternative or new policies or actions.

Question 3. What is working well and what actions should Scottish Government and partners either continue to do or to do more of?

Question 4. Are there policies, actions or approaches that the Scottish Government and/or partners should either stop or do differently?

Question 5. Are there new policies, actions or approaches that Scottish Government should consider implementing?

Social Security

In response to Question 3, several respondents spoke highly of the devolved benefits administered by Social Security Scotland that they felt were improving the lives of children living in poverty. The most mentioned benefit was the Scottish Child Payment. This was widely felt to have had a positive impact in lifting children out of poverty and in mitigating the UK-wide two-child benefit cap. A few respondents also noted the positive impact of the Scottish Child Payment on single parents, as they are more likely to be living on low incomes as single-earner households.

Other benefits which some respondents mentioned as having a positive impact included Best Start Foods, Best Start Grant and Child Winter Heating Payment. A few respondents felt that the transition from Carer’s Allowance, which was administered by the UK Department for Work and Pensions, to Carer Support Payment, administered by Social Security Scotland, was an improvement. It was felt the new application process was considered simpler and more person-centred.

These respondents considered social security benefits to be an essential tool in helping reduce poverty among children and families. Concerns raised in Question 3, and reiterated in Question 4 and Question 5, highlighted the importance of continued funding for social security and increases in the payment rates.

A small number of respondents highlighted other concerns related to benefits payments. A few respondents suggested increasing the rate of the Scottish Child Payment. Some respondents emphasised the importance of continued lobbying by interested parties to the UK government to abolish the two-child limit in Universal Credit, which the UK Government has subsequently confirmed will be removed from April 2026. A small number mentioned the need to address the fact that young parents may receive a lower Universal Credit payment depending on their age but can still face the same child-related costs as older parents. One respondent highlighted what they saw as a cliff edge faced by parents when the end of Universal Credit also triggers the end of the Scottish Child Payment and suggested a staggered approach to the termination of social security payments instead.

A few respondents highlighted concerns about accessing benefits delivered by Social Security Scotland. For example, a small number called for shorter timescales for processing changes of circumstances, as it was felt that long waiting times negatively impacted families with a disabled household member, in some cases pushing them into poverty. Respondents felt that the system of applying for benefits was complex, with some families not applying for eligible benefits due to confusion or a lack of awareness. Requests for improvements to processing times, access to advocacy and advice services, and simplification of the benefits application system were mentioned by a few respondents as being likely to help families living in poverty.

A small number of respondents cited data that shows poverty rates are much higher when there is a disability in the family, particularly when there are unpaid carers providing care. A few others highlighted that unpaid carers, who, as one respondent noted, are statistically more likely to be women, faced inadequate support due to the overly restrictive eligibility criteria of the Carer Support Payment. One respondent suggested ensuring carers were paid a Real Living Wage.

A few others mentioned the importance of promoting the uptake of benefits across priority family types and other disadvantaged groups. A small number of respondents mentioned this in relation to those living in rural areas where uptake can be lower. A few others highlighted that minority ethnic families were less likely to access benefits but were more likely to be in poverty. This raised questions about barriers faced by this group and a lack of clear data to guide action. This is considered in greater detail in Chapters 9 and 10. Others – both attendees at engagement events and respondents to the call for evidence - suggested that stigma played a part in deterring people from applying for benefits; stigma around poverty is addressed in Chapter 6.

Recommendations for improvements to social security included:

• Increased funding for crisis grants, in particular the Scottish Welfare Fund.
• Providing targeted funds through existing delivery sources, such as an Infant Food Insecurity payment provided alongside the Scottish Child Payment for families in receipt of Universal Credit with a child under one.
• Increasing awareness of social security benefits through public campaigns to counteract costs associated with raising a child, which was discussed in the Child Poverty Action Group’s report on The Cost of a Child in Scotland 2024, including greater promotion of the Five Family Payments (Best Start Grant, Best Start Foods and Scottish Child Payment).
• An emergency fund for people with no recourse to public funds.

Cost of living

The high cost of living, including fuel and food costs, was highlighted as a central concern by several respondents throughout the call for evidence, and one that should be addressed to reduce the number of children living in poverty.

At Question 3, a small number of respondents highlighted several programmes, support services and strategies that they felt have been helping families living in poverty to address the cost of living. These included financial payments, such as the Scottish Child Payment described above, the school clothing grant, free prescriptions, free school meals, the baby box, and whole family support, which is discussed in greater depth in Chapter 5.

A few others highlighted that financial support services, often provided by local authority-supported programmes, provide advice on budgeting, addressing debt and money management. General forms of support and advocacy were also highlighted as helpful, particularly those provided by third-sector organisations and local authorities. Other respondents mentioned various toolkits and supports, such as social needs screening toolkits, Money Guiders Training, and apps created by health boards, including the NHS Borders Money Worries App. One respondent highlighted the crucial role that health and social care play in identifying and supporting families when the cost of living becomes too challenging. Respondents also highlighted the value of research (see Chapter 7) and data sharing on outcomes related to successful programmes (see Chapter 9).

At Question 4 and Question 5, a small number of respondents emphasised that funding for successful support services and programmes needs to continue or increase. For example, respondents called for continued support to reduce the cost of the school day by maintaining funding for free school meals and the school clothing grant, while extending eligibility (see Chapter 6). A few respondents made additional recommendations to reduce the costs faced by families, such as lowering the cost of fuel needed for home heating, reducing public debt, and lowering the cost of everyday essential goods and services. Another respondent recommended introducing targeted legislation to support families facing fuel poverty.

A small number of respondents felt improvements were needed to the emergency support provided for families, specifically that this support should be less crisis-focused and instead work to break the cycle of poverty by providing funding over a longer period. Another respondent highlighted that the availability of crisis grants and other assistance varies across Scotland, as it is dependent on the local authority, which can be unfair for families in certain areas.

Targeted support for priority groups and other groups who face higher costs of living was mentioned by a few respondents. Examples of suggestions included:

• More guidance from the Scottish Government on how funding for assistance programmes can be adapted to support migrants.
• Consideration of the cost of food and other living costs that make life in rural and island communities more expensive for families.
• Taking a gendered approach to the cost of living crisis, which, according to the First Minister’s National Advisory Council on Women and Girls’ report on Understanding the Cost of Living Crisis in Scotland, disproportionately affects women.

Other changes and new approaches recommended by a few respondents included:

• Extend free school meals to older children whose families receive Universal Credit.
• Small changes to other benefits which may have a positive impact on the cost of living, such as Council Tax Reduction backdated for 12 months rather than 6 for working-aged people.
• Public information campaigns and advertising to raise awareness of school-related grants and funds, such as the school clothing grant, with attendees at one engagement event suggesting that it could start with midwives and health visitors helping to raise awareness.
• Recommendations to the UK Government to make changes to the child maintenance system, particularly considering the challenges faced by victim-survivors of domestic abuse.

Housing

Many respondents highlighted Scotland’s housing shortage and what they felt needed to change to improve outcomes for children in poverty. Some respondents emphasised the importance of providing safe, secure, and affordable housing to families, noting that housing is often the largest expense for low-income families. Although a few acknowledged the impact of restored funding for affordable housing, it was emphasised that recent freezes to funding have caused significant damage to people in poverty, which will require greater investment to stabilise. A few mentioned that the Scottish Government should maintain Discretionary Housing Payment and consider ways to expand provision for those in greatest need. One respondent suggested that the Scottish Government recommend to the UK Department for Work and Pensions to continue adjusting the Local Housing Allowance rates annually.

At Question 4 and Question 5, some respondents emphasised that families need access to high-quality, affordable housing. A small number of respondents provided other suggestions to improve the availability of housing for families living in poverty, including:

• Consider introducing national standards, such as rent controls and accommodation standards, which focus on the welfare needs of children and other vulnerable people, as well as social housing expansion and financial aid to cover housing costs.
• Ensure social housing is rights-respecting. For example, ensuring that homes are of an adequate size for families, safe, and in a community of their choice.
• Ensure that families are moved out of temporary accommodation and provided with permanent homes.
• Improve Scotland’s housing infrastructure, with one suggestion to provide more funding to local authorities for housing and homelessness prevention.
• Continue to review Strategic Housing Investment Plans.
• Increase funding for third sector organisations that provide housing assistance and advocacy services.

Housing was often raised as a specific area of concern for several groups, with a small number of respondents recommending tailored action for groups they felt were more at risk of insecure or inappropriate housing. For example, two respondents mentioned that minority ethnic families are less likely to live in social housing and more likely to face unaffordable costs of private rentals as well as poor housing conditions. These respondents requested that future action consider the structural barriers faced by minority ethnic families in accessing social housing. Another respondent emphasised the importance of focusing on the most deprived areas of Scotland and ensuring that there is appropriate, safe, and warm housing available in these areas. One respondent suggested that care experienced people should have priority access to housing. Another felt that finding suitable housing for young carers should be a priority, including ensuring any housing offered is accessible and meets the needs of the person or people they care for.

Public debt

A few respondents mentioned the impact of public debt on families in persistent poverty. This refers to debt that a household owes to public bodies, such as council tax or rent arrears. These respondents suggested that changes were needed to the way public debt is collected, noting that unmanageable debt, including public debt, left families in repeated financial emergencies, making it difficult for them to achieve long-term financial stability. Citing research, including a report from Aberlour, One Parent Family Scotland and the Trussell Trust on Households with a Disability and Lone Parent Families and the impact of Public Debt and Arrears, respondents highlighted that the costs and impacts associated with collecting public debt, such as providing social housing or homelessness support to families who have lost homes due to public debt, is greater than relieving the public debt. A small number of respondents recommended policy changes and collaboration across all levels of government to reduce the impact of public debt on families in poverty. One respondent reiterated that many direct repayments are taken from benefits by HMRC, and as such, national action would strengthen any local relief that is implemented.

Other comments on income maximisation

A few respondents reiterated their support for improving families’ financial circumstances more generally, or highlighted types of support that could positively impact across the issues outlined in this chapter. This included some support for implementing the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), which a small number of respondents felt would have an outsized impact on disabled people and carers. One respondent suggested that the Scottish Government should introduce an Essentials Guarantee, which aims to provide a minimum level of support to cover essential living costs, while they work toward implementing the MIG. A few respondents suggested piloting a Universal Basic Income. Several call for evidence respondents and attendees at engagement events also mentioned the value of programmes and support that provide direct financial assistance or a cash-first approach to distributing aid. Finally, one respondent emphasised the importance of considering economic abuse and financial insecurity when thinking about poverty among women and children in Scotland.