Official Report 288KB pdf
We will now consider the committee's approach to its child poverty inquiry. Members have a paper on child poverty from the Scottish Parliament information centre, a joint submission from Barnardo's and other charities, and a paper on our approach to the inquiry. The paper contains a proposal to start by having a round-table discussion in Glasgow, on the basis of which we would proceed with our work. We need to agree our approach, so that the proposal can go to the Conveners Group for approval on costs and so on. I invite comments and suggestions.
A round-table discussion would help us to identify the areas that we want to work on and would be useful. I do not know whether you want us to suggest further stakeholders to invite. I am keen to invite representation from the for Scotland's disabled children group, which is working on how services are delivered to children with disabilities, including services to help young people move into work as they make the transition between childhood and adulthood. There is an important equalities strand in relation to poverty.
We should involve representatives of the working for families programme, which plays an important role. We should consider how we persuade the Scottish and Westminster Governments to work together as closely as possible to try to alleviate the appalling level of poverty in Scotland. We should ensure that there is as much co-operation on the issue as possible.
I have no objection to a round-table discussion with the stakeholders who are identified in the paper and the people whom Johann Lamont suggested. However, is it more convenient to have the meeting in Glasgow than to do so in Edinburgh? All committee members, clerks and officials must be in Edinburgh on Wednesdays. Are all the organisations that we would invite—Barnardo's, the Child Poverty Action Group, NCH and so on—based in Glasgow? What is the point of having a caravan go to Glasgow—apart from for tokenistic reasons—if most people are based in Edinburgh or its environs?
I hope that we will hear from families who live in poverty. We can do that in Edinburgh or Glasgow, but Kenny Gibson talked about where deprivation is most notably experienced, and the committee could open up and meet elsewhere. We are talking about going only as far as Glasgow, but we should give consideration to meeting in different parts of the country. Perhaps members could meet in smaller groups to take evidence throughout Scotland, as has happened in the past. We do not have to go as a full committee in full attire, accompanied by the microphones and so on, but outreach work is important.
We can take soundings on that.
I have no objection to the committee taking evidence from individuals and families, so that those people can describe their experiences. It might be appropriate for us to go to Glasgow or elsewhere in Scotland for that purpose. However, as I understand the proposition, our initial meeting will be with stakeholders, whom I take to be organisations with an interest in the issue—I might be wrong. If most of those organisations are based in Edinburgh or its environs, I do not see the point of a great trail to the west.
Is there a consensus in the committee on that?
Some of the organisations have volunteers and members who speak from direct experience, so we will not necessarily talk only to employees. Organisations might choose to send an employee, but other people are capable of speaking about their experiences.
Kenny Gibson and Johann Lamont made good points and I am perfectly in agreement with the proposal to go to Glasgow. That would not be tokenistic; it would be symbolic, and symbols are important. It is important that the Parliament sends a signal that it is willing to go to where people are to talk to them.
I echo that. Glasgow is the heart of the problem that we must face in this country and it is important that we meet there. I realise that the clerks are probably not based in Glasgow, but five of the eight members of the committee are from Glasgow or from points west, from which they must travel through Glasgow to get to Edinburgh. I do not regard it as a particular burden for the committee to go to Scotland's largest city—
I hope you are not suggesting that David McLetchie would be presented with problems getting into Glasgow.
I have broad sympathy with David McLetchie's point. Committee members go where we need to go; that is our public duty—I guess that that applies to the officials, too. However, we should not uproot ourselves and go to the other side of the country unless there is good cause. Some members have intimated that there is good cause. I will not die in a ditch over the issue. I am quite happy to go to Glasgow.
The search for consensus continues.
I am agreeing with Patricia Ferguson and Johann Lamont—on the same day. Our going to Glasgow would be symbolic. There is serious poverty in west-central Scotland. We are talking not about uprooting the committee but about a train journey of 50 minutes. That is not a big deal for the committee, but it is a big deal for community activists and representatives who might want to come and hear the round-table discussion. We should meet in Glasgow.
I think that there is majority agreement that we endorse the paper and proceed with arranging a round-table discussion in Glasgow.
Meeting continued in private until 13:08.