Living Wage
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01716, in the name of John Park, on the living wage—tackling in-work poverty. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the Campaign to End Child Poverty’s report that highlights the worryingly high levels of child poverty across many areas of Scotland; is deeply concerned that in many areas, including parts of Mid Scotland and Fife, child poverty levels are between 30% and 40%; further notes that 59% of poor children live in a household where at least one adult works; recognises the calls from a range of campaigning organisations such as Save the Children that the payment of a living wage can be an effective way of tackling child poverty; welcomes recent steps to introduce a living wage for all directly employed Scottish Government and NHS employees in Scotland; believes that the living wage should be the norm in other sectors of the economy, and supports steps to use procurement to extend the living wage to employees working for organisations delivering public sector contracts.
17:07
I welcome the opportunity to open this debate. I am a little disappointed that the Presiding Officer is not in the chair, because we have had two debates on the living wage in the past week, which is similar to the situation with waiting for buses to come along in Fife. I am sure that the Presiding Officer would understand that analogy. We have waited a while to discuss the living wage, but we have an opportunity tonight to make a further case—in addition to the one that we made last week—for the living wage, its importance and the impact that it could have throughout Scotland.
It is fitting that we are having this debate on international women’s day, given the disproportionate impact that low pay has on women workers. It is estimated that about 550,000 employees on adult rates in Scotland are paid less than the living wage. That means that 14.6 per cent of men who are in work and a staggering 22.6 per cent of women who are in work are paid less than £7.20 an hour. Overall, two thirds of low-paid workers are female, and 43 per cent of workers who earn less than £7 an hour are women in part-time jobs.
I have welcomed the measures taken by the Scottish Government to introduce a living wage for those who are directly employed by the Scottish Government and the national health service. That will have had a direct impact on women workers and it will undoubtedly have improved their take-home pay, but it is not just low-paid women workers who would benefit from the wider implementation of the living wage, as their families and the communities that they live in would benefit, too.
In the Mid Scotland and Fife region, child poverty levels are between 30 and 40 per cent. Organisations such as Save the Children tell us that the implementation of the living wage would be an effective way in which to directly tackle child poverty because most single-parent, low-income households are headed by women, and low pay among the female workforce is clearly a major factor in child poverty.
When I take all those factors into account, it is clear to me that the implementation of a living wage could transform the lives of so many people throughout Scotland and reach so much further into our communities than many of the other policies that we debate in the Scottish Parliament.
However, given that we had that debate last week, before I came into the chamber I gave a bit of thought to what I am going to say in tonight’s debate. As there are only so many things to say about the living wage, I might go over some of the ground that I went over last week. Having had a look around the chamber, I see quite a lot of members who were not at last week’s debate, so I am quite happy to go over that ground because this might be the first time that they have heard what I have to say—or perhaps not.
The phraseology that politicians use to describe the impact of not being paid a living wage is “in-work poverty”. However, for people outside the Scottish Parliament and the political bubble, the reality is the struggle to make ends meet week after week. That is a shocking and terrible situation for people to find themselves in, which is why we politicians are duty bound to debate the issue and do something about it. I welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce the living wage for employees of the national health service and the Scottish Government, but we need to recognise that there are other mechanisms if we are to ensure that the living wage has a wider impact and reaches into the private sector.
One thing that I would like to do today, which we did not do enough of last week, is to recognise and celebrate the work of the people who have shoved the living wage right up the political agenda. Those people do not sit in Parliament but they have made a huge difference by ensuring that politicians discuss the issue every day. I am talking about individuals such as Eddie Follan from the Scottish living wage campaign, John Dickie from the Poverty Alliance Scotland and Dave Moxham from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. They have pushed the issue with the Scottish Government and Opposition MSPs, and made sure that the wider public understands the impact that the living wage would have on the people and organisations that MSPs represent.
We also have MSPs such as John Wilson and Kezia Dugdale, who have made a huge impact on the issue. I have been privileged to see and be involved in the work that they have done in Parliament around low pay and poverty. We all recognise that work, and tonight’s debate gives us a further opportunity to put that recognition on the record.
We need to focus on how we deliver the living wage across the public and private sectors. During last week’s debate, we focused quite a bit on procurement in relation to public bodies and the role that it can play. Alex Neil said that a letter about that has been sent to the European Commission. I have seen a copy of that letter and I know what it contains and, as I said last week, I am not clear that we will get a definitive response to it that will allow us in Parliament to decide what to do around procurement to deliver a living wage. That is why we need the political will to make sure that we can deliver a living wage.
So many times in the Scottish Parliament, such as when we discussed the smoking ban—we have seen this week the impact that that has had—minimum unit pricing, or even the independence referendum, we hear differing legal opinions. It comes down to our political will to take the initiative. That is why I have been working on a bill that I hope to introduce. I am sure that there will be members on my side of the chamber who will be keen to sign up to and support that bill, given the response that we saw in last week’s living wage debate, and I know that other members will also be supportive. I hope that members believe that we need to have a detailed debate on the issue and will support my proposals when they are introduced.
The issue was encapsulated for me today when Margaret McDougall asked a question of the Deputy First Minister about whether the living wage could apply to those who are not directly employed by the NHS. The Deputy First Minister replied that it cannot but that we should try to encourage people to pay it. That is great, but it would be better if we legislated to ensure that the living wage could be paid as part of the procurement process. That could have a real impact across our communities, it could make a real difference by ending child poverty, and it could make life better overall for Scots.
17:14
I thank John Park for raising the issue. I certainly agree with a number of the points in his motion. He mentions Mid Scotland and Fife, which allows me to mention Glasgow. I thank Save the Children for its briefing for last week’s debate and for the figures on Glasgow with which it provided me. Some of them make stark, if not awful, reading. They show that 35 per cent of children in Glasgow are growing up in poverty, compared with the Scotland-wide figure of 20 per cent; that in 15 council wards in the city, more than 30 per cent of children live in poverty and, in two wards, half of all children are in poverty; and that about 17,000 children in Glasgow live in severe poverty, which is 18 per cent of all children in the city, compared with the national average of 9 per cent.
Unemployment and low wages are at the heart of child poverty in Glasgow. There are 32,900 unemployed people in Glasgow, which is 11.3 per cent of the working-age population, and 19.3 per cent of workers in Glasgow earn less than £7 an hour, compared with the Scottish average of 19 per cent. That leads to the fact that 62 per cent of children in Glasgow live in low-income households and almost 80,000 children live in households that are dependent on benefits. Those figures are not acceptable. John Park’s motion also mentions that more than half the children who are in poverty
“live in a household where at least one adult works”.
All those figures say to me that, to reduce poverty, it is essential to roll out the living wage or, preferably, raise the statutory minimum wage.
I spoke on the subject last week, so I thought that I should do something a little different tonight. I got a fair bit of reaction on Facebook to last week’s debate and to some of the comments that I made. I thought that it would be useful to deal with some of those comments. If members want to look at them in more detail, they can check my Facebook page.
Somebody said that working but having to claim tax credits is “such a shame.” I totally agree. I welcome the fact that we have tax credits, but in some cases they are in effect a subsidy for profitable employers, who should pay a proper living wage.
The point was made that some smaller employers cannot afford to pay a living wage, and that we need to consider the employer and the employee and the fact that raising wages might mean that fewer staff are taken on. I agree with those comments. One person said:
“When minimum wage went up this past October I did not reduce my staff or cut hours. Instead I cut my own salary. Is this fair? The point I am trying to make is this debate should appreciate both sides, the employee AND employer, and how raising minimum wage affects both sides.”
I agree with what that guy says, but I suggest that that is not the case for all employers.
Rather than subsidise all employers with tax credits, my answer is that we should roll out the living wage or raise the minimum wage and in that way save paying tax credits for employers. That money can then be much better used to target businesses that need support, such as smaller businesses and perhaps businesses in rural and poorer areas. That would be similar to what has been done with the small business bonus scheme, which has been welcomed by small businesses.
I do not have time to go through all the points that were made on Facebook, but another was that we should limit top pay as a multiple of the lowest pay. That is a useful suggestion, but it should be done in addition to introducing the living wage. Someone asked whether, having done so, we could compete internationally. I think that we could, because we need to tie in with the on-going fair trade campaign.
It is good that the subject of the living wage has received a fair amount of coverage. It will be on the agenda at the Scottish National Party conference this weekend, and I hope to speak on it again then.
17:18
I congratulate John Park on securing the debate.
Today is of course international women’s day, which for me is a day for celebration and contemplation—a worthy moment to pause and reflect on and mark the progress that we have made towards equality. It is also a day to reaffirm our collective commitment for a better tomorrow, to focus on a more equal and just Scotland and to share our energy, experiences and hopes with sisters around the world for whom the march towards equality is only just beginning.
Those principles of celebration and contemplation are good principles to apply to the living wage debate. We have come far, but there is so much further to go. I speak in that context. As my colleague John Park said, two thirds of low-paid jobs are held by women, so they have the most to gain from a living wage policy. We are talking about cleaners, caterers and carers—the people who quietly get on with the job of keeping the country running.
I was pleased this week to hear the Health and Sport Committee recommend a living wage for all carers, because our elderly deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and that is best achieved by ensuring that those who work with elderly and vulnerable people have the dignity of decent work and of decent employment conditions. The reality is that that is not the case at present.
There is a prevalence of carers in Scotland who work on zero-hour contracts and who literally sit in car parks, waiting for the phone to ring. Such people are juggling two or three jobs just to earn enough money to get by. It is worth remembering that that is how the living wage movement was born—through women trying to work out how they were going to juggle life with their childcare commitments, making ends meet and paying their bills. London citizens came together and worked out that the solution was a living wage, and that is how the campaign that we are talking about today began.
The benefits of a living wage have been well rehearsed, not least in this chamber over the past seven days. It produces happier, healthier and more productive workers. It reduces absenteeism and delivers higher retention rates. One of its less well-recognised benefits is reduced childcare costs. If women work fewer hours to earn the same amount of money, they can get home at the end of the day and read their child a story, make their tea and have the important and valuable social time with their kids and families that will be of benefit to the child’s development throughout life. It is worth remembering that the benefit of a living wage is both social and economic.
I was pleased to hear the First Minister talk about the living wage during First Minister’s question time today. The fact that he addressed the issue during the prime-time event of our political week tells us just how far the campaign has come. He made a slight mistake, however, when he said that the living wage was £7.23 an hour. Moreover, in his lecture at the London School of Economics a couple of weeks ago, he said that it was £7.30 an hour. The living wage is, of course, £7.20 an hour, so will the minister tell us whether the First Minister’s intention was to slip in an early gift for low-paid workers throughout Scotland, or was it a genuine mistake?
Finally, at the end of my speech in last week’s debate, I asked the minister whether he could commit his Government to ensuring that the living wage would be uprated for every year of this parliamentary session, but he gently dodged the question. I therefore ask him that question once again and hope that he will answer it in when he closes the debate.
17:22
I congratulate John Park on securing this extremely important debate.
The End Child Poverty report highlights worrying statistics that reveal that the percentage of children in poverty ranges from 6 to 44 per cent in various Scottish parliamentary constituencies. In the Central Scotland region alone, child poverty levels are between 15 and 24 per cent, and according to last year’s Save the Children report on severe child poverty in Scotland, the rate of such poverty in the local authority areas of North and South Lanarkshire and of Falkirk is above the national average of 9 per cent. Moreover, the proportion of children in workless households has risen from 14 to 16 per cent, which is more than in any of the English regions. Clearly, child poverty in Scotland urgently needs to be addressed.
As the motion states, Save the Children and other campaigning organisations are calling for every local authority to implement the living wage for all directly and indirectly employed workers, in order to tackle child poverty. At the same time, they acknowledge that the living wage is not a panacea for child poverty in Scotland. It is important that that fact is recognised, in order to make the right choices about how best to help alleviate and, ultimately, end child poverty.
It is a great pity, therefore, that in last week’s debate on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report on the living wage in Scotland—it is a balanced and fair report—many members chose to completely ignore, summarily dismiss or condemn outright the concerns that were raised. There is no point in repeating those concerns, which were also voiced by some of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, about the potentially adverse consequences of introducing the living wage. Suffice it to say that it would be counter-productive for the payment of the living wage to be mandatory; it must instead be voluntary. If we are to do the best for our children in poverty, the least that they deserve is for us as politicians to be open to listening to views that may differ from our own. That includes being prepared to consider analysis of information that suggests that there may be a better way in which to tackle child poverty than making payment of the living wage a priority. For example, one of the major factors in in-work poverty and, by extension, child poverty is the high cost of childcare provision, which hits household incomes and prevents women, most commonly, from realising their full earning potential. That is a pertinent point to raise on international women’s day.
On average, parents in Scotland spend £101.49 per week for 25 hours of care for a child under two; however, the cost can be as high as £233.75 in some areas. Fifteen hours of an after-school club cost, on average, £48.55 a week, which equates to £194 a month. Given that 35 hours of work at the living wage of £7.20 an hour would pay only £252 a week before tax, it is clear that, if local authorities chose to prioritise funding more childcare, that could make a greater difference to tackling both in-work poverty and child poverty.
As the recent joint Daycare Trust and Children in Scotland report highlighted, only a fifth of Scottish local authorities currently report that they have enough childcare for parents who work full time. It is, therefore, important to understand the full implications of calling on local authorities to prioritise the introduction of the living wage. South Lanarkshire Council, for example, has spent £5.5 million in total on introducing the living wage. That money could have been used to increase childcare provision or to offset the potentially damaging consequences of the £6 million real-terms cut in local authority criminal justice social work funding—a cut that could have worrying implications for child protection issues.
This is a timely reminder that child poverty, in its broadest terms, is not necessarily merely a monetary problem.
17:26
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and congratulate John Park on securing the debate and on the work that he and other members have done on the living wage campaign to secure a tremendous benefit for many families and communities throughout Scotland.
There is no doubt that the living wage makes a practical difference. It helps to address inequality and, as the motion highlights, it helps to tackle child poverty. I highlight the success of South Lanarkshire Council in increasing the living wage and, unlike Margaret Mitchell, I commend the council for taking that bold step. She is correct in saying that that will cost £5.5 million, but it is taking 8,400 employees in South Lanarkshire on to the living wage and above the £21,000 a year mark. Of those employees, 76 per cent—more than 6,000—are women, which highlights the problem of low pay among women workers. As other members have said, on international women’s day the action of South Lanarkshire Council is to be commended.
Does the member have figures to show how many of those people are merely having in-work benefits replaced by the council supplementing their wage, instead of spending the money on services, which means that they are no better off at the end of the day?
The money that has been invested by South Lanarkshire Council is not only helping many families in Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Blantyre, where there are areas of real deprivation and poverty; it is also benefiting the economy, as people will now be paying more taxes and national insurance. In addition, it is giving greater stability to people’s lives and helping to tackle child poverty. That stability also means that there will be less strain on budgets in other areas such as the health service and, potentially, the justice system.
In last week’s debate on the living wage, Margaret Mitchell said that the living wage was “an admirable aspiration”. As John Park said, a lot of issues are discussed in the Parliament, but the point of politics is to make a difference. The living wage makes a difference to families not only in South Lanarkshire, but throughout Scotland. It lifts them out of poverty and gives them hope and a chance to move forward in life.
It ill befits a Conservative representative to argue against something that benefits families. Margaret Mitchell is at odds with her South Lanarkshire Council colleagues, who voted for the living wage measure in the council’s budget.
I congratulate John Park on raising the issue. It is vital to build on the debates tonight and last week, to continue to support the campaign and to speak up for the living wage to be rolled out in more councils throughout Scotland and taken into the private sector. That will fight inequality and boost economic activity.
17:31
I, too, congratulate John Park on bringing the debate to the Parliament. As he said, such debates are like corporation buses, as we would say in Glasgow—two come along at once.
I had prepared a speech to read out, but it does not cover some issues in relation to the living wage that are fundamental to women’s employment rights. The Scottish living wage campaign is commendable; we discussed the historical campaigns in the chamber last week. Organisations have raised awareness of the living wage, highlighted the problems with the minimum wage and taken forward the fight—lately, through launching the Scottish living wage campaign. That has put the issue into the minds of all politicians and everybody else in society.
John Park said that “in-work poverty” is a political term that politicians use. I remind him that the phrase was coined about 10 years ago by a number of people who were working to try to eradicate poverty and particularly in-work poverty. We recognised that, despite the introduction of the national minimum wage, people were still being forced into jobs that did not provide enough income to take them out of poverty. UK Governments have pursued the agenda that work is the route out of poverty, so putting people into poverty through work is the wrong move.
Today is international women’s day. We must look at other issues that affect in-work poverty, particularly for women. In some local authorities, the campaign still goes on to ensure that women who are entitled to equal pay receive their entitlement.
There are other employment rights issues. If people go off sick after they enter new employment, they automatically receive statutory sick pay. Figures have been cited for what can be earned under the hourly rates for the minimum wage and the living wage, but when people receive £75 or £76 a week—that is from the second week; the amount in the first week is half that—their in-work poverty is exacerbated. We do not have a system to back up people who are put into employment that does not give them fair and proper conditions that would protect their rights and protect the children living in affected families from poverty that is exacerbated in that way.
We must look at other issues that face women workers in particular, such as short-time working, part-time working and the zero-hours contracts that many people find themselves in. In some respects, Margaret Mitchell was right to raise childcare provision. An issue is what we as a society are doing by forcing women into work but not providing adequate childcare at a cost or free to the women who require it most, but she must take up that issue with her UK colleagues. She must ask them what they are doing to ensure the correct childcare provision for the women and men whom they are forcing into low-paid employment.
As we have all recognised, the minimum wage is in effect low-paid employment. If we are arguing that the living wage should be the norm, then the minimum wage is not the norm. We have to think about what the Parliament can do for the people who are living in those conditions. Hopefully, through John Park’s bill, we can take the debate forward and not only extend the living wage to those people who work for local authorities, NHS boards or the sub-contractors who work for those bodies, but ensure that it becomes part of the norm for every worker in Scotland, tied into proper, decent employment rights that protect workers when they take up employment.
I welcome this debate and look forward to future discussions on the living wage and the ways in which we can resolve the issue of poverty as well as in-work poverty.
17:36
This has been a bit of a living-wage week for me. My daughter was doing her final submission for her higher English, and the essay was on the living wage, so I have been on the subject for the whole week.
We will not get ourselves out of the desperate economic situation that we find ourselves in by leaving it to the market—the very market that got us into the current mess in the first place. We can do it only by investing to create sustainable, long-term and permanent jobs that are well paid and get people out of poverty, whether we call it in-work poverty or working poverty. The living wage of £7.20 will not achieve that on its own, but it will be a step in the right direction.
I commend the work of the Poverty Alliance, the STUC and the major churches and charities that have been campaigning for the introduction of the living wage for some time. Indeed, I believe that the latest report of the Church of Scotland, which is based on evidence that was given to its poverty commission, should be essential reading for everyone in the Parliament. If anyone does not have a copy, John Wilson or I will be able to provide them with one. It presents a picture of a very different economy from the one that we have now—one that is based on social justice, dignity and the idea that the economy should serve people, not the markets. It advocates a living wage alongside taxation reform, to make the system fair and redistributive, a Robin Hood tax on speculation on financial transactions and regulation of the financial sector. If those proposals were introduced, they would create a society and an economy that most of us in the chamber could be proud of.
We need legislation to bring in the living wage. We should not allow there to be any ambiguity by talking about a de facto living wage or whatever. We know that we can do it. Glasgow City Council has done it, and I think that the Greater London Authority led the way. I believe that the British Olympic Authority has introduced it as well.
The living wage is a key part of the STUC’s better way campaign. As always, trade unions and working people are at the forefront of any fight against social and economic injustice. It is their work on behalf of the low paid, the exploited and, in particular, minorities and women that will, I believe, lead to the living wage being legislated for. The question is whether we do it now or whether we have to wait for some time in the future.
John Wilson is absolutely correct to say that the living wage should not be introduced alone, because we have to have the proper employment rights to go along with it. That is another key argument in the better way campaign.
We should never forget—although Margaret Mitchell might have—that, before we had the national minimum wage, we had cleaners, security guards and carers working for as little as £1.50 or £1 an hour. That was a scandalous situation. In fact, it was Dickensian. I believe that it is only a short distance from that to sending children up chimneys.
Our sense of fairness and justice demands a living wage, so I think that we should make it happen quickly.
17:39
I congratulate John Park on securing the debate. In a sense, it is timely that it follows on from the living wage debate that we had last week.
I can confirm that we have not yet had a response to the letter that the cabinet secretary sent to the European Commission regarding the legal issues around whether we could include provisions on the living wage in future procurement legislation, which is what John Park wants to happen, and which the Government will consider in relation to the sustainable procurement bill. In the space of seven days we are no further forward in getting a response from Europe, but we have checked with officials that they are seeking a response. The Government is being proactive in trying to secure a response rather than simply leaving it to the European authorities to get back to us.
Would the minister’s officials be willing to speak to the Greater London Authority to find out how it managed to get its contracts—particularly those relating to the Olympics—accepted with regard to procurement legislation? It is clear that moves in that regard are taking place elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it might be useful for our officials to start speaking to other agencies and authorities—rather than waiting on a response from the European Commission—to find out how they got round the issue of procurement legislation.
I assure John Wilson that our officials have been proactive on that subject. They have been making contact with those authorities that have been pursuing the living wage as a policy objective, which has included looking at their procurement policies and the framework within which they operate. We have been testing our position with others and engaging in dialogue with other parts of the UK to see how the policy is being interpreted and potentially implemented.
I have had information on how some of the London authorities have been applying their aspiration to deliver the living wage. Their approach is perhaps not as John Wilson suggests: those authorities, including the Olympic authorities, have been encouraging the living wage as a consideration, but it is not binding. We must be absolutely clear that they cannot make it a condition of contract in the way that some people believe that they can.
Unfortunately, the issue—despite what Neil Findlay says—is at this stage a bit more convoluted. There is ambiguity around how procurement could be challenged if the living wage was made a condition in the tender process.
We had representatives of the Olympic Delivery Authority at the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, and we asked them the very question that John Wilson asked the minister.
The minister is right to say that the living wage was not a binding condition in those contracts, but as a consequence of the ODA’s work on the issue in relation to the tender process, 95 per cent of the contracts for the Olympics included the living wage. That brings us back to the question of political will. Does the minister have the political will to do that?
I am being absolutely clear with Parliament that—contrary to some of the views that have been expressed—we do not currently have the legal certainty to build the living wage into the procurement process. The Government will consider the matter, and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment has said that we will take on board the comments on the living wage as we introduce the sustainable procurement bill.
Government procurement involves a powerful spend: it is £9 billion-worth of spend in Scotland. It would be fair and reasonable for members to continue to pursue the inclusion of the living wage as a condition of procurement. However, we want to get the legalities right in view of the experience in the rest of the UK, and find out what guidance Europe can give us in that regard.
Kezia Dugdale shared with us the information that 95 per cent of contracts for the Olympics included the living wage, and the minister argued that that might not have been achieved through a legal process. Can he give us any examples of contracts in which the Scottish Government has actively encouraged contractors to progress the issue of the living wage?
I am happy to supply Drew Smith with more information on what benefits we have been able to secure through Scottish Government spend. There have been social benefits from a range of contracts that the Government has secured, and local government is doing the same at a local level.
That is to be welcomed, and it is in the spirit of what we want to achieve through the sustainable procurement bill. As I have said, we understand that there is an aspiration among almost all members in the chamber to include that issue in the bill.
I may be taking my time to get to the point, but we want to have legal certainty before we make a decision. Otherwise, we would not only be taking a risk as a Government, but passing on that risk to other parts of the public sector in contracts that they may let.
Neil Findlay rose—
I have been quite fair in the interventions that I have taken and have not made much progress. However, I understand that there is no time limit, so we could keep going, as this is an important issue.
I can tell by the expression on your face, Presiding Officer, that you want me to make progress.
On the 95 per cent delivery of the living wage in the ODA contracts, the composition and design of contracts have a clear role to play in encouraging the living wage and making our aspirations possible.
Will the minister give way?
I have taken four or five interventions.
Go on.
Let me make a bit more progress and I will perhaps consider taking one later.
It is important that our discussions lead us into debate about applying the living wage in the private sector, because we are talking about more than public sector employment. Given the compliance in the public sector, the application of the living wage in Scotland would benefit workers in the private sector even more than those in the public sector.
The subject of the motion is using the living wage as a tool to tackle poverty, but it also recognises a range of other measures that we can take on child poverty and a range of other actions, which members have mentioned. Poverty in Scotland has fallen substantially since 2000. Of course, it is unacceptable that anybody should live in poverty, but that reduction is to be welcomed. Unfortunately, the pace of improvement has slowed and, because of the time lag, we do not fully understand the impact that the recession has had on the Scottish economy.
The Government will shortly present its strategy on poverty. In line with previous commitments, we are delivering the various strategies on the achieving our potential, equally well and early years frameworks, which are part of the child poverty work. There has also been investment in the early years action fund, energy assistance and benefit maximisation. I welcome the support this week from the Labour Party for the public health supplement, which will contribute to preventative spending; that will also help to make a difference.
I am genuinely not avoiding the question that Kezia Dugdale asked about uprating. I will check the facts and come back to her on it, but my understanding is that we arrived at the figure of £7.20 by a formula and that the figure has already been updated. I suspect that the formula means that, as that figure is reviewed and the universally accepted living wage figure is applied, other figures will fall into line. I am happy to get back to her with more information on that point.
One of the briefings that we received on the living wage suggested that, going into April this year, only 17 of the 32 local authorities would pay the living wage. I will share with members the current information that I have, which demonstrates an improvement even on last week’s position. As I understand it, seven councils have introduced the living wage, five have agreed to implement it in 2012-13, four have indicated an intention to introduce it—that includes Stirling Council, which did not achieve its aspiration in its budget—and other councils are coming forward to indicate support for the living wage. That is an improvement on the position as we understood it at the time of last week’s debate, when, in response to a question, I listed councils that are delivering the living wage.
I understand that the four councils that have indicated their intention to introduce the living wage are Dundee City Council, Fife Council, Highland Council and Inverclyde Council, which had not previously indicated such an intention. That represents even more progress on where we were last week. A majority of councils in Scotland are either delivering or have indicated that they will deliver the living wage.
The Scottish Government has shown through its own pay policy that it supports the living wage. As the Minister for Local Government and Planning, I continue to evangelise for the living wage in my discussions with local authorities, to encourage as many authorities as possible to sign up to and deliver the living wage. We will consider procurement and any measures that we can take, because we acknowledge the importance of the issue and want to show that there is the political will to tackle child poverty.
Meeting closed at 17:49.