Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Official Report 1002KB pdf

---

Child Poverty

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-10068, in the name of Bob Doris, on tackling child poverty. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament strongly supports all measures to tackle child poverty; understands that 32% of children in Glasgow were estimated to live in relative poverty in 2022, compared with the wider Scottish rate of 24%; condemns what it sees as harmful UK Government policies such as the benefit cap and two-child limit, which it understands have forced as many as 20,000 children in Scotland into poverty; acknowledges that Glasgow city is reportedly the Scottish local authority worst hit by the two-child limit with, it understands, 3,990 recipients, or 54% of the households in receipt of Universal Credit or Child Tax Credits, not receiving financial support for at least one child in April 2023; considers that the Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency is among the areas most seriously affected as, it understands, it contains the highest proportion of deprived postcodes in Scotland, according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation; believes that the two-child limit causes disproportionate harm to low-income families and women survivors of domestic abuse or sexual assault, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to increase representations to the UK Government to reverse the benefit cap and the two-child limit, which it considers undermine the work done to lift children out of poverty, and to introduce its own equivalent of the Scottish Child Payment in support of low-income families.

17:12  

I thank all those members who have supported my motion on tackling child poverty in Scotland.

My motion outlines the deeply damaging impact of United Kingdom welfare policy on low-income families in Scotland. UK Government policies impact on some of Scotland’s poorest families—that includes appalling policies such as the benefits cap and the two-child limit, not forgetting the UK Government’s notorious rape clause. It is estimated that those UK policies have pushed 20,000 Scottish children into poverty in the past year and that, this year, 25,000 children in Scotland are affected.

We all, in all parties and at all levels of government, have a responsibility to do all that we can to reduce and ultimately eradicate child poverty. The Scottish Government’s action to tackle child poverty, including our £25-per-week Scottish child payment, has lifted 90,000 children out of poverty. However, the UK’s two-child limit directly undermines that progress.

As Citizens Advice Scotland has put it, the two-child limit is actively working against welcome action to meet the Scottish child poverty targets, such as the introduction of the Scottish child payment and the mitigation of other UK social security cuts, by driving up poverty rates for families and groups identified as being at greater risk of poverty.

Glasgow North West Citizens Advice Bureau stands in solidarity with those families who are impacted every single day. I thank the staff for all that they do, and for sharing the voices of lived experience with me in advance of the debate, some of which I will now share with members.

The bureau supported a lone parent to four children aged between 14 and four months who needed help with energy debt and support to progress a child maintenance claim. No one plans to be in financial difficulty. The parent found herself in financial difficulty when she separated from her husband and became reliant on universal credit, and she was entitled to support for only two of her four children.

Just imagine—a UK benefits system that financially punishes a lone parent for a marital breakdown with a financial penalty that targets and removes money that is intended to support children in need.

Such cases are not uncommon. Glasgow North West Citizens Advice Bureau also assisted another lone parent to four children who ranged from 12 to three years old. The CAB assisted in applying for health-related benefits for two of the children, who had severe additional support needs.

The parent had found himself in financial difficulty when his wife died and he gave up well-paid work to care for his children. In claiming universal credit, he was entitled to support for only two of his four children. Imagine experiencing such a bereavement and facing severe financial hardship under a UK benefits system that simply dismisses the financial need to support two of your children. That is the current UK benefits system—that is the reality of the two-child limit in practice.

It is the reality for almost 4,000 people in Glasgow, which is reportedly the council area worst hit in Scotland by the two-child limit. In Glasgow, 54 per cent of households in receipt of universal credit or child tax credits were not receiving financial support for at least one child.

Would Mr Doris like to address the issue of my constituent, who is disabled and poor and needs his money? He put in an application to Social Security Scotland back in January this year, and he is still waiting for his first inquiry to be acknowledged by the department.

Mr Doris would surely acknowledge that Social Security Scotland is failing people in Scotland who are disabled. Will he apologise for that?

I can give you the time back, Mr Doris.

Mr Balfour, I have come to respect much of your comments in the chamber, but that was an appalling contribution. Of course Social Security Scotland must do all that it can, in a dignified way, to reach out to disabled people. We must do our best, and we will do that. However, Mr Balfour, to make that representation in the chamber this evening, when your party is plunging families into poverty by design, is just disgraceful.

It is the reality for 20,000 children across the country. My constituency of Maryhill and Springburn is among the worst affected. The two-child limit causes disproportionate harm to low-income families and women survivors of domestic abuse or assault; I do not pretend to know what that is like.

On that front, I make it clear to the Labour Party: you cannot make a rape clause fairer—there is nothing fair about rape.

I am not surprised that the Conservatives did not sign my motion, which condemns the current UK Government for its punitive benefits regime that impacts on the most vulnerable families and which

“notes the calls on the Scottish Government to increase representations to the UK Government to reverse the benefit cap and the two-child limit”.

However, I am genuinely deeply disappointed that none of my Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament backed my motion, which takes a stand against the current UK Conservative Government. Labour has failed to do that—I will just let that sink in.

We are all well aware that Sir Keir Starmer and the UK Labour Party have flipped on this issue and that the Labour Party would now retain the deeply damaging and unjust UK benefits regime. However, I know—I do know—that there are Labour colleagues in this place who are disgusted, as I am, at the benefits cap, the two-child limit and the rape clause. This debate is an opportunity for MSPs in all parties to raise their voice in solidarity against a UK benefits regime that, by design, chooses not to support our most vulnerable—a discredited benefits regime that is now set to be adopted by Labour should the party take power.

I ask members, therefore, to show solidarity not with the SNP but by joining us in solidarity with those families who are impacted and driven into poverty by a UK benefits regime that undermines Scottish efforts to tackle child poverty and wilfully denies adequate financial support to children and families who are living in poverty.

I look forward to the rest of the debate and I hope that other members, across all parties, will raise their voices in support of a benefits system that should show respect, dignity and fairness.

Given the nature of the debate, I remind members that comments should be made through the chair.

17:19  

I am happy to be involved in the debate. Social security benefits are an incredibly important part of governance, and I often feel that they do not get enough airtime in the Parliament. Unfortunately, however, Bob Doris, instead of dealing with the failings of his SNP Government or debating issues that we, in this Parliament, can change, is simply deflecting attention from the woeful record of his Government on social security over the past six years.

We are five years on from the devolution of social security and the setting up of Social Security Scotland. We should be up and running by now and seeing the fruits of a uniquely Scottish system of benefits that works to meet uniquely Scottish needs.

We had an opportunity of a lifetime, which very few Governments ever get—a blank slate and a clean piece of paper. What did the SNP do with it? It has created a shambles here, in Scotland.

Mr Balfour talked about deflection, but the deflection in the debate tonight has come from him when we are discussing child poverty and the unfair and cruel practices of the Conservative Government.

Social security was always supposed to be a safety net, but that safety net has been removed with the benefit cap and the two-child policy. Does Mr Balfour think that it should be put back in place and that we should do our level best to help children across this nation who are in poverty?

I can give you the time back, Mr Balfour.

With regard to that intervention, I thank the member for his speech. We have seen, during and since the pandemic, that the UK Government has put that safety net in place. It is there, and—more to the point—it is working, unlike the system that his Government has introduced.

Five years on from the devolution of social security, the Department for Work and Pensions is still administering key benefits in Scotland that should be devolved. Those include severe disability allowance, which the Scottish Government handed back because we could not deal with it.

Five years on, we have seen a 350 per cent increase in the number of complaints being made against Social Security Scotland, each one representing an individual and a family who have had to fight harder for the support and access that they require. To crown it all, there is the small detail of the £1.3 billion black hole in the finances that will open up in 2028.

I thank Mr Balfour for giving way. He is making an interesting and flawed contribution to a different debate—it is not the debate that we are here to have. We are here to debate whether or not it is fair or just that the UK Tory Government, by design, will not meet the basic needs of 20,000 children across Scotland, including 4,000 children in the city of Glasgow, which I represent, because of the two-child cap. Does Mr Balfour agree with that?

I encourage members to make their interventions a little bit briefer, please.

No, I do not agree with Mr Doris. We should be debating in this Parliament the powers that we have and that we are simply not using due to the incompetence of his Government.

The SNP has managed to so grossly mismanage the roll-out over the past five years that it will have to come up with a shortfall that is roughly the equivalent of the entire gross domestic product of the Solomon Islands.

In the next few years, the SNP will have a choice: to cut social security, cut education or cut health. That is the choice that it has to make because of its incompetence. That will leave more people in my area and across Scotland in poverty.

We have to ask, how did we get here? We can be certain that the situation is not helped by the lack of accountability and reporting from Social Security Scotland. During recess, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee got a letter in which David Wallace proudly announced that Social Security Scotland was unable to report on the times taken between the submission of relevant documents and a decision being made on a benefits application. With that lack of oversight, it is small wonder that we are seeing so many complaints.

Members should not be mistaken—this is a mess. It is a wonder that the member has the nerve to bring forward his motion to this Parliament, passing comment on the performance of other Governments—

Mr Balfour, could you resume your seat? We have a point of order from Emma Harper.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not participating in the debate, but I am sitting here listening. Bob Doris’s motion is about tackling child poverty, not attacking Scotland’s social security system, which is doing a great job. I am curious about how the issue that Jeremy Balfour is speaking about relates to the motion.

Thank you, Ms Harper, for your point of order. There needs to be relevance. I think that Mr Balfour has been linking the comments that he has been making to the motion in relation to poverty, and I am satisfied that he is within standing orders.

I ask Jeremy Balfour to wind up if he can.

I am grateful, and I seek to wind up by concluding in this regard.

Maybe we need to focus more on our own responsibilities in the social security system to ensure that those who, for whatever reason and wherever they live—

Will Mr Balfour give way?

I am afraid that my time is gone.

This is the thing: the SNP members do not want to focus on the Scottish Government’s shameful record. They want to blame everybody else, whether it is the UK Government, other parties that challenge them or individuals who have the strength to stand up and say, “This is not working for me.” They want to throw mud at others rather than clean up themselves and clean up Social Security Scotland so that those who are in poverty can get their money—

You need to conclude.

My advice to the Government would be: get your own house in order, then you might have some credibility to speak.

Thank you, Mr Balfour.

I remind members that the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, who is responding to the debate, will do so remotely. Interventions may therefore be sought remotely too, which will be indicated on the screen.

17:27  

I thank Bob Doris for bringing the debate to the chamber. There are few issues as pressing and important as tackling child poverty, and it should be the focus of far more of our time in the chamber and far more of our collective energies in working on the solutions to tackle it and all its root causes and facets. The life chances of our young people are crucial to how we thrive as a society and as a world, and it is clear to me that we need a change of approach at UK level and Scottish level to lift more children out of poverty.

I am proud that the previous UK Labour Government lifted 2 million children and pensioners out of poverty, including 200,000 children in Scotland alone, through fundamental reform of the social contract, introducing the national minimum wage and tax credits and revitalising support for families with children across the UK.

The next Labour Government will focus on doing the same: growing our economy, spreading wealth to all parts of the country and fixing the economic carnage that has been unleashed by the Tories. It will deliver a new deal for working people by strengthening workers’ rights, ending zero-hours contracts, delivering a proper living wage and ensuring that everyone is paid enough to live on without having to rely solely on benefits to supplement poverty wages—

Will Mr O’Kane give way?

I would like to make some progress.

The next Labour Government will fundamentally reform the universal credit system and introduce a child poverty strategy that will ensure that driving down child poverty runs through every aspect and policy area of Government, delivering a proper safety net for those who need it. It will ensure that people can pay their bills, particularly their energy bill, and not fall into a debilitating cycle of debt. I will come on to speak about debt in more detail, including the crucial work that is done by organisations such as Aberlour Child Care Trust in that regard.

I give way to Kevin Stewart.

I thank Mr O’Kane for giving way. He talks a great deal about what a future Labour Government might do. Can he comment on Sir Keir Starmer’s statement that he wants to make the two-child benefit cap and the rape clause fairer? What does Mr O’Kane think could be done to make those policies fairer—

I call Paul O’Kane.

Kevin Stewart—because I do not think that the rape clause could be fairer.

Paul O’Kane.

The member will have heard me refer to the fundamental reform of universal credit that is required. We need to fundamentally change the current policy, because it does not work. The social security system does not work and it needs to be changed. Forty per cent of claimants are in work, which is why we need a new deal for working people. We need better wages and a national minimum wage that is a real living wage that will lift people out of poverty. Crucially, we need to get people back into work—

Will the member give way?

I will give way in a moment if Mr Doris will allow me to make a little more progress.

The Parliament unanimously backed the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, which set legally binding targets to reduce the number of children experiencing the effects of poverty by 2030. In the past decade, however, 40,000 more children in Scotland have been pushed into poverty. Thirty-nine per cent of children from an ethnic minority household now live in relative poverty, and the percentage of babies in poverty has gone from 27 to 34 per cent. Mr Doris’s party has been in government, so I will give way to him if he has something to say in that regard.

The nub of the debate is whether any future Government—Labour or Tory—will abolish the two-child limit, the rape clause and the benefits cap, which are pushing 4,000 children in Glasgow and 20,000 children across Scotland into poverty. My constituents and the people of Scotland deserve a straight answer to that question.

I talk about fundamental reform of universal credit because that is what I believe in. However, unfunded spending commitments cannot be made, because working people will pay the price.

Let me remind Mr Doris of the Scottish National Party’s position on the abolition of the two-child cap. Shirley-Anne Somerville said—[Interruption.]

Would you resume your seat, Mr O’Kane? Mr O’Kane has taken interventions from Mr Stewart and Mr Doris. They owe him the courtesy of listening to the response and the remainder of his speech. Mr O’Kane should begin to wind up shortly.

Shirley-Anne Somerville said:

“It’s not our policy to alleviate the two-child cap.”

Perhaps that is a straight answer for Mr Doris’s constituents.

I had more to say about debt. Aberlour Child Care Trust’s excellent briefing for the debate points to the vicious cycle of debt, which is pushing people into more and more poverty. We need to take action. All members need to take action to support our local authorities and national institutions to alleviate that debt and ensure that people can get out of poverty.

I will draw to a close and go back to where I started. Lifting children out of poverty must be a relentless focus. Tinkering at the edges will not do. We need to fundamentally change how we approach our economy, work and our social security system to ensure that those systems once again improve the life chances of all our people, as they have in the past.

17:32  

I am grateful to Bob Doris for bringing this important debate to the chamber. It follows on well from last week’s programme for government debate, in which Humza Yousaf reiterated his mission as First Minister to tackle poverty and protect people from harm.

Right now, child poverty is way too high in Scotland and across the UK, although Scotland is the only part of the UK with statutory income targets for tackling child poverty. Recent statistics show that 22.6 per cent of children in Scotland live in poverty. [Interruption.] I would like to make progress.

In Labour-run Wales, the figure is 24.4 per cent and, under the Tories, more than 30 per cent of children in England live in poverty.

Social security has, of course, an important role to play in tackling child poverty and, thankfully, the Scottish Parliament now has powers over social security, albeit that they are limited. The Scottish Government has introduced 13 new benefits, seven of which are available only here, in Scotland. That includes the game-changing Scottish child payment, which is worth £25 per week per eligible child, and a supplement payment for unpaid carers. Backed by investment of more than £400 million, it is estimated that the SNP’s bold Scottish child payment will lift around 50,000 children out of relative poverty this year. However, in the past five years, the Scottish Government has also had to spend more than £700 million to mitigate the effects of cruel Tory policies, such as the bedroom tax. With that money, we could increase the Scottish child payment by more than £7.50 per child per week. The Scottish Government’s missions are being held back by its having to protect people from the worst of Westminster’s policies.

I would argue that the Scottish child payment is also a mitigation, because it protects people from the UK Government’s poor minimum wage—which is well below what is required for people to live—and its cut to universal credit of £20 per week.

Labour says that change is coming, so let us consider its track record. When it was in the better together gang with the Tories, Labour told Scotland to vote no. It said that it would keep Scotland in the European Union and that Labour would, one day, become the UK Government and build a fairer society. We are now nine years on from the referendum, and what has happened? We have had four more Tory Prime Ministers and Scotland has been dragged out of the EU against our will. With a UK election on the horizon, Labour’s offer to the people is nothing but a continuation of cruel Tory policies such as the benefit cap and the two-child limit.

The Scottish Government’s measures to tackle poverty are bold and ambitious, and they are lifting children out of poverty. However, it is clear that, whoever is in Downing Street, some things will never change. Scotland will have to put up with abhorrent policies and mitigate where we can. That is no way to run a country. If anything, that is a prime example of why Scotland must become independent. By getting rid of the broken Westminster system and equipping the Scottish Parliament with the full powers that it needs, we can eradicate poverty once and for all.

17:36  

I appreciate Bob Doris’s personal commitment to this issue, and I share his view that child poverty is a moral affront. The shape of our economy in Scotland determines that a quarter of children in our country grow up in grinding daily poverty. That is an affront to every one of us.

Those children are not saved by social mobility, which has collapsed in Scotland in recent years. It is still significantly more difficult for young people from the poorest backgrounds to access higher education, particularly university courses that lead to professions with the highest earnings. If we are to address that, we have to build an economy that ensures greater equality instead of accelerating divisions.

The truth is that we have had no transformative Government of the left in the past 13 years. Instead, we have had middle-class populism and right-wing ideologues. There is no greater example of the consequences of making accelerated unfunded spending commitments than the Truss Government’s economic vandalism, which crashed the economy, with working people across the country paying the costs. Public services and the benefit payments that we require rely on that economy.

As political parties, we have a responsibility to maintain public support for tax and social investment. In recent days, SNP ministers on the front bench have been keen to twist the words of Anas Sarwar when he said that, during the devolution era, we have spent our time being preoccupied with how to spend money rather than with how to generate it. To me, that is a statement of the obvious, and it is partly a function of our legal responsibilities, which have now expanded, but it is also because the Government has a narrow view of the political economy.

The outcomes for a huge proportion of the population will always be determined by what the Government allocates rather than what people can achieve. We have a sclerotic economy in this country, with many of the challenges that predated the current Scottish Government still unaddressed, let alone the headwinds of economic change and net zero and some of the opportunities that that might present.

Mr Doris’s speech was, in part, firmly aimed at Labour, and I can understand why he took that approach. I am happy to address what he said head on. The scourge of child poverty that holds back this country is a malignant legacy of collective moral failure, and addressing it will be a defining purpose of any Labour Government, just as it has always been a defining purpose of any Labour Government. A Labour Government will work to lift children out of poverty; it always has done. The previous Labour Government lifted 2 million children and pensioners out of poverty, and 200,000 of those children were in Scotland.

I appreciate Michael Marra giving way and his comments regarding me, but I am deeply frustrated. The motion, at its heart, seeks to do something very simple. It aims to put pressure on a UK Conservative Government that is wedded to the rape clause and the two-child limit, and it asks Labour to join the SNP in defending the 4,000 children in Glasgow and the 20,000 children across Scotland who suffer because of those policies. Can you do that this afternoon?

Speak through the chair, please.

I associate myself entirely with the contents of the motion. There is very little in it—if anything at all—that I disagree with.

The challenge that is faced by any incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country is that we have to have the money to be able to pay the bills. Mr Doris wants to talk about a hypothetical future Government, but his party’s manifesto—line 1, page 1—would cut £13 billion out of Scotland’s yearly budget. Goodness only knows how we could address child poverty with such a cut. That is a fact that is presented in the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures. If you are talking about a hypothetical situation that will be faced, you must take responsibility for your party’s policies in that regard—

Through the chair, please.

It is incredibly difficult to see how those issues could be addressed under the SNP’s proposals.

Will Michael Marra take an intervention?

No, thank you.

The fact that child poverty has soared again since Labour left office in Holyrood and at Westminster is a bitter reminder to us all of how important it is to have a Government that is focused on having a better economy and a fairer country. That reminds us of the regrettable truth, which is far too often neglected, that progress must be re-won every day and every year; there is no final battle for social justice. As a country, we have retreated in recent years. Frankly, I would take no part in any political party that did not take the issue of child poverty incredibly seriously, but we must base our approach on the allocation of resources that we have, not on the allocation of resources that we might wish to have.

The horror is that the ideological fantasies of the Tory Government have crashed us out of Europe, have crashed our economy and have crashed our public finances on the rocks of economic reality. There is nothing in the motion that is wrong, but there is only one way of making progress.

17:41  

I express my deep thanks to Bob Doris for securing the debate and to all the third sector organisations that have provided us with such wise and helpful briefings.

The issue of child poverty is clearly an emotive subject, and it ought to be—there is no more heartbreaking sight than that of a hungry child, a homeless child or a child who is excluded from opportunities to play, to learn and to explore the wonders of a world so new to them. However, it is not enough for us to stand and weep or to shout at one another and point fingers. We can and must look with clear-eyed honesty at what we know about child poverty, its causes—however hard it might be to hear about some of those—and its solutions.

One thing that we know is that most children are not in poverty alone—they are part of families. As the cabinet secretary reminded us last week, women’s poverty and children’s poverty are inextricably linked. Women make up the vast majority of single parents, barriers to employment limit their family income and they overwhelmingly act as poverty managers for their families, going without basic meals so that their children can eat.

Growing up in a family that experiences poverty can have lifelong effects on children’s mental and physical health and on their relationships, education, livelihoods and wellbeing. Recent research by University College London describes the relationship between poverty and adverse childhood experiences. The trauma of those experiences can and often does stay with a child for the rest of their life and is passed down to generations beyond.

Children are part of communities in which poverty is shared and commonplace. Bob Doris referred to those in Glasgow. In my region of North East Scotland, too, we have areas of very high multiple deprivation. Those include parts of Dundee, Buckie, Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Arbroath, as well as Torry in Aberdeen, where health professionals have testified to the vital importance of St Fittick’s park in alleviating the heartbreaking effects of poverty and exclusion. For those children, yesterday’s council decision to lease that park—their only green space—for development was a terrible blow.

I do not forget, either, that the standard indices are not so efficient in identifying rural poverty. Children in Aberdeenshire and Angus know poverty, too, often in particularly difficult ways, and they need our attention and our commitment.

What do we know about solutions? There are three broad categories, the first of which consists of policies that directly benefit children by increasing their family’s income and reducing its costs. Those policies include, of course, the Scottish child payment, the access to affordable childcare and the provision of effective help for families in debt and those who are struggling to cope. They also include free school meals, free bus travel and rent controls, and they must include help for families and unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum.

The second category includes policies that improve the physical and social infrastructure of children’s lives, education, housing, transport and environment, and also, as others have said, the economy and finance. We have tools to test how well those policies are working to reduce child poverty, and it is essential that we use them at the right time, that we pay attention to their findings and that we make changes where changes are most needed.

The third category involves measures to change the political and legal environment in which children grow up. The incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the proposed Scottish human rights bill and the mainstreaming of human rights and equalities all have the potential to be transformative and bring about a situation in which children in poverty are not simply objects of charity but subjects of dignity, with robust and enforceable rights.

Of course, we face barriers that are not of our own making, such as Westminster hostility, the limits of devolution and the issue of lowest common denominator politics. So, I implore all members here of Westminster parties to do all that they can to influence those parties’ policies, most urgently the cruel two-child limit and the bitter benefit cap, because Scotland’s children deserve and need not only compassion and care but solidarity, justice and action.

17:46  

I congratulate Bob Doris on securing this important members’ business debate.

Child poverty is holding back too many in Scotland, so we must do everything that we can, within our powers and resources, to reverse that position. I welcome measures that were set out in the programme for government and its focus on tackling poverty. Some £405 million will be invested in the Scottish child payment this year, helping more than 300,000 children across the country. We know that that is a lifeline for many families, especially during the Westminster-imposed cost of living crisis. It is now paid at £25 a week for eligible children, and we need to seriously consider how it can be increased in future budgets. The expansion of universal free school meal provision for all pupils in primaries 6 and 7 will also help many families with the cost of the school day.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I have quite a lot to cover. Will I get the time back, Presiding Officer?

You can get a bit of time back, yes.

I agree with the remarks about the importance of free school meals, which Maggie Chapman also mentioned. Would Marie McNair agree that it has been disappointing that there has been a long delay to free school meals being rolled out to primaries 6 and 7, which has affected many vulnerable children? Can she explain why the Scottish Government has delayed the roll-out?

You know the reasons for the delay. Obviously, the infrastructure is not there, although it will be soon. However, I really thought that you would be standing up to tell us why you support the two-child policy, with its abhorrent rape clause. Defend that.

Through the chair, please.

Increasing eligibility for best start food payments will mean that around another 20,000 people will access that benefit when the income thresholds are removed, in February. However, as always, the programme for government has to deal with the consequences of damaging Westminster decisions.

Since 2017, the Tories’ cruel two-child benefit cap has cost families in Scotland £340 million, and the Scottish Government’s mitigation of cruel and incompetent UK Government policies has made a real difference. Indeed, an estimated 90,000 children have been lifted out of poverty as a result. The two-child policy and its rape clause deny children the basics and humiliate and traumatise women. It is no wonder that the Scottish Association of Social Work describes it as inhumane. Recently, we witnessed the sad spectacle of one of the lapsed Corbynistas trying to airbrush it out of debate, but we will not allow that, especially not when debating child poverty.

The rape clause is abhorrent—it is disgusting, it is cruel and it is Labour policy. That is an extremely sad state of affairs and evidence that nothing much will change in the area of welfare policy if Labour replaces the Tories. After all, Labour has U-turned on many previous pledges to reverse Tory policies. Previously, we had new Labour, but Labour is now behaving like new Tories. It is now planning to keep universal credit, abandoning its previous pledge to scrap it, but it does not seem keen on the First Minister’s call for Westminster to use its reserved powers and introduce an essentials guarantee to the value of universal credit, a move supported by the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Universal credit is flawed and its design is keeping many families in poverty. Aberlour Child Care Trust has highlighted work by Professor Morag Treanor of Heriot-Watt University, which sets out the scale of the DWP direct benefit deductions from low-income households. The DWP makes at least one deduction to the monthly allowance of more than half of those in receipt of universal credit to cover their debts to public bodies, and it makes multiple deductions to more than a quarter of those people. Overall monthly income is reduced on average by £80 to cover those debts. I back Aberlour’s calls for a moratorium on those deductions, to help give struggling households a chance. I hope that its call can get support across this Parliament.

The Resolution Foundation has said that this Westminster

“parliamentary term is on track to be by far the worst for living standards since the 1950s.”

It cannot go on. A more just and compassionate path must be taken. Given the abject failure to achieve that by all political parties that aspire to govern at Westminster, it is clear that only with the full powers of an independent Scotland will that path come to fruition.

17:52  

I thank Bob Doris for bringing this important issue to the chamber.

Tackling child poverty was outlined as the national mission of the Scottish Government, yet the most recent figures show that one in four children continues to live in poverty. Children who grew up in poverty will continue to experience the far-reaching consequences of a childhood lived below the poverty line.

For many children, growing up in poverty will impact on their physical and mental health and wellbeing. It will affect their education and ability to learn and develop. It can significantly reduce their life opportunities and experiences. The Scottish Government needs to address that and ensure that support for children is available across all areas where poverty might have affected their lives.

Children who grow up as part of minority groups, such as disabled households, black and minority ethnic households and single-parent households, are disproportionately affected by poverty. Thirty-nine per cent of children from black or minority ethnic families live in poverty in Scotland. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way to members, as my colleagues have taken enough interventions and I have a lot to cover.

A recent report by the cross-party group on poverty outlined that those from black and minority ethnic communities will also face greater poverty-related stigma than other groups. The Scottish Government’s approach to tackling child poverty must address that.

Children born into an impoverished area will eventually face significant hurdles in their lives. In 2019, it was reported that the life expectancy of a boy born in Muirhouse was 13 years less than a boy born in neighbouring Cramond. That is still the reality for many children living in poverty, and we have yet to see the Scottish Government make any significant improvement to that situation.

Inequality of access is also a major issue affecting children living in poverty. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I will not be taking any interventions, as I have a lot to get through.

In several communities in the Lothian region, there are incredibly long waiting lists for council-run swimming lessons due to demand outstripping the supply of swimming pool facilities and teachers. Private lessons are very expensive and are simply beyond the budget of many lower-income families. That means that children are losing out on vital water safety skills and opportunities to have fun and to socialise with friends. Once again, it is lower-income families who are losing out.

The Scottish Government must do more. When such high levels of children with parents under the age of 25 are living in poverty, the Government must do more to support those young parents and to ensure that the welfare system does not fail them. It must do more to combat the disproportionate effect that poverty has on BAME and other minority groups. It must do more to achieve its national mission and to eradicate child poverty.

17:55  

I congratulate Bob Doris on securing the debate and thank all the members who have contributed to it. It is fair to say that the debate has been very passionate. I can assure members that taking part remotely has not prevented me from hearing what they have been yelling across the chamber. I am speaking as a Government minister, but, as an MSP I know that our case loads are full of people who are struggling with the impact of the cost of living crisis. Not only has the crisis entrenched poverty for people who are already struggling, but people who never expected to be in dire financial straits are now begging us for help.

That is why it is right that tackling poverty and protecting people from that harm is one of the Government’s three critical and interdependent missions, alongside our focus on the economy and strengthening public services. The Parliament unanimously agreed Scotland’s ambitious child poverty targets in 2017, and the Government continues to drive forward the action that is needed to deliver a fairer future for the children of Scotland. Both last year and this year, we allocated almost £3 billion to support policies to tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible during the on-going cost of living crisis.

Earlier, Mr Balfour claimed—quite incredibly, in a debate on child poverty—that the UK’s social security system is functioning and that Scotland’s is not. The Scottish child payment has lifted 50,000 children out of poverty, while welfare cuts from Mr Balfour’s party are keeping 30,000 children in poverty. I do not know what his definition of functioning is; the UK system is certainly having an impact, but it is not one that I want to see.

Would the minister acknowledge that most of the benefits in Scotland are still being paid for and run by the DWP and that, in fact, it is the DWP that is keeping money in people’s pockets, not Social Security Scotland?

I agree that the DWP is keeping children in poverty in Scotland. I hope that what I heard from Jeremy Balfour was a call for further benefits to be devolved to Scotland, where we can manage them more responsibly. I am sad to say that, if the UK Government had matched the Scottish Government’s ambitions, we would be in a different place and having a very different conversation now. It is sad because I can see no clear route to any UK Government matching our ambitions now or in the near future. From trying to mitigate the harmful welfare reforms to watching as the UK fails to implement helpful measures such as the Scottish child payment, we are fighting against the tide.

In the past five years, the Scottish Government has spent £711 million mitigating the impact of Westminster welfare cuts alone. The two-child limit is affecting 80,000 children in Scotland and it has removed more than £341 million from Scottish families since 2017. The latest statistics confirm that the families of almost 2,600 children across the UK were forced to disclose details of rape in order to receive support for a third or subsequent child.

I cannot get my head around the position that Scottish Labour has taken since we returned from summer recess and following some visits from Keir Starmer. Colleagues who have spent two years telling us to do what we are already doing, but to do it faster and with more money, are now excusing and apparently adopting U-turns on welfare, climate change and more from their leader in Westminster who took an interest in getting Scottish Labour in line as soon as it looked as though there might be some success in London. It is clear that UK Labour is now the party of continued austerity, keeping the two-child cap and scrapping free school meals. The Labour Party has completely abandoned plans to address child poverty, never mind eradicate it.

Mr O’Kane’s comments about not making unfunded commitments, which Michael Marra repeated, might carry more weight if his colleagues did not show up every week demanding unfunded commitments. I also point out that we know exactly how many people are impacted. We know that the two-child limit has cheated Scottish parents and bairns out of £341 million since its inception. Numbers are not what is missing here; it is political will and consistent principles from Labour.

The minister has said that a future Labour Government would do nothing to lift children out of poverty. Would she agree with me that raising the national minimum wage to the level of the living wage, banning zero-hours contracts, ensuring rights for workers from day 1, increasing sick pay and carrying out a fundamental reform of universal credit and the entire UK benefits system would fundamentally lift children out of poverty? It would lift children out of poverty just as the previous Labour Government lifted a million children out of poverty—200,000 of whom lived in Scotland.

Minister, I can give you the time back.

I cannot get my head around Scottish Labour standing there and claiming that a Labour Government would fundamentally change universal credit while failing to get rid of the most horrible and disgusting parts of it, such as the two-child cap. I do not believe that all my Scottish Labour colleagues—many of whom I know share the drive to tackle child poverty—are happy with their policies being overridden and shouted down in the media, which is what is being done. They truly have my sympathies for that, because that is exactly the sort of imbalance between where power lies and where it should lie that the SNP has been highlighting throughout our history. If anything can demonstrate to unionist parties the need for Scotland to have the ability to make its own decisions about its own issues, it should surely be this bizarre and disgusting challenge from their London bosses.

I turn back to what the SNP is doing. Modelling estimates that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative and absolute poverty this year as a result of this Government’s policies, with our poverty level 9 percentage points lower than it would have been otherwise. That includes an estimated 50,000 children who have been lifted out of relative poverty by the Scottish child payment.

However, we cannot fall into the trap of simplifying not just the drivers of poverty but the things that are keeping people trapped in poverty and prevent them from getting out of difficult cash-flow situations. Scotland already has the most generous childcare offer anywhere in the UK, supporting families and helping to give children the best possible start in life. Our programme for government sets out ambitious commitments to delivering a significant expansion of targeted childcare provision, which is focused on tackling child poverty and supporting more parents to take up or sustain employment. The inquiry that is being led by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee will provide real insights from the type of necessary, lived-experience input that Bob Doris described in his opening remarks.

This year, we are investing £752 million through our affordable housing supply programme, and we will introduce a housing bill to deliver a new deal for tenants. We are also making £108 million available for the delivery of employability services. We will continue to use all the levers at our disposal to promote fairer work practices across the labour market in Scotland.

Of course, we also recognise the wider, less tangible drivers of poverty. We know that poverty is generational, that it affects minority groups to a greater extent than others and that it is cyclical. We know that opportunity is more limited for some than for others, and that the cost of living—the cost of literally remaining alive—is different for different people. Maggie Chapman made this point well: children are not in poverty alone, and tackling gender and disability pay gaps and entrenched inequalities is necessary to tackle child poverty.

That is not as simple as launching a fund or creating a new payment; it needs societal change. That is what we in the Scottish Government are attempting to lead, with work on an immediate priorities plan for disabled people, by launching an anti-racism observatory that can provide an evidence base for making policy that is actively anti-racism, and by incorporating international human rights treaties, as far as possible within devolved competence, into Scots law.

We know that there is hard work to do in overhauling attitudes as well as public sector policies, and that is the hard work that we are committed to doing. The Scottish Government will continue to do everything within the scope of its powers and limited budget to tackle poverty and to support those who are in greatest need, strengthening that support where we can.

Meeting closed at 18:03.