Children and Young People
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05934, in the name of Aileen Campbell, on Scotland—the best place to grow up.
We want to make Scotland the best place to grow up. It is bold and ambitious, but we should never shy away from ambition when it comes to our nation’s children and young people.
We believe that all children and young people in Scotland should be safe, happy and healthy, and supported throughout their childhoods and young adulthoods to be confident and healthy individuals who are ready to succeed. The Government cannot achieve that on its own, which is why the motion celebrates partnership working across the parties in the Parliament and with our partners in the public and third sectors, because despite any differences we may have, ultimately we are all united by the desire to ensure that each and every child in Scotland has the best start in life.
We want all children and young people to become achieving, responsible adults who are ambitious for themselves, for their neighbours and for their country. Parents, families and carers want to do their best for their children, as do the professionals who support them. We in Government must do our best too, to help create a society where the wellbeing of every child is safeguarded and supported, and where no child is left behind.
The evidence that links early intervention and investing in the crucial early years to the achievement of positive outcomes in later life is incontrovertible. However, early intervention does not equate to acting only in the earliest years and as the minister who is also responsible for Scotland’s fantastic older young people, I am keen that we focus on the whole life course of children who are growing up in Scotland.
Overarching all our work for children and young people is the getting it right for every child approach. It is important to remember that the E in GIRFEC stands for “every”. GIRFEC is for every child—for each and every baby, toddler, primary school pupil and teenager in Scotland.
GIRFEC is a personalised approach. It considers all the needs and risks of individuals and what is going on in their lives. It expects professionals to engage with children and young people and their families, to discuss what might help improve their wellbeing and their outcomes. It applies equally to all our children and young people. In some cases, that means getting it right for children who need extra help and support—for instance, ensuring that we support our young carers and children with additional and complex needs.
We must ensure that, as corporate parents, we are giving the right support to children who are under our care. As part of the wider work on child protection, we will be looking at how services respond to protection issues and circumstances that are faced by vulnerable young people. Work on that will be taken forward by the ministerial working group on child sexual exploitation.
The whole system approach in youth justice exemplifies how multidiscipline partnership working improves outcomes for young people as well as for victims and communities. That approach works across all systems and agencies, bringing together the Government’s key policy frameworks into one holistic approach for young people who offend. Through early intervention and robust community alternatives, many can be diverted from statutory measures, prosecution and custody.
Working alongside our GIRFEC approach are our educational ambitions for all children and young people, as set out in the curriculum for excellence, which provides a coherent, more flexible and enriched curriculum from the ages of three to 18 and improves standards and attainment for all children and young people. Both GIRFEC and the curriculum for excellence are policy approaches that we should have pride in in Scotland.
The early years framework was published by the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in 2008. It was an important milestone, setting out a shared commitment to the early years and to the importance of preventative spending. To step up the pace of change, the early years task force was established and it is leading on the development of an early years collaborative. It is the first time in the world that such a quality improvement approach has been tried in a multi-agency context, attracting international attention and interest.
The objectives are to deliver tangible improvement in outcomes and to reduce inequalities for Scotland’s vulnerable children; to put Scotland on course to shifting the balance of public services towards early intervention and prevention by 2016; and to sustain this change to 2018 and beyond.
It is clear that we have the commitment and the will to deliver, and a strong evidence base about what works to make improvements. Up until now, we have lacked a method to scale up the pockets of excellent practice across Scotland. A few months ago, I had the pleasure and privilege of speaking to Bruce Perry from the Child Trauma Academy, who pointed out that small developed nations such as Scotland have a great opportunity to be at the forefront of progressive social policy. This collaborative will give us the platform to collectively drive the transformational change that we need and make it much easier for partners to learn from one another.
Community planning partnerships will be the main vehicle for delivering this, because the real change will happen at local level. The collaborative’s first learning session, which was held in January, brought together more than 700 people from Scotland’s 32 CPPs and demonstrated that, as a small developed nation, Scotland is extremely well positioned to enable all relevant stakeholders, motivated by the collective will to do things better, to come together in one room and work together to do just that.
Although the work of our dedicated professionals is critical, we know that parents are the greatest influence on children. I want to ensure that all parents feel empowered, valued and supported; indeed, that is the main aim of the national parenting strategy, which covers the parenting of children and young people of all ages, starting with preconception, and anyone else in a parenting role including kinship carers and the corporate parent of children who are looked after by the state. The views of parents lie at the heart of the strategy, which aims to champion the importance of Scotland’s parents, highlight the positive difference that they can make and strengthen the help and support that are on offer to them.
We have already announced funding of £18 million from the early years change fund to help local authorities work with partners to provide access to high-quality, co-ordinated family support. Linked to that is the family nurse partnership, an early intervention programme that provides support to first-time teenage mothers and is making a valuable difference for vulnerable children in six health board areas. Indeed, the First Minister has announced an additional £11 million over the next two years to continue rolling out the programme across Scotland.
How many mothers will benefit from the roll-out of the family nurse partnership in those six health board areas?
I am happy to provide the member with that detail, but nevertheless we should recognise the improved outcomes for the teenage mothers who are already benefiting from the partnerships’ early intervention approach and celebrate the fact that we in Scotland will be rolling that out across the rest of the health boards in the next two years. It is a very welcome move.
If we want Scotland to be the best place in the world to grow up, we need to work to increase opportunities for children to play. After all, play is fundamental to a happy, healthy childhood and we are investing £3 million over three years in outdoor play opportunities to help children have fun, be physically active, learn to assess risk and foster links to their local environments and communities. I had the pleasure of listening to Dundee-based academic Suzanne Zeedyk, whose comments about babies being relationship-ready illustrate how crucial it is for parents to interact positively and to play with their babies from birth onwards.
Evidence shows that 75 per cent of brain growth happens and 50 per cent of language gets put in place in the first three years of a child’s life, and we have been promoting such messages through our successful play talk read campaign, to which I am delighted to say we have committed £1 million per year over three years for its further development. That investment in play will help to provide a platform for our national play strategy, which will be published this year and will articulate the seriousness of play as a fundamental right for all children and young people.
I have outlined some of the significant non-legislative work that is under way across Scotland to help to ensure that every child has the best start. I have also outlined the critical role of partnership working in realising our ambition. The children and young people bill, which will be introduced this year, provides a legislative framework to accelerate that change and ensure consistency. Through the bill, we aim to embed in legislation key elements of GIRFEC by defining the meaning of wellbeing; to reflect the important role of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in influencing policy, practice and legislation through a series of new duties on ministers and the public sector; to ensure better permanence planning for looked-after children; and to increase early support for children, parents and families by expanding the amount—and, in turn, flexibility—of early learning and childcare to 600 hours per annum. That signals an increase of 45 per cent in Scotland since 2007, and we will also extend that access to our most vulnerable two-year-olds. Last year’s consultation on the bill drew 300 responses from a diverse range of stakeholders, and our programme of engagement included activities with 2,400 children and young people. Feedback and analysis indicate broad support for the proposed changes.
I turn briefly to some of the challenges that we face in our pursuit of creating the kind of country that we want our children to grow up in and the opportunities that they deserve. One of the greatest barriers is poverty. Research shows that family disadvantage, in terms of income, education and area deprivation, can have a negative impact on children’s health and cognitive, social and behavioural development. However, research shows that a rich home learning environment, positive relationships, good communication and family meals can act as protective factors, counteracting some of the negative outcomes that are associated with a disadvantaged background. It is, therefore, clear that we must do everything that we can to resist the poverty trap.
Sadly, poverty undermines parents’ efforts, so the poverty trap is no easy challenge to overcome. This Government firmly believes that children in Scotland deserve the best possible start in life. We do not want to see any child, never mind 17 per cent of them, born into or condemned to live a life of poverty. Unfortunately, poverty also undermines our best efforts to support parents and families. The current levels of poverty in Scotland, particularly among children, are unacceptable. We know the damage that poverty causes and none of us should be content to allow it to continue.
The Scottish Government is doing everything that it can to tackle poverty and inequality in Scotland with the devolved powers and resources that it has at its disposal. Only last week, the Deputy First Minister outlined her vision for a fairer and more equal Scotland. Against the backdrop of a recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, she articulated this Government’s aspiration to go beyond softening the blows of punishing welfare reforms from London and to gain the powers to prevent the blows in the first place. It will never be easy to tackle the headline poverty figures while personal taxation and welfare benefits policies are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We want a welfare system that is simpler, that makes work pay and that lifts families out of poverty. For us, on the Scottish National Party benches, it is clear where the solution lies: our Parliament should have control over such matters for the benefit of families and communities in Scotland.
The minister says that the Deputy First Minister outlined that in response to the JRF report. However, she will be aware that the JRF report said that poor children in Scotland cannot afford to wait for independence and that the Scottish Government should redouble its efforts using all the levers that are currently available to it. When will the Deputy First Minister respond to those points?
The Deputy First Minister made her speech against the backdrop of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report. She also made it clear that we cannot wait for Labour to become the Government at Westminster, which seems to be Scottish Labour’s position on tackling the persistent inequality that exists in this country. We are using all the powers that are currently devolved to our Administration to tackle the persistent poverty that exists in our very rich country. It is a real pity that Drew Smith cannot see that.
I have outlined how we aim to realise our ambition of making Scotland the best place to grow up, working with partners. With full control of our tax and welfare system, we would be able to make the choices that would enable us to realise our ambitions far more quickly. A partnership approach to ensuring that we have the best place in the world for children to grow up in is key. Therefore, I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber as we bring our children and young people bill to the Parliament and I extend my thanks to our partners beyond the Parliament, who are doing a fantastic job for Scotland’s children and young people.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the Scottish Government’s ambition to make Scotland the best place in the world for children to grow up; recognises that early intervention and an approach that builds on strengths are essential; welcomes the Scottish Government’s actions to speed up the pace of change; supports Getting It Right for Every Child, the Early Years Task Force and the National Parenting Strategy, and agrees that Scotland’s children and young people deserve nothing but determined action to achieve the best outcomes for them from the Scottish Government, the Parliament, public services and the third sector across Scotland, all working in partnership.
We are very tight for time today, so exact timings are essential.
14:43
I state from the outset that there is consensus in the debate. The Labour Party shares the ambition for Scotland to be the best place in the world to grow up. I am sure that everyone in the chamber shares that aspiration.
We all want our children and grandchildren to have a safe, nurturing and enlightening childhood. As legislators, we also want to ensure that our laws protect the rights of all children and young people, set out the responsibilities of public bodies, agencies and Government, and support families. As I have said a number of times, we will support and work with the Scottish Government when it is doing things right and challenge it when we believe that it could be doing more. It is right that parties work together to create better life chances for our children.
We need to ensure that the rhetoric is turned into reality. Everything in the garden is not rosy. However, despite the somewhat self-congratulatory tone of the motion, we will not vote against it, because we agree with a lot of the Government’s strategies, such as early intervention, prevention and multi-agency working. We will offer constructive suggestions on what more can be done.
We enthusiastically believe that strategies such as GIRFEC are an effective way for agencies to work together in the best interests of the child and with parents to plan collegiately for the best future for children. We welcome the recognition that comprehensive implementation of GIRFEC needs funds for staff training if it is to work effectively. We know that some authorities are at a more advanced stage than others in the implementation of GIRFEC as standard practice. We also recognise the need for teachers to be trained, as they are staff who have day-to-day contact with children. However, I am hearing concerns that a one-off, two-day training event belies the need for on-going training in the sector. As with other initiatives, GIRFEC will not stand still. New teachers will come into the system, people will need to refresh their knowledge, and other staff such as admin staff and classroom assistants will require training. Will the minister consider what more can be done to support that important area of work? GIRFEC is very real in many authorities and regular training is needed now.
I want to put to the minister a number of points on the provision in the children and young people bill to have a named person. How will the proposed role of teachers be divided in a school? Will class teachers in primary schools be responsible for all children in their class? As well as the issue of high pupil teacher ratios, there is the problem of school holidays. Will teachers be expected to maintain their named person duties during those periods and, if not, who will take them on? I would welcome further details from the minister on those points and on the role of a named person in general.
In health, as in education, across services we need to ensure that we are meeting our children’s needs. Liz Smith’s amendment mentions health visitors. Specific issues around health visitors are in need of clarification, particularly with regard to their proposed role in the children and young people bill as the named person until a child reaches the age of five. From the people to whom I have spoken, I understand that many health visitors carry large case loads and do not necessarily see children regularly. What reassurances can the minister offer regarding those concerns?
The Scottish Government’s aspiration is for Scotland to be the best place in the world to grow up—a noble aspiration. However, we need to ensure that the reality matches the rhetoric. In my area, the rhetoric is unfortunately nowhere near the reality of life for many children. In the communities that I serve, deprivation, which already affects far too many, is deepening and widening. As End Child Poverty’s child poverty map shows, too many people are income deprived and disadvantaged. Health inequalities abound, with two communities just 3 miles apart having a difference of 15 years in male life expectancy. The number of children who are looked after as a result of substance abuse or neglect is rising. Welfare reform is hitting and is set to take millions out of the economy. Shops are selling single eggs because families cannot afford a box of six. According to some charities, children are using tomato sauce sachets to make themselves tomato soup.
Neil Bibby rightly mentioned the challenge that is posed by welfare reform. One of the reforms that will offer particular challenges to families with children is the bedroom tax. Does Neil Bibby share my disappointment that during the week, Helen Goodman, a shadow minister in the Labour Party in London, in essence accepted the bedroom tax?
The Labour Party has made its position clear: we want to bin the bedroom tax. I cannot be any clearer than that.
One in five children in Scotland is living in poverty. Those children are being denied their basic right to a decent standard of living and opportunities to thrive and reach their potential.
We know that poverty damages children’s experiences, stunts their achievements and all too often determines the chances that they will have in later life. We know that to support vulnerable children, we need to look again at our priorities and support vulnerable families. There will of course be concerns over welfare reform from the UK Government but, as Drew Smith said, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report tells us that we need to focus here on what we can do to help vulnerable families with education, health, housing and childcare.
On the subject of childcare, the Labour Party, which introduced free entitlement to early education as a matter of urgency in 1997, welcomes the Scottish Government’s proposed increase in entitlement to free early education to 600 hours. We welcome it, but we would have liked it to be introduced much sooner. It will make a difference, but as I have said before we will not solve the childcare problems of 2013 with a six-year-old policy that has still not been implemented and which will not be implemented until 2014 at the earliest. We need a model of childcare in which costs are reasonable and under which parents know that their children are well cared for and are receiving high-quality care.
The Government could do much more to provide support for vulnerable two-year-olds; that is covered in our amendment. Although we do not agree with the Lib Dems on the exact details, we are sympathetic to their amendment. We welcome the increase in hours and the extension of support to some two-year-olds, but the Labour Party believes that the Scottish Government is lacking in ambition. The proposed children and young people bill guarantees provision only to looked-after children who are two. Many of those children will already be in nursery, and estimates suggest that no more than 800 two-year-olds will be affected. In England, more than 250,000 two-year-olds—which is 40 per cent—will have a place by 2014.
I have heard the First Minister state that he will not increase that guarantee for two-year-olds in Scotland because staff to child ratios are being increased in England. Is the Scottish Government really saying that it cannot increase early learning and care for two-year-olds without changing staff ratios?
I would be interested to know why Labour did not propose an amendment to the budget. Furthermore, in the plans for the devolved budget, what would the member like to be cut in order to fund such an increase?
The Government’s budget was inadequate in its entirety, and we would want investment in early years to be prioritised more in the future.
I have heard the First Minister state that the Scottish Government will not invest additionally in early learning and care because it is in investing in family nurse partnerships instead. Why does the choice have to be between the two? It does not need to be—family nurse partnerships exist in England, too. In fact, they were introduced by Labour in 2006, and the pilot projects seven years ago reached 6,000 people there. The recent pilots here in Scotland enrolled just 148 young women, and I would be keen to know how many people will benefit from those partnerships. Along with a number of children’s charities, I urge the minister and the Government to consider extending the proposed support for vulnerable two-year-olds.
The Labour Party shares the aspiration and ambition to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up. Our amendment makes it clear that we need additional effort and investment to support children in poverty. We have made a number of constructive suggestions, which we believe the Government needs to take on board if progress is to be made in turning rhetoric into reality.
I move amendment S4M-05934.3, to insert at end:
“; notes with concern recent reports by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and End Child Poverty that more than one in five children in Scotland are living in poverty; believes that more effort and investment need to be put into education, health, housing and childcare for children living in poverty, and further believes that there needs to be a specific focus on additional support for vulnerable two-year-olds.”
14:53
In this age when a great deal of robust debate is taking place about the financing of tertiary education, we should not forget the fact that there is almost universal acceptance—not just in the UK—that the greatest focus for additional resources should be in the earliest years, just as there is universal acceptance that, if we can get policy making right for the earliest years, we can not only improve the lives of a great many children but address many other educational and social issues that tend to develop in later childhood and teenage years.
On that basis, we warmly welcome the moves that have been made by the Scottish Government, which I think date back to Adam Ingram’s time as Minister for Children and Early Years, to ensure a greater focus in this area, and particularly the adoption of a much more coherent and collaborative approach, as the minister spelled out.
At this stage, although we have a couple of reservations about some aspects of the proposed children and young people bill, we warmly welcome its underlying principles because of the collaborative approach that is being adopted, which is so important.
It is a given assumption that children will fare very much better when they grow up if they have a loving, caring and well-balanced environment, as Aileen Campbell has said, in which family life is very much the centrepiece and where they can flourish, both socially and academically, in the company of their family, teachers and school friends. We are all very much aware of the fact that there is no ready mix of those factors, and that success can never be prescribed merely by the actions of any Government. The family matters very much, but so, too, does the community in which that family lives and works.
Of course, Government has a role to play. I appreciate that a delicate balance must be struck between allowing parents and families to decide on their own responsibilities and providing intervention by Government. That is a very difficult issue, with which the Education and Culture Committee is grappling in its inquiry into decision making on when children should be taken into care. That is perhaps the most difficult issue that we face, as it is all about the balance between the individual and the state and whether the balance that we are working towards is correct.
I distinctly remember that, when my colleague Annabel Goldie first put the issue of a drugs strategy at the top of the political agenda, some said that it was far too complex a problem. However, what we saw was a real determination within Parliament and the wider community to tackle the main issues head on. I suggest that we need to do exactly the same for the parenting strategy. In that respect, I think that the Scottish Government has made a positive start and we support that work very much.
In particular, we want to see a political environment that encourages parental responsibility and choice but balances the rights of children with those of families. In an article in The Herald, Maggie Mellon made the important point that the children and young people bill must address that as a centre point. We should take on board that issue when we debate the bill. That is the reason for our amendment today and why we are so keen on a universal health visitor system, particularly for those aged zero to two.
We need to have a much closer look, as Barnardo’s has argued, at how we secure the most effective involvement of the voluntary sector. Given that many charities and voluntary sector bodies are firmly rooted in their local communities, about which they have expert knowledge, they are often the best placed to provide the help that struggling families need. We all know of first-class examples of such groups and charities in our constituencies, but we also know only too well that they frequently complain that they are not always part of a joined-up policy-making approach. Therefore, it is good to hear that the Scottish Government will have that joined-up approach at the centre of the bill.
On the need to ensure that the third sector is part of early years policy making, I am sure that the member will welcome the fact that, among the 700 folk who turned up at the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre for the early years collaborative’s first learning session, there was a heavy representation from the third sector both as part of the local CPPs and from the national third sector organisations.
I entirely endorse that. However, many of the voluntary sector groups are arguing for a joined-up coherent approach. Many good things are happening across the country, but they do not always happen on a joined-up basis, which is what the third sector is pushing for. All our efforts will need to be put into that as we go on to the bill.
Neil Bibby made a good point about the role of teachers. Obviously, there is a firm case to be made that all teachers and support staff should be given the training to enable them to recognise special needs at the earliest possible age. That is an important point.
If I may, I just want to draw the member’s attention to the important work that has been done on that by Sir Jackie Stewart, who has tried to influence the work of teacher training colleges. The steps that the colleges have taken in recent years have been immensely impressive, but we need to keep spreading that good practice.
The cabinet secretary is absolutely right that we need those sorts of pioneering works, but there is still more to be done. We still hear comments from teachers that they feel that we are not quite there yet. The more that we can do on that, the more that we will be on the best front.
To sum up, this is an exceptionally important issue. We are very content to support the Government’s motion and the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments.
I move amendment S4M-05934.2, to insert at end:
“, and agrees that one of the best ways to ensure that there is the earliest identification of problems is the introduction of a universal health visitor system, particularly for children aged from 0 to 2.”
14:59
Scottish National Party ministers have a tendency to assert all manner of things, and there was a concern that a debate on “Scotland—the best place to grow up” would be just the latest such assertion. However, in her motion and in her generally consensual opening remarks, Aileen Campbell has made it quite clear that that remains an aspiration, which I know is shared by members across the chamber. There may be disagreement both about how far we are from reaching nirvana and about the best way of getting there, but there is no disagreement at all that we should set that as a goal, nor that we need concerted collaborative action to achieve it, as the minister suggested.
I should also make it clear that we are working from a decent foundation. In highlighting areas in which we are falling short, we should not lose sight of the great strengths that we have. Indeed, I note with pride, though less surprise, that Orkney consistently comes top in quality of life assessments.
Making Scotland the best place to grow up is an aspiration—we all accept that it remains a work in progress. I want to focus my remarks on two issues on which we are falling short. The shortcomings need urgent attention but, most important, that can be done by this Government in this Parliament using the current powers that we have at our disposal.
I start by highlighting the issue of nursery provision and childcare, which is the focus of my amendment. A year ago, I led a Liberal Democrat debate on that issue, making the case for why the Government needed to be more ambitious. All the evidence shows that it is the earliest years of a child’s life—even the interventions made prior to birth—that shape and determine their development into adulthood. Get it wrong at that stage of a child’s life, and the consequences can be largely irreversible, and the costs—social and economic—exceptionally high. Get it right, on the other hand, and the benefits are locked in and long term.
I unequivocally welcome the steps that are being taken to extend to 600 hours pre-school nursery provision for all three and four-year-olds. However, as Scottish Liberal Democrats have consistently argued—indeed, we argued this throughout the recent budget process—that fails to recognise that, by the age of three, it is often too late. Nobel laureate Professor James Heckman argues that the highest return in education is derived from the investment in the pre-birth to age three group. By the age of three, children in poverty are lagging a full year behind their better-off peer group with regards to cognitive development, social skills and readiness for school.
The Government, of course, has pledged additional support to looked-after two year-olds and those in foster care. However, as Bronwen Cohen of Children in Scotland recently pointed out, although valuable
“it is markedly less generous than what is being offered in England and Wales.”
Thanks to Liberal Democrats, a £380 million investment is being made in 260,000 childcare places for 40 per cent of two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds south of the border.
Will the member give way?
In a second.
That dwarfs what is planned in Scotland, where 24,000 parents of two-year-olds will lose out as a result.
I point out to Liam McArthur that our focus is on quality childcare provision in Scotland. Evidence suggests that, unless there is quality for two-year-olds, the outcomes that he mentioned will not necessarily be realised later on. Will he consider what Naomi Eisenstadt said to the Education Committee in the House of Commons about the Lib Dems’ proposals? She said:
“I do not think we are in a position financially to offer a free good to 40% ... I do not think that we have the quality in place to offer those that will make a difference. What we know from the evidence of the evaluation of the two-year-old pilot was, unless it was high quality, it did not make a difference.”
We are concentrating on quality. What is Liam McArthur’s response, given the backdrop of increasing child to staff ratios?
My response is that the minister has taken the mickey. That was not a brief intervention.
The minister is right that the focus must be on quality, but there is no getting away from the fact that what is being provided south of the border offers more than what is being provided north of the border.
Investment in family nurse partnerships is welcome, but it is not a case of either one or the other. The SNP has pushed through its budget, but I plan to return to that issue during the scrutiny of the children and young people’s bill.
The other issue that I want to touch on relates to those who find themselves looked after or in care. All of us acknowledge that, despite the efforts of successive Administrations and the collective and herculean efforts of those working in the field, the outcomes for far too many looked-after children and young people remain unacceptably poor. The reasons are complex; identifying solutions is not straightforward. However, I welcome the Education and Culture Committee’s focus on that matter.
I want to reflect on one aspect of how we, as a country, discharge our corporate parenting responsibility. The consultation on the bill defined corporate parenting as
“the collective responsibility of all public bodies to provide the best possible care and protection for looked-after children and to act in the same way as a birth parent would.”
That is entirely reasonable. However, imagine the reaction if a birth parent were to present their child on their 16th birthday—on the eve of school exams, perhaps—with a bin liner full of their clothes and an instruction to get off to the local homeless shelter or bed and breakfast. I can think of few birth parents who would be unable to tell where all their children were within a year of them leaving home. It is inconceivable that, if one of their children were to die within a year of leaving home, any birth parent would not seek answers about why that tragedy had happened. However, that appears to be the plight for many care leavers in Scotland, who are often expected to leave care at 16—almost eight years earlier than the average age of a young person leaving the family home.
Aberlour insists that we need to guarantee that young care leavers receive after-care support into their mid-20s. Barnardo’s calls for a systematic process for investigating deaths of young care leavers, which is what would happen were they in care. Both can be achieved through the proposed children and young people bill; both would help to make Scotland at least a better place to grow up for young people.
There are many issues on which I have not touched, although I may have a chance to address them in my closing remarks. Meantime, I again welcome the debate. I support the call for partnership action to deliver our shared aspirations and I hope that we might be able to put aside our constitutional differences long enough to help to make that happen.
I move amendment S4M-05934.1, to leave out from “welcomes” to “change” and insert:
“; considers that the evidence shows that investment in the under-3s gives the biggest return and the best chance of reducing the attainment gap and believes that free early education should be extended to 40% of two-year-olds, focussing on children from deprived backgrounds, to give them the best start in life”.
15:05
I very much welcome the debate. I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and other members because I may need to leave the chamber briefly during it.
I cannot think of a more important topic to debate in the Parliament than securing the future of our children. We recently debated Sarah Boyack’s motion on the enough food for everyone if campaign. I said in that debate that it is a human imperative for all parents to do their best for their children. That is certainly my perspective with my children.
The Scottish Government is doing good work in that regard. I cannot think of anyone else who I would rather progressed that work than my friend Aileen Campbell, because I know of her personal commitment to it.
The Scottish Government is doing work to achieve the ambition of making Scotland the best place to grow up. The £270 million early years and early intervention change fund has been established. The early years early action fund has also been established to work with the third sector for early years and early intervention activities. That work is focused on what we are all talking about—the preventative spend agenda—because we know that early intervention is key to that.
A number of programmes have been established in the years during which the Scottish National Party has formed the Administration. The early years framework was launched in December 2008. The early years task force was set up in 2011. Only last year, the early years collaborative was launched, bringing those two strands together.
The early years collaborative has been welcomed across the board. Indeed, I saw that Sir Harry Burns, who is of course the chief medical officer, said of it:
“This is nothing less than saving the human race”.
Those are dramatic words indeed, but they show the depth and importance of that ambitious initiative.
The Government also intends to introduce a children and young people bill, which I welcome. It will be about establishing children’s rights at the heart of everything that the Government does. I am aware that, in preparing for that bill, the Government consulted some 2,000 young people. That is as it should be: the bill is about them and they should have their say. I look forward to that bill being introduced and welcome the minister’s commitment to working with others across the spectrum to make it work.
All members have received some briefings from stakeholders who welcome the children and young people bill. Children in Scotland suggests that a duty be
“placed on all public bodies to ensure that their policies and services are consistent with the UNCRC”.
That was also picked up by Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. It would be interesting to see how it tallies with what the Government plans. I am sure that the minister will be able to respond in her closing speech and speak a little about that.
The children and young people bill will be an important opportunity because, although good work has gone on, we still have a set of challenging circumstances.
The minister rightly spoke of the challenges of poverty. We should reflect on the fact that child poverty is at its lowest since devolution was instituted—it is now at 17 per cent. Although it is, of course, welcome that we have the lowest figure since devolution, it is still too high.
I will not rehearse all the likely outcomes of poverty because the minister went into great detail about them. However, we know that the life chances of those who are born into poverty are influenced significantly by those early circumstances. Save the Children provided a detailed briefing that set out some of those challenges.
I turn to the Labour amendment, which suggests that more needs to be done in education, health and housing. The point was made in an intervention that no indication is given of where that additional investment is meant to come from. Labour’s amendment also implies that nothing is being done in the first place, but we know that work is being done in those areas. For example, we have the family nurse partnership programme, which has been awarded extra money. We know that the national health service is one of the partners in the early years change fund and that a working group is looking at health inequalities. We also know that additional funds are being invested to help local authorities to target fuel-poor households and that the Government plans to do more on childcare. Therefore, it is completely wrong to suggest, as Labour has done, that nothing is being done with the powers that we have.
We are not saying that people must wait for independence, but independence can make the difference. Frankly, Mr Bibby’s response to my intervention was far from reassuring. It was almost as if he was not aware of his party spokesperson’s position on the bedroom tax. That is a further indication of why we need this place to be invested with the necessary powers. The welfare reforms that are being brought in will make it hugely difficult to achieve the ambition of making Scotland the best place to grow up in, so we need to have those powers.
15:11
I suggest to Jamie Hepburn that he follow LabourNoBedTax on Twitter.
I welcome the fact that there are large areas of general consensus when it comes to the early years agenda. I also welcome the fact that the Government has taken such an inclusive approach, particularly through the early years task force, of which I have been privileged to be a member.
Over the past three or four years—I think that I am going to have problems with my throat today, for which I apologise—I have noticed an increasing acceptance in the Parliament of the importance of the early years and particularly, but not exclusively, the very early years. I have also noticed an increasing acceptance that early intervention is a necessity.
However, there are some issues that we must explore to do with the nature of that intervention and the balance between universal and targeted services. On the latter, I welcome the fact that the Government is to reinstate, very soon, the universal checks by health visitors of children when they reach the age of two and a half. That is a welcome reversal of the previous policy, which was brought in by the Administration of which I was a member. It was introduced with laudable intentions, but it went too far on targeted health visiting. The change of policy will mean that extra health visitors are required, and that issue must be addressed.
As far as targeting is concerned, it might well be the case that the Government has gone slightly too far in the direction of targeted services in its proposal on two-year-olds in the consultation on the early years bill: instead of being defined more broadly, vulnerable two-year-olds are defined as including only looked-after two-year-olds. That issue might be explored when that bill comes before the Parliament.
The nature of interventions is crucial. Evidence-based parenting programmes are extremely important, because they have a very good evidence base. When it comes to evidence and good practice, the creation of the collaborative that the minister described fully is an extremely important development, because collaboratives have been highly successful in the field of health policy, most recently in relation to the patient safety programme. I believe that a large number of practitioners coming together to ensure that good practice is disseminated will be crucial to achieving progress on the early years.
On support for families more generally, I welcome the parenting strategy that was published a few months ago. We discussed aspects of that in quite a lot of detail a couple of weeks ago when, on successive days, we had a debate on lone parents and a debate on the role of fathers. As the issue of the bedroom tax has been raised, I would like to move beyond the party-political point with which I started my speech and say that one of the most worrying things about that tax is that, where the care of children is shared by two parents, one of those parents will be affected by it. A father who typically has his children at the weekends will not be allowed an extra room for them. If the Scottish Government can make interventions to alleviate the problem of the bedroom tax, I hope that it will consider looking at that.
Does the member agree with the proposition that, if a family refuse to move to another property that has been identified for them, they should suffer the bedroom tax? That was the position that Helen Goodman, from his party, advanced.
I will not enter into any more party-political arguments, because I have made my position clear, and Labour’s position was clear at the beginning of the debate.
Another way in which I and many others have become aware of the importance of support for families is through the excellent projects in our constituencies. In previous debates, I have mentioned Circle, Stepping Stones, Home-Start Leith, Dr Bell’s Family Centre and North Edinburgh Childcare.
I will mention one other project today, which is LicketyLeap—I know that the minister is to launch a symposium by that project in the near future. It is a participative drama project that has worked in schools in the Granton and Pilton areas of my constituency. I took part in a session one morning, which was an amazing experience. I saw the transforming effect on the nursery school children who were involved. The evaluation has shown that 60 to 70 per cent of the children who have been involved—not just in my area but in other parts of Scotland—have shown improvement in various outcomes, such as confidence, social skills, resilience and emotional literacy. I hope that that project can be supported in the future.
In my last minute, I must mention the other issue—apart from vulnerable two-year-olds—that the Labour amendment refers to, which is poverty. In Scotland, 21 per cent of children live in poverty. The figure has gone down by 100,000 since 1997, but it is now going up again. Responsibility for that is divided. Childcare is important, but the UK Government has made that much more difficult through reducing the childcare tax credit, and further negative changes are to come. The Scottish Government must do as much as it can to support childcare in our communities.
As we all know, work is the best route out of poverty, but that must be work where childcare is provided and which is family friendly. That has been an increasing theme in various articles this week. It is most important that parents, who are key to the early years agenda and to children’s development, have time for their children as well as time for work.
15:17
I will pick up on a theme that a number of speakers have raised, which is that there has been progress on tackling child poverty since devolution. That is a consensual basis from which to start.
In 1999, 28 per cent of children lived in poverty. As Mr Hepburn said, that figure is estimated to be about 17 per cent today, so dramatically fewer children are living in poverty. When the figures are calculated in the same way, I notice that the UK figure is 18 per cent.
I draw that comparison for a reason. I am not quibbling over a percentage point, but I raise the idea of competition across the UK and beyond on tackling child poverty. Let us have competition—absolutely—because the only winners when we tackle child poverty, anywhere in the UK or in the world, will be the children. Let us have some good old competition to raise the bar for life expectancy and the quality of life that children in Scotland and beyond experience.
I will focus for a bit on the UK context, because we cannot and never will be able to deal with Scotland in isolation, whether we are independent or otherwise. We must look at welfare reform. It has been said that 50,000 children face being plunged into poverty because of the UK Tory Government’s welfare reform proposals. In the process, £2.5 billion will be taken from Scottish households—households that often do not have enough money currently, never mind after further cuts from the UK Government. We cannot deny that that is the context in which we seek to improve the lives of children in Scotland.
In its briefing for the debate, Children in Scotland urges
“Parliament to act together to persuade the UK Government to abandon proposed legislation on welfare reform which will worsen already unacceptable levels of child poverty.”
I completely agree with that sentiment from Children in Scotland. The issue that I have is that the UK Government is simply not listening.
Mr Hepburn mentioned some quite alarming facts in his contribution. A Labour spokesperson at the UK level is also not listening now on the bedroom tax. I heard Mr Chisholm talking about a Twitter account called LabourNoBedTax. Perhaps that should be LabourNoConsistencyOrHonestyOnTheBedroomTax. Perhaps Labour should change its Twitter account.
Such situations drive me towards thinking that it is not a matter of waiting for independence, but that only independence can guarantee that the Scottish people and Scottish families see the future that we need for our children. I believe in powers coming to the Scottish Parliament so that we do not have to face the dreadful situation that we currently face under the UK Government. I want to improve the lives of children in Scotland, but I also want to improve their aspirations.
I appreciate how passionately the member feels about welfare reform, but many millions of families will be better off with the universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions has estimated that 350,000 children and 500,000 adults will be lifted out of poverty. Therefore, I am not quite sure whether the member is arguing that there should be no welfare reform. Does he not accept that there are helpful aspects of welfare reform?
It has been well established that, where the UK Government seems to be giving money with one hand in welfare reform, it is taking away far more with the other hand, and is doing more harm than good.
Children in Scotland says in its welcome briefing for the debate:
“The Scottish Parliament has shown that it can set aside political differences and we urge Parliament to work together to use its full range of powers to combat child poverty in Scotland.”
On a consensual note, I completely agree with that.
I believe in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s right to say, “Look, we have powers over health, housing and education,” and I say gently to Labour that no one is waiting for independence. My goodness, we need it, but no one is waiting for it. We are getting on with the job as best as we can right now.
That is exactly what the early years collaborative is all about. I have seen family nurse partnerships in action and have spoken directly to young women who attend a special teenage pregnancy unit at Wester Hailes education centre. The City of Edinburgh Council is putting a lot of focus and attention on those young girls. I spoke to a young girl who benefits from the family nurse partnership and she said that it has been absolutely transformational and really important in helping her.
I look at the third sector and organisations such as Blochairn Housing Association and Spire View Housing Association in the north of Glasgow, which work quite closely with the local primary schools to support families and education and learning, and reward positive behaviour and outcomes in classrooms. A lot of collaborative work is going on.
There is much more that I want to say, but I will finish by talking a little bit more about the third sector, which will be crucial in early years collaborative work. Last week, we had a debate on health and social care integration, and I had a great concern that the Labour version of health and social care integration was to let the councils run it all. That was what Jackie Baillie put forward in that debate. We need a greater role for the third sector, not the dominance of local government. There is a lot of money out there that can be used better, and that will happen only by combining health and education services and local authorities and the third sector as an equal and valued partner. That can really deliver for the children of Scotland.
15:23
I rise to speak as a father of two children. I do not want it to be simply a political aspiration for Scotland to be the best place in the world for children to grow up in. All parents aspire to that for our children.
I was interested that Mr Bibby’s speech focused on the need for reality to match rhetoric. He went very big on how we need to support children in our most vulnerable communities, but he may want to look at the reality of places in which his party has some locus of control. In my home city, for example, his party is currently in the administration in Aberdeen City Council and is consulting on closing Bramble Brae primary school. That school is situated in the Cummings Park community of Aberdeen, which is one of Aberdeen’s most deprived communities. Perhaps Mr Bibby should talk to his local councillors in Aberdeen and ensure that their reality matches the rhetoric that he is putting forth in the chamber.
Along with Mr Doris, I am a member of the Health and Sport Committee, which has been undertaking an inquiry into teenage pregnancy. We are also about to embark on what I suspect will be a significant inquiry into health inequalities. One interesting point that came out of the scoping exercise for that is that the application of the word “health” is almost a misnomer because, in essence, we are dealing with an agenda around inequalities in income and educational outcomes. All those issues work together to produce the inequalities in society.
In the teenage pregnancy inquiry, we have heard strong evidence on the benefits that have been realised in the family nurse partnership pilot areas. We have also heard great enthusiasm from the communities that are about to receive the benefits of the family nurse partnership when it is rolled out. Through that programme, the Government is taking an extremely strong step forward to support young mothers, who often need additional support at the beginning of pregnancy to help them as parents and to ensure that their children are given the most appropriate support. That is not to say that young mums are automatically bad mums—that is absolutely not the case—but it is a recognition that young mothers often need additional support early on to ensure that they become the best mums that they can be.
There is a recognition that more needs to be done, which is why the Government is, in partnership, bringing forward the strategies and actions that the minister outlined, such as those on the early years collaborative, to ensure that we continue to deliver for Scotland’s young people. However, it is extremely depressing that, whenever we talk about our aspirations and ambitions, we find ourselves hitting against a glass ceiling of reserved powers, which in many areas have a direct impact on our wish to develop the kind of Scotland that we want. That is why I find it difficult when Labour members on the one hand talk about wanting to tackle child poverty, but on the other hand beg us not to have the full range of powers here in Scotland. To me, that is simply a rhetorical mismatch.
I recently saw some internet traffic around supposed comments that had been made by a Labour Party spokesperson on the bedroom tax, so I looked at the “Daily Politics” interview with Helen Goodman MP. I encourage those Labour members who have not watched it to go and do so, particularly the point at which Helen Goodman says that the Labour Party has said that the bedroom tax should apply only in certain circumstances. To me, that is not being against the bedroom tax; it is being in favour of a different kind of bedroom tax. The Labour Party needs to have a look at that.
There is a notion that our aspiration for the Parliament is that we should simply act to mitigate the effects of bad decisions that are taken at Westminster, whether by the current Tory-Lib Dem coalition or by the hypothetical future Labour Government that Mr Smith and his colleagues wish for. If Labour comes into government in 2015, Liam Byrne will have his hands on the controls of the welfare system, and he has said repeatedly that Labour will continue to cut the welfare budget if it wins the election in 2015. No doubt, if Labour does that, Mr Smith will tell us that we need to take action to mitigate those welfare cuts, rather than argue for us to have the powers here to shape a fairer welfare system for the people of Scotland.
In my final minute, I will focus on the issue of additional support needs, which as members will know is extremely close to my heart. I have spoken to a number of parents in the north-east with whom I come into contact as a result of my son’s additional support needs. They told me about their aspirations, one of which is that
“young people need to be nurtured, challenged and accepted in an environment that works together to support the whole child.”
One parent said:
“I consider myself and my son to be fortunate in that his needs were picked up and identified early on and a programme of early intervention is put in place.”
I found myself in the same position.
Early intervention is crucial, as is the ability to get the right support at the right time. We must recognise that welfare reform presents significant risks, especially for disabled children and other children with additional support needs. That is why I aspire to secure welfare powers for this Parliament. I do not want independence for independence’s sake; I want independence to make Scotland the best place in the world for children to grow up.
15:30
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like all other members, I support the Scottish Government’s ambition to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up.
For me, Scotland was the best place in the world to grow up. I love my country and the people who live here, and I love my community in Kilsyth—that is the reason why I am a member of this Parliament. However, that is not why Scotland was the best place in which to grow up. I am sure that a number of other places in the world would serve as the best place in which to grow up, because the place itself does not matter that much; what matters is the support that a child gets as they grow up.
I grew up in a family of four, supported by loving parents, grandparents and 11 sets of aunts and uncles—I have lost count of the cousins. My dad was a welder, and throughout our time as a family he was made redundant only once and found work again relatively quickly. I am extremely lucky to have grown up in a stable and supportive environment, and I am grateful to my family for that.
People throughout Scotland will identify with my brief comments about the environment in which I grew up. It is unfortunate, however, that to some people my story will be entirely alien. There are children in our communities who are living in families that are affected by drug or alcohol abuse, imprisonment, unemployment or low pay. There are children who live with the effects of some or all of those issues, and there are children who no longer live with their families as a result of such issues.
Ultimately, those symptoms all point towards one thing: poverty. In my region, Falkirk Council, North Lanarkshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council have child poverty rates of 17, 21 and 18 per cent respectively. Almost one in five children lives in poverty across the whole region, but there are startling variations at council ward level. In Cumbernauld North, 8 per cent of children live in poverty. That is far too high a rate, but if we take a two-minute walk over the footbridge over the M80 we come to Cumbernauld South, where the rate of child poverty jumps to 23 per cent. A two-minute walk takes us from a ward where child poverty affects fewer than one in 10 children to a ward where one child in every four lives in poverty.
I do not doubt that the children in areas that are affected by poverty live in loving and caring families, but they cannot help but be affected by the stress and strain that their parents or guardians must be under as they try to provide for them, particularly if they are dealing with issues such as drug or alcohol abuse or imprisonment, which often blight families and communities in such areas.
I support the Labour amendment, because it recognises that we need targeted, intensive support and investment for children who are living in poverty. The most effective way of providing that support—as is reflected in the motion and all the amendments, in different ways—is through early intervention. We know that the longer we leave things and the older a child in poverty becomes, the harder it is to reverse the effects of the inequality between that child and one who has a relatively affluent lifestyle.
Poverty affects a child’s health and wellbeing and it dramatically affects healthy life expectancy. Educational attainment is also affected—the very thing that can equalise the opportunities for children, whether or not they are born into poverty. The cycle of poverty is perpetuated for entire communities, because the attainment levels of children who have grown up in poverty are lower on average, as is the number of such children who go on to university. Opportunities to get highly skilled, highly paid work are, to a large extent, limited to people whose parents were able to follow such a path.
It is just not acceptable that health, life expectancy, educational attainment and opportunity can be determined to such a large extent in a community that I represent by the side of a bridge someone grows up on.
I welcome the Government’s stated aim of speeding up the pace of change and the initiatives that are in place, but there cannot be any complacency. Those programmes will have to evolve and be refreshed, in line with what my colleague Neil Bibby said regarding getting it right for every child and other initiatives.
There is agreement in the motion and the amendments and throughout the chamber from all the members who have spoken so far that ensuring early intervention is the course of action that we should take. That means that there should be intensive support and investment for our vulnerable two-year-olds.
15:35
It would appear that we are aiming for a consensual debate this afternoon. I sincerely hope that, as I take members through a journey, we can remain consensual.
The minister said in her speech that the aim of making Scotland the best place to grow up is ambitious and bold, but she is to be commended for not shying away from the fact that there are challenges. She acknowledged that we need to address poverty.
I had the very great fortune last night to visit the Royal Blind School, which I was a pupil at—quite a number of years ago now—to attend an investiture of scouts. The reason I mention that is to do with GIRFEC. The minister said that E stands for every—every child. Many of the young boys and girls who were being invested last night had complex and challenging needs, but they were becoming part of the community and family of scouting, which, with the support of volunteers and leaders, will aim to give them opportunities and challenges that they would not otherwise have. It is not always up to statutory provision to ensure that our young children are given opportunities to aspire to achieve certain goals.
In my 32 years in the social care sector, the one thing I learnt is that partnership matters, partnership achieves and partnership is always the key to moving forward. That is perhaps where we should go with our young children.
I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that it is fantastic that assessments will be done of 27 to 30-month-olds, which will ensure that any additional help that is needed will be identified at that young age. However, it is about not just the early years but the early days and weeks. Health visitors go out to visit parents of newborns within 10 to 14 days, which is extremely important because that is quite often when problems arise, perhaps because parents are looking after their first child or because they have a large family and cannot manage with a newborn. Health visitors play a vital role in the early days, weeks and years.
We have to congratulate the Government on the additional hours of nursery provision for three to four-year-olds and for looked-after two-year-olds, which ensures that children are getting the best possible start that is affordable.
Moving on to schools, I think that the excellent work of curriculum for excellence has opened up opportunities by individualising the needs of the children. Teachers are acknowledging that the idea of children as individuals needs to be brought forward and that they should find out what their aspirations are and what opportunities are available for them as young people.
I congratulate Aberdeen council—I mean Aberdeenshire Council; I am not congratulating Aberdeen City Council—on the sterling work that it does within the curriculum for excellence. In some primary schools in Aberdeenshire—I am thinking of Gordon primary school in Huntly in my constituency in particular—children around the primary 4 or 5 level get an opportunity to go out for Wednesday in the woods. Regardless of the weather, they are out there, experiencing the outdoors. They not only write small essays and stories about their experiences, but they think about what science can tell them about what they have seen outside, in the environment in which they live. What a wonderful opportunity.
Is Scotland the best place to grow up in? Of course it is. However, we need to ensure that it remains not only the best but also the most wonderful place to grow up in.
We must also ensure that, as children follow the curriculum for excellence into secondary schools, there are opportunities for employment. In my constituency, there are opportunities in the oil and gas and renewables sectors. Modules such as the your future, your energy course give children the opportunity to realise that there is a future and that Scotland will indeed be the best place for them to grow up in.
15:41
It is ironic that I find myself speaking after Dennis Robertson because, when he was at the Royal Blind School yesterday, he met a young man from Renfrewshire, Harrison Lovett, who sees Dennis as a role model—a hero, if you will. Harrison has faced similar challenges to those that Dennis has faced. That shows us that, in the kind of Scotland that we want, we need to have people we can aspire to be like.
I welcome this debate and share the minister’s ambition for our children and young people. Who would disagree with the minister when she says that she wants Scotland to be the best place to grow up? Jamie Hepburn has already highlighted the importance of the issue. As parents, our children’s future is one of the most important things to us. When I make a decision as a corporate parent, I always think about the decision that I would make for my own child.
Our children give us many sleepless nights and difficulties—sorry, strike that; I mean challenges—over the years, and there are good days and bad days for every family. I have two children, James, who is 21, and Jessica, who is 19. One of our happier days will be this Sunday, at the Scottish communities league cup final, when we all go the national stadium to see St Mirren. However, in that stadium will be people from Paisley’s Ferguslie Park, which is one of the areas in Scotland with multiple deprivation and issues with child poverty.
We have been talking about child poverty for as long as I have been involved in politics. It is one of the things that I believe can be dealt with only with the full powers of independence. It has been debated for a long time. Although, as has been mentioned, child poverty levels have fallen substantially since devolution—they are at 17 per cent—we still need to do much more.
That can happen only with the powers of independence. Westminster is pushing through welfare reforms that will put 50,000 children in Scotland into poverty by 2020. The Scottish Government is trying to do things at one end, but the Westminster Government is making things even more difficult. For me, that is the difference.
The reduction in benefits will take away more than £2.5 billion from Scottish households. That will have an effect not only on those families but on the economies of towns throughout Scotland. In my area, people are saying that welfare reform will make a big difference in the retail sector on the local high street.
Only the full responsibilities of independence will make a difference in relation to child poverty. The Scottish Government is working hard to ensure that Scotland is the best place in the world to grow up in but, as I said, Westminster hampers those efforts. Eight out of 10 Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament voted against the Government’s benefit cuts, but the Government went ahead with them anyway.
The Westminster democratic deficit is having an effect on all the young children in Scotland. The Scottish Government is taking forward the preventative spend agenda, and it is improving childcare provision throughout Scotland. Much more could be achieved if only Westminster’s disastrous welfare reforms did not keep hampering that progress.
Only last week, the Deputy First Minister said that our argument is that
“instead of looking to the Scottish Government just to soften the blow, we need a Scottish Government and a Parliament with the powers to stop the blows in the first place.”
Who would disagree with that? Who would disagree that we need those powers and responsibilities to make a difference?
We all know that the Scottish Government has proven on numerous occasions that it is more progressive than its Westminster counterpart. When we are looking at the Scotland that we want to build in the future for our children, therefore, the only way forward is with the powers of independence. Otherwise, we will be sitting here having the same debate in 20 years, talking about child poverty and asking what we are going to do about it. I, for one, am not going to be sitting here doing that, because I take my role as a corporate parent seriously.
The Scottish Government’s proposed children and young people bill will take the ambition to make Scotland the best place to grow up and make it real. The Scottish Government will legislate for a rise in early learning and childcare provision from 475 hours per year to a minimum of 600 hours per year. It will strengthen how we support children and put their rights at the heart of everything that we do. That is important in relation to empowering families and making sure that they see a benefit to the political process, with politicians who listen to them and give them opportunities to express themselves.
Parents are always extremely ambitious for their children. I am ambitious about what my children can achieve and I am also ambitious about what this Scottish Government can do for the children of Scotland. Every time we make a decision in this chamber, we must remember the families in areas such as Ferguslie Park in Paisley—families that we represent. We have to make sure that we make their life choices and their life chances a lot better in the future.
Independence is the only option if young people in Scotland are to have the future that we all want them to have. We all agree on many of the issues. How we get there—how we create the Scotland that we want—seems to be the main difference. The only way to do it that I can see is through independence.
15:47
I am keen to contribute towards the debate on the quality of the lives of children in Scotland—most importantly, on how we can continue to improve the services and opportunities that we offer to our youngest citizens. As a mother of three children, I know full well that Scotland is often an exceptional place for young people to grow up in. However, I also know, through my work experience in the voluntary sector and with statutory organisations that work with young people, that it can be much better.
It is a tragic reality that 22,000 children grow up in poverty in Scotland and that these children are likely to have significantly reduced life expectancies, poorer qualifications and poorer health compared with their peers. The impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms will not help the situation of struggling families in Scotland; instead, it will compound the disadvantage and inequality that already exists. That is why it is so important that this Scottish Government does all that it can to tackle child poverty.
I welcomed this Government’s commitment to provide 600 hours of free nursery education to children in Scotland every year, but I am concerned that that has still not been delivered. It is no longer enough to pay lip service to the needs of children and families. It is now imperative that the Government delivers on its promises and supports those families who are least able to provide financially for their children.
Barnardo’s Scotland has been working to highlight the difficulties that are faced by children and young people who are leaving the care system for the first time. It has campaigned for a range of resources to support those in that situation, who have no immediate family of their own.
As Barnardo’s has recognised, the voluntary sector plays a crucial role in providing that necessary support but, all too often, charities are restricted by a lack of funding and resources. It is incumbent on the Scottish Government to recognise the third sector’s invaluable work and its own responsibility to ensure that those organisations are well supported in delivering for the most vulnerable young people.
Both Barnardo’s and Save the Children acknowledge that there are severe educational and health inequalities between children who are in poverty and those who are not. According to Save the Children, children brought up in poverty are three times more likely to suffer mental health issues and children from deprived areas are twice as likely as their peers to be unemployed after they leave school.
Poverty is clearly the biggest issue that our children can face and it falls upon us to tackle its root causes. I am determined that no future generations should have to grow up the way so many of today’s children grow up, and I strongly believe that this Government should do all it can to limit and ultimately end the disadvantage and inequality that many children in Scotland face.
15:51
As members have already pointed out, making Scotland the best place in the world for children to grow up is a tall order but, as the Deputy First Minister said last week, it can be one of the “prizes of independence”. A good many initiatives that are already under way and about which members have offered some detail are taking us towards that goal; in my speech, I will re-emphasise some of them and share with the chamber a glimpse of what life can be like for some of our children who live in my Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley constituency.
To start with, I think that we should contrast our efforts in Scotland with what the UK Government is about to do with its welfare reform agenda. Here, we are shifting much of our focus towards the early years, early interventions and preventative spending and so far the results are encouraging. The £270 million investment in the early years and early intervention will help communities that need help and, through our partnership with the health boards, the councils and the voluntary sector, we are beginning to put together teams of people who not only have the right skills but who actually care about getting it right for every child and will work tirelessly to achieve that.
In just over 10 years, child poverty levels in Scotland have dropped substantially from 28 per cent to about 17 per cent; although that is still too high, it is heading in the right direction. However, child poverty levels are much higher in my constituency and the Scottish Government’s measures will help—they have to. There has also been a significant improvement in the number of mothers giving up alcohol during their pregnancies, and satisfaction rates with health visitors are very high at more than 80 per cent.
We should contrast such measures with the UK Government’s imminent welfare reforms which, as colleagues have already pointed out, could condemn another 50,000 children in Scotland to poverty over the next few years. Those reforms must be one of the most disgraceful attacks on the poorest in society since the poll tax; there is not even a counterbalancing policy that targets the £2.5 billion savings that will be made on tackling anything else. It is a blatant attack on the poor to bail out a failing and financially downgraded Government and will hang around the necks of the Tories for years to come.
Notwithstanding his comments, does Mr Coffey not accept that one aspect of the need for welfare reform that has been accepted across this Parliament is that the current system is far too weighted towards those who are out of work and that there is an incentive to be out of rather than in work, which is actually more damaging to children?
I hear what the member has said, but how on earth does the bedroom tax solve that and lift people out of poverty? It puts more people into poverty.
The proposed children and young people bill will provide 600 hours of free early learning and childcare support to three and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds. That is a big increase on what was already in place and will mean that, on average, these youngsters will get about two to three hours of quality support every day of their young lives. Researchers tell us that, during the first three years, a youngster’s brain growth is 75 per cent complete and by the age of three 50 per cent of our language is already in place. That is why it is so important to intervene positively in those early years, and for parents to read and talk to their children as often as possible.
The 600 hours are a wonderful opportunity for parents and youngsters, but we must also do what we can to ensure that parents take up their entitlement and use it. Offering a service is one thing, but helping parents and making it easier for them to take up the service can also be a challenge. Through the various initiatives we must look for ways to support vulnerable families and build capacity in whoever the main carers are.
I want to share a few thoughts on poverty in my constituency. From time to time over the years, I am sure that we have all noticed that some kids at school rarely, if ever, go on school trips with the rest of the children. Even on short trips to the museums in Glasgow, the safari park at Stirling or Edinburgh zoo, it is the same kids who are always missing and never have that experience. Going to another country on a trip with the school is no more than a dream for some of Scotland’s children, because their parents cannot afford even a modest contribution towards a day trip and certainly cannot afford to pay for a trip to another country.
I know some children who are now 15 years old and who have still to set foot out of the town that they live in. That cannot be right in this day and age. Those youngsters stay silent about the issue, and so do their parents, but we all know the reason why. If we are tackling poverty and Scotland is to become the best place to grow up, I hope that we can do something about that issue. It can last from the first day a child goes to school right through to sixth year. No youngster should be excluded in that way. Our schools do what they can, but even in these very tight economic times I ask the ministerial team whether there is anything that can be done to offer a glimmer of hope to those families.
Lastly, members can surely see that we can do much more for our children if we are not hampered by a Government in London whose only mantra is to cut budgets and make savings from its citizens. If there was only one reason to back independence, then this is surely it. The United Nations Children’s Fund said that the mark of a nation’s standing is how it treats its children. Let us strive to be that nation and lift all Scotland’s children out of poverty.
We move to closing speeches.
15:57
The debate has been interesting and generally constructive. It has ranged widely, and members across the chamber have had a chance to develop their thoughts on how we ensure that Scotland is the best place to grow up. There were very thoughtful contributions, notably from Malcolm Chisholm, Dennis Robertson and Mark Griffin, who is demonstrating himself to be more than just a half useful footballing centre-half.
However, I am bound to say that the debate has also provided further evidence as to why delaying the referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future for three and a half years is in no one’s interest, quite probably not even the Scottish National Party’s, although that concerns me less. When one considers the remarkable assertion by the Deputy First Minister that separating Scotland from the rest of the UK would help bring about an end to our child poverty, it is astonishing—as Drew Smith observed—that the SNP appears so reluctant to just crack on. The details of how Ms Sturgeon believes that would be achieved and what the costs would be are frustratingly vague—in fact, they are fairly non-existent—but the problem with that approach is that it risks distracting the attention of ministers and the Parliament away from the task of using the powers that they and we have to make a real difference.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am not going to give way.
To be fair, Aileen Campbell generally tried to steer clear of that divisive approach and justifiably outlined many of the things that the Government is doing. In my own remarks I touched on nursery provision and the support that we provide to those leaving the care system, and I will return to those issues shortly.
First, let me reflect on some of the points that have been made by members during the debate. Understandably, a key theme was poverty and the impact that it can have on the life chances and experiences of children and young people in Scotland. That is self-evidently the case. A number of members noted the decrease in the rate of child poverty in recent times and, although Bob Doris will take satisfaction from knowing that I did not agree with an awful lot of what he said, his observation on having a competitive race to see who can improve the situation the fastest is a salient one.
Malcolm Chisholm and others referred to the parenting strategy, which is an important strategy that the Government is taking forward. It requires a delicate balance between focusing on early intervention and the support that we provide, and emphasising individual and collective responsibilities.
Liz Smith and a couple of other members referred to the voluntary sector’s importance. The minister intervened to make the point about a more joined-up policy approach there, which is fair. However, one of the themes that are coming through the evidence that the Education and Culture Committee is taking is that there is a need for the voluntary sector to be more involved in strategic commissioning. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
The Tory amendment makes a helpful point about the importance of health visitors. I might have a reservation that the amendment glosses over the importance of a joined-up approach from the social, education and health frameworks, but there are important points in it.
I do not think that it was fair of Jamie Hepburn to suggest that the Labour amendment implies that no advances have been made. Each of the Labour speakers has been prepared to acknowledge where progress has been made, while laying emphasis on where we all believe that further progress is needed.
In both those amendments and, indeed, the Liberal Democrat amendment, there is a focus and emphasis on early intervention. Adam Ingram, in absentia, has been given some credit for his efforts in developing a collaborative and integrated approach, although we should not treat 2007 as somehow being year zero.
On the Liberal Democrat amendment, as I pointed out earlier, all the evidence suggests that by the age of three children in poverty lag a full year behind their better-off peers. That gap is rarely closed, which is why Scottish Liberal Democrats—with the support of members across the chamber—have long argued that Scottish ministers should look to extend free nursery provision to two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland. I appreciate that the fact that the coalition Government is making that provision to 40 per cent of two-year-olds south of the border is inconvenient to the Scottish Government’s narrative, and I recognise that family nurse partnerships provide valuable support to many of those families, but it should not be a question of either/or. I hope that the Government will rethink its opposition and use the children and young people bill as an opportunity to extend such provision to two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Another area in which I have already highlighted that the Government’s bill can make a difference is the support that is provided to care leavers. None of us would dare suggest that, as things stand, Scotland comes close to being the best place to grow up for many of our children and young people. The outcomes for that group remain desperately poor: only around 2.5 per cent of care leavers make it through tertiary education and 25 per cent of the prison population has been through the care system at one time or another. Tackling that scandalous situation will require many things, including improvements in the way in which children and young people come into the care system in the first instance, which the Education and Culture Committee is currently looking at.
At the other end, we need to provide better support for those who leave the care system. As Aberlour Child Care Trust and Barnardo’s point out, present arrangements fall significantly short of what would be expected of birth parents. That is not the fault of any individual or Government, but we all need to face up to it. It is not acceptable, in terms of our corporate parenting role.
There is agreement on the aspiration to make Scotland the best place to grow up. There is agreement, too, on many of the areas where we need improvement. I hope that the consensus that has just about survived this afternoon’s constitutional bickering will help us achieve it.
Thank you. I remind members to use full names in the debate.
16:03
The motion for the debate speaks of an aspiration
“to make Scotland the best place in the world for children to grow up”.
Let me try to bring a smile to Mr Russell’s face. If I were a querulous polemicist of dyspeptic demeanour, I might observe that the motion implies that Scotland is not already the best place for children to grow up—indeed, Mark Griffin and Dennis Robertson alluded to that aspect. That implication would be unfortunate, because I, like many others in the chamber, grew up in Scotland and I could not have grown up in a better place or had a better upbringing. That is not the same as saying that I am well brought up—an assertion with which many would take issue, I am sure.
If the motion exhorts us to do better, so that more children can enjoy what many of us were fortunate enough to enjoy, that is an entirely worthy aspiration that I whole-heartedly support, as, it is clear, do other members across the chamber. There have been some notably thoughtful contributions.
The unpalatable truth is that too many young people in Scotland do not get the start that they need, the stability to which they are entitled or the supportive love that is so essential in their lives.
Those are uncomfortable truths, but we need to acknowledge them. The debate has been a welcome opportunity to discuss those issues in a frank and open manner. However, we must recognise how much is already positive in Scotland for young people. The majority of children in Scotland grow up in a loving, secure and stable family environment. Of course, more of those young people need to know the reality of what a loving, secure and stable family environment is. That is why I applaud the increased focus from successive Governments on targeting spending on the earliest years. The importance of early childhood development and the impact of early intervention on determining future health, social wellbeing and educational achievement cannot be overemphasised. Quite rightly, that is seen as a priority.
It is a sad fact that too many children are affected by a background of lack of stability, substance abuse, alcoholism or poor school attendance. Any one of those problems can seriously prejudice a child’s development. Those problems span two or three generations disturbingly often and cannot be solved by the will or policies of one Parliament or one Government. Solutions may come from a variety of sources—some from within politics, others not. I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition in the motion of the role of the third sector. Aileen Campbell referred to the collaborative approach that is already being adopted.
I will consider some of the issues that have arisen and some possible solutions. Health visitors are people close to my heart. We cannot underestimate the role that those professionals perform in their significant contribution to the health and wellbeing of families and communities across Scotland, which is why Liz Smith lodged her amendment. I remember visiting a health centre in a part of Glasgow facing many challenges, where one of the GPs eloquently described how a health visitor could both gain the confidence of and enter a household into which that GP might not be invited. The GP was clear about the twin benefits of the health visitor, first, in being seen as a help to the household—not a threat, or part of officialdom—and, secondly, in being able to identify at an early stage any possible cause for concern in the household. The children and young people bill will be a chance for my party to reiterate our commitment to health visiting, which is a vital preventative service in the early years. My party has advocated extending universal health services to all children, with particular emphasis on the first three years.
Many members have referred to parenting. The sad and stark fact is that, in some cases, we have seen three generations where either there has been an ignorance of parenting skills or the parenting role has been fundamentally prejudiced by other issues, such as substance abuse or alcoholism. Instead of seeing an example of good parenting, children have grown up with parental chaos and have had no good model of parenting to adopt and pass on to their children. As members have suggested, even when many new parents want to do their best, they may not have a full understanding of the demands and responsibilities of their new role. Mark McDonald referred to that aspect of parenting. Those problems become more acute when there is no support network of family and friends.
I have long since argued that we need a wholesale review of parenting. To that end I whole-heartedly welcome the publication of the Scottish Government’s national parenting strategy. Charities and voluntary groups have a vital role to play, and it is good to see that recognised in the motion. I have previously referred in the chamber to street stuff, which is a project in my area that I think George Adam is familiar with. It does fantastic work with young people who come from very challenged backgrounds.
Another important area is the particular and significant problems facing children in care, to which Liam McArthur referred. I am delighted about the renewed focus on GIRFEC; the philosophy underpinning it is admirable.
We must also support and encourage young carers themselves. Those committed and brave young people are doing a wonderful job. It is all too easy for them to slip off the radar screen. We have heard reference to childcare. My party would extend free childcare provision to all two-year-olds, starting with the most deprived. It is also important that we bring more flexibility to the provision of childcare. We need hours that suit the parent; that would be an enormous help to many parents, particularly women, and would give them the opportunity to re-enter the workplace.
It has been a helpful debate, which has highlighted a number of interesting ideas. We all want to do more to ensure that all children in Scotland can enjoy at first hand the experience of this being a great place to grow up.
16:10
In opening the debate, the Minister for Children and Young People referred to the Scottish Government’s ambition that Scotland should become a great place to grow up for every child. Like members across the chamber, Labour members have made clear that we share the minister’s aspiration and welcome those initiatives that play a part in transforming the rhetoric in this chamber into realities in our communities, including the lived reality for children in every part of Scotland.
In his opening remarks, Neil Bibby said that there was a consensus across the parties on the main points of substance. At times, we heard that consensus, particularly in the speeches of Malcolm Chisholm, Dennis Robertson, Mark Griffin and Willie Coffey. Although we disagree on the constitutional points, I thought that Mr Coffey made a series of important points, particularly about the experience in his constituency.
In order for Scotland to be a great place to grow up, Scotland must become a better place to raise a family. Too many parents are struggling to find work to provide for their families. Those parents need access to appropriate education and training—that includes places at college—to maximise their opportunities. Malcolm Chisholm was absolutely right that, for those in work, we need to ensure that work pays and is of a decent quality. Public transport is also important for getting there. Perhaps most important of all, we need to provide for every family in Scotland access to high-quality flexible and affordable childcare.
Those supports for families are vital to improving the chances of all our children. There is no trade-off between a focus on children and children’s services and all the other policies that support the good society. Labour’s amendment and our contributions today have sought to make that clear by including an explicit reference to health and, crucially, housing as well as education. It is important to note that our amendment would delete nothing but seeks simply to add that emphasis.
In moving our amendment, my colleague Neil Bibby made it clear that Labour also believes that our focus must genuinely be on the life chances of every young Scot. For the children that Mr Bibby and Mr Adam represent in Ferguslie Park in Paisley, for the children whom I know Anne McTaggart spends time with in Drumchapel and for the children that Mr Doris and I represent in Glasgow—for all of those children across Scotland—our focus must be on their life chances. We must recognise that the support that is required to make a difference will not be the same in every part of town or even for every family living on the same street.
We also know that the inequalities that children face because of the financial circumstances of their parents are increased when a child is looked after by another family member or by the state. For children with disabilities or for children in families where someone else experiences a disability, a health problem or—as Annabel Goldie and Mark McDonald quite rightly reminded us—an addiction issue, the challenges of life are greatest. Those children are in need of support that targets their specific needs.
Labour’s amendment also makes reference to two specific reports, which we were disappointed were not highlighted by the Scottish Government. The first of those is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report “Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Scotland 2013”, which highlights the 14-year life expectancy gap between a child from a poor home in my region and that of a child born to a more affluent family. I attended the launch of that report in Glasgow, and Scottish Labour has tried to use the opportunity of today’s debate to remind ministers of the JRF’s clear conclusion that children in poverty should not have to wait for independence, which was mentioned as the solution by some SNP members—I think that George Adam even described it as the only solution to child poverty.
Does the member seriously contend that Scotland not having control of welfare or the taxation regime is compatible with removing child poverty?
I will interpret that as Mark McDonald agreeing with George Adam that the only solution to child poverty is constitutional change. That will be disappointing to those outside the chamber who are following the debate. I will come in a moment to the actions and the difference that a Labour Executive in Scotland was able to make.
The second report to which we seek to draw the Parliament’s attention is the map of child poverty in Scotland, which was published even more recently by End Child Poverty. That shows that one in five children across Scotland lives in poverty.
As Neil Bibby indicated, we will support the Scottish Government’s motion at decision time, but in our view it is remiss for it not to cover the issues of poverty. Although we may have provoked a boisterous reaction from some SNP back benchers, I think that we have succeeded in putting the issues of poverty into the debate.
As Neil Bibby said, we will welcome the actions of the Scottish Government where we can, but we will perform our role as an Opposition group by challenging the Government wherever it could do more. On getting it right for every child, we have argued that more needs to be done to ensure that that is genuinely happening in every local authority, town hall and school across the country. I know that the minister shares that ambition.
We on this side thought that there was too large an element of self-congratulation in the motion, which seasoned observers of the Scottish National Party will have no doubt been shocked to see. The Government talks about the pace of change. We on this side are not reticent about reminding ministers of our record, which was to introduce free entitlement to early education way back in 1997, just months after winning an election. After six years of the SNP in power, parents are still waiting for those 600 hours of provision. The reality is that too many of Scotland’s children will have grown up in the time that it takes the SNP to deliver on the promises that it has made.
The Scottish Government is fond of measuring itself against England; indeed, comparisons with the Tories are the SNP’s favourite measure of social progress—although, on this side, being less bad than the Tories is the least that we expect of the Scottish Government. However, it is its boasts in relation to two-year-olds that ring the most hollow. I think that all the Opposition parties made that point.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Labour members have sought to contrast rhetoric with reality. We have no problem judging ourselves against the same standard that we ask of the Scottish Government. In the past week, Nicola Sturgeon has claimed that, in an independent Scotland, child poverty will be not only abolished, but banned by the constitution. On this side, we represent the party that legislated to abolish child poverty. Achieving that aim has not come from an act of Parliament, but progress has flowed from the policies that we used the machinery of Government to pursue. The previous Labour Government lifted 600,000 children across Britain out of poverty and gave them a chance in life. I say to Mark McDonald that it was through the previous Scottish Executive working with and in the UK that child poverty was reduced further and faster than in any other part of the country. That is exactly the type of competition that Bob Doris seemed to be calling for.
Enshrining progressive ideas in law is not a bad idea, as long as the record matches the rhetoric spouted. Irrespective of the pressures facing families in my city or in any other part of Scotland, child poverty figures have flatlined recently. That is not all the SNP’s fault—I never said that it was. It is also not the result of coming welfare reform changes—the Government’s record cannot be the result of changes that are only now coming in. However, that flatlining is happening on the SNP’s watch, which is why we must test the Government’s rhetoric against the reality outside the chamber. I therefore urge members to support Neil Bibby’s amendment.
16:17
We were doing so well until Drew Smith spoke. Unfortunately, the debate sank back into what I suppose I would call a McArthurite approach to the constitution—given what we heard on that from Liam McArthur. I want to see if we can avoid getting into those matters because there are so many things that we could and should agree on.
Let me start with an assertion that perhaps even my worst enemies—some of them are in the chamber, apparently, judging by the noise—
Never.
I am glad to hear that Jackie Baillie is not one of my worst enemies; she would be doing well if she could spread that kindness and enlightenment to the Labour front benches.
The Scottish National Party—individually, collectively, up, down and round about—is against poverty. We are against child poverty and all forms of poverty. We are in favour of equality. We are working for that type of Scotland. We are, indeed, working to have Scotland as the best place to grow up. I think that Labour members and almost every other member believes the same things—that we are against child poverty, that we want to see better services for children, and that we want to have that country that is the best place to grow up. I do not believe that members on the Labour front or back benches support the bedroom tax. I know that they want to, in the words of Neil Bibby, bin it. We all want to bin it.
Therefore, the debate is about means, not ends, because we are agreed on the ends. The means by which we achieve those ends are what we must examine. There have been some very good and positive speeches in that regard. Mark Griffin’s speech was very much worth listening to. In essence, he took us to the heart of the matter. The definition of the best country to grow up in is generic as well as particular—it is to do with families and communities, how we are treated, one to another, and the geography in which we live. We should all be concerned that a lottery with regard to poverty and community remains. He was entirely right to remind us about that. Nobody would disagree with it.
Annabel Goldie also made that point, although I will go on in a moment to say how profoundly I disagree with some of the things that her party represents. Dennis Robertson used a particularly good word to describe it: wonderful. The concept of wonder while a child is growing up, excitement, discovery and awe—all those are things that we should encourage, feel excited by and seek to inculcate in others.
Anne McTaggart’s speech was interesting, too. I think that she wanted to have a positive view of what was taking place this afternoon but was dragged down by the politics of the occasion. She asked what the Scottish Government has done—Mr Henry, as usual, is sneering; I cannot do anything about that although I regret it, because the issue is serious and we could and should debate it seriously.
The Scottish Government has contributed £272 million in the early years change fund and £20 million in the early intervention fund. It match funded the Scottish Television and Hunter Foundation child poverty appeal in 2012. It is spending more than £250 million on fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes in 2012-13 and 2014-15. Since 2009, it has invested £2.74 million in innovative advice projects that have generated more than £29 million in financial gains for more than 100,000 households.
We could do more. Everybody could do more. Labour could have done more when it was in power. We could all do more, but we can work together and acknowledge what is happening. There is a shared aim, which is to help our young people and to get rid of poverty. However, the means question will always detain us in Scotland.
Mr Chisholm and I have been around a long time. We have been through many organisations, such as constitutional organisations that fought for change in Scotland. I feel that we have always butted up against a problem. That problem is that, no matter how much we want to do in Scotland, the argument in the end becomes that we cannot do it because we do not have the powers, but we should just wait until there is a different Government at Westminster. I have stood on platforms in Scotland and heard that said. I have seen genuine people, such as Mr Chisholm, say that it is better to wait for a different Government at Westminster because what we want to do will come along.
What do we see today? The figures are stark and I have to say that Annabel Goldie is wrong, because there will be an increase in child poverty in Scotland. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms that there will be an increase in child poverty. Although, as she said, the long-term effect of universal credit may be to reduce relative poverty, when other changes such as the switch from the retail prices index and the indexation of means-tested benefits are introduced, they more than offset that impact.
We will see, as a result of Westminster Government policies, an increase in child poverty in Scotland. We need to have all the tools at our disposal to deal with that.
Anne McTaggart called upon us to tackle the root causes. I entirely agree—we must tackle the root causes—but to do that we need all the tools and implements to get at the root. If we do not have those tools and implements, we cannot get at the root.
It is a matter of means and ends. If we are united on the end that we really want to see—and we are united, if we strip out the argy-bargy of politics and the sneering—that unity should drive us towards an inevitable conclusion, which is that, at the very least, the real powers in respect of tax and benefits must be decided upon in Scotland. If our aim is to have a more equal society in Scotland, which it should be, and if our aim is to eliminate poverty in Scotland, which it should be, we need those tools.
Members cannot casually dismiss the idea that there is no connection between the constitutional question and progress on those matters. They must look at it head on. Members can come to the conclusion—I am sure that they can—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I would like to finish this point.
Members can come to the conclusion that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. That is a legitimate point of view, although I disagree with it, and we should debate it positively. However, they should look at the issue directly; they should not glance away from it, because it exists.
The motion talks about quickening the pace of change and high-quality, flexible early learning and childcare. Right across the chamber, we believe that those are the right things to do. Of course it is the role of the Opposition to say that we are not going far enough or fast enough or that they can think of better ways to do it. I have been in that position; I have been in opposition. However, today we should unite on what our ends are: they are about having the country that is the best place to grow up in.
We should acknowledge the successes. GIRFEC was not invented by this Government. One of the most profound experiences that I had when I became education secretary was to go to Fort William and see a family centre in the Highland pilot for GIRFEC that was doing a remarkable job for the hardest-to-reach young people. All those things can unite us.
Unfortunately, in the country that we live in, we sometimes get absorbed in the minutiae. The amendments to the motion show how that can often go wrong. Instead of unifying us, all three amendments find something to divide us. They say, “My idea is better than your idea”; “Bring a bigger bit of money to the table, which you should spend in this way”; and “Why aren’t you doing enough?”
That is a legitimate question.
You are in your final minute.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The right way to tackle the issue is to say that we agree on the ends and want to succeed in achieving them. Therefore, I ask members to support the motion. Let us try to do it, instead of wasting our time on other, much less important things.