Child Poverty Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5267, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Child Poverty Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
This is a very welcome opportunity to set out the Government's position on this legislative consent motion, which the Local Government and Communities Committee considered and supported last month. The motion seeks parliamentary approval for the UK Parliament to apply to Scotland provisions in part 1 of the UK Child Poverty Bill. I hope that members will agree to the motion today, as it reflects this Government's commitment, which I know is shared across the chamber, to eradicating child poverty in Scotland.
However, we will not support Mary Mulligan's amendment. To do so would commit us to imposing new and, in my view, bureaucratic duties on local government that would not assist in any meaningful way in the fight against child poverty. Imposing on local government such bureaucratic and burdensome duties would not only contradict the spirit and letter of the concordat with local government but unhelpfully divert the attention of councils and local partners from the vital task of delivering action to tackle child poverty and its causes. That is exactly what we sought to avoid in deciding not to extend part 2 of the bill to Scotland.
We also think that imposing such duties on local government is unnecessary, given that, as all members of the chamber are very well aware, we have a new and better way of working with local government in Scotland that delivers better outcomes. As a result, I do not believe that duties that might well be appropriate in other parts of UK are appropriate in a Scottish context.
Local authorities have already been asked to prioritise our key social policy frameworks on poverty and inequality, the early years and health inequalities. Each and every one of those policies clearly has at its heart child poverty and its eradication. This Government is also committed to working with community planning partnerships to deliver against those objectives, and we believe that local decision makers should be allowed to determine and act on their priorities in the context of the overarching frameworks to tackle poverty and inequality. That is my response to Mary Mulligan's amendment.
That said, I hope and believe that by defining and setting in legislation targets for eradicating child poverty the bill as a whole will help to drive progress on the issue not just in Scotland but across the UK. The targets are UK-wide and measure different aspects of child poverty to ensure a robust account of progress.
The bill will commit Governments to developing strategies and reporting on progress in that respect. The intention is to ensure that the definition of success is as clear as possible, that the UK child poverty targets are future-proofed and that we remain absolutely focused on the measures that are needed to meet them.
The particular provisions in part 1 that relate to Scotland and which require legislative consent place strategic duties on the Scottish ministers. The motion seeks the Parliament's agreement to those duties, which legally bind the Scottish ministers to producing a Scottish child poverty strategy within the first year of the bill becoming law and revised strategies every three years thereafter. The strategies must set out the measures that Scottish ministers propose to take to contribute towards the targets and, more broadly, to ensure that, as far as possible, children in Scotland do not experience socioeconomic disadvantage.
In developing the Government's child poverty strategies, we will be bound to consulting widely and working closely with a range of partners including local government, the third sector and wider society. Naturally, we will reflect the role of relevant delivery partners within those strategies. We already have a good basis for our strategies in our frameworks on poverty, health inequalities and the early years. Those were developed closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—they are joint frameworks—and the third sector. The frameworks demonstrate how those partners are fully committed to working with us to tackle child poverty and its causes.
We fully expect that future child poverty strategies will be developed in the same way, by building on the close, positive links that the Government enjoys with its partners. That is the best way to approach what everyone agrees is a formidable but important task. We are committed to reporting annually on our progress against the strategies.
The provisions will help us to strengthen our efforts, and will galvanise our commitment to working across borders to tackle child poverty. I ask Parliament to support the legislative consent motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Child Poverty Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 11 June 2009 to make provision within the legislative competence of the Parliament and to alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers in respect of the duties to develop and lay a Scottish strategy to eradicate child poverty before the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
I start on a positive note and commend the Scottish Government on moving the legislative consent motion. All members of this Parliament recognise the need to act if all children are to be taken out of poverty. I also welcome the amendment to the bill that the Scottish Government supports and which will ensure that any future Scottish Government reports annually to the Parliament on progress on reducing child poverty. That sensible measure will show whether the actions that are being pursued are helping us to reach the targets.
Having started on a positive note, it is with regret, as my amendment says, that we note that the Scottish Government does not intend to place similar duties on local authorities. Because of the services that they and their community planning partners provide, local authorities have a central role to play in eradicating child poverty. Indeed, much has been made of the partnership between the Scottish Government and local authorities—how often do we hear mention of the historic concordat? However, on an issue as important as child poverty, the Scottish Government does not recognise the local authority partnership role. It is simply not logical for local government in Scotland to be the only part of government in the UK not to have a statutory duty.
When the cabinet secretary attended the Local Government and Communities Committee, she justified the situation by saying that the single outcome agreements would show how local government was addressing child poverty; she has repeated that this afternoon. So let us look at the SOAs.
Members of the campaign to end child poverty provided a helpful briefing for MSPs that analysed the 2009 SOAs, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will have studied that briefing. I will give two statistics: 20 SOAs set local outcomes to reduce poverty or deprivation, which means that 12 did not; but only two SOAs set local outcomes specifically to reduce the number of children who are living in poverty. Even the cabinet secretary must accept that that is not good enough.
I suspect that the cabinet secretary will say that work to eradicate poverty, and child poverty in particular, is implicit rather than explicit in the SOAs. Although we could continue to debate that, that misses the point. Local authorities and CPPs need to play their part in the eradication of child poverty and, at present, we cannot tell from the SOAs whether they are being successful.
Today, we have the opportunity to propose a way forward that would see all arms of government working together to deliver the elimination of child poverty. I understand that the concordat was about working together but in practice it appears to have delivered inertia. Are we really saying that local authorities are not serious about tackling child poverty?
The amendment in my name is, I think, conciliatory, so I hope that members across the chamber who are serious about ending child poverty will support it. It offers the Scottish Government an opportunity to review the SOAs and when, like many of us, it sees that they are not focused enough to tackle child poverty, it can return to Parliament with plans to bind its local authority partners into the process. Targets will not be met without local authority partners taking up their role. I encourage the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to be bold and accept Labour's amendment to ensure that all children are removed from living in poverty by 2020 at the latest.
I move amendment S3M-5267.1, to insert at end:
"and, in so doing, regrets that the Scottish Government will not be placing a duty on local authorities to meet the agreed targets for reducing child poverty, given their partnership role in tackling child poverty, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to review the single outcome agreements currently available to ascertain whether local authorities have developed a child poverty strategy that will contribute to Scottish and UK targets aimed at abolishing child poverty and, if not, to return to the Scottish Parliament with a proposal to place a duty on local authorities to do so."
I bow to no one in my disdain for the so-called historic concordat and the white-flag capitulation by COSLA to the Scottish National Party Government, which disgraces the name and reputation of an organisation that once prided itself on its independence of thought and action. In today's Scotland, voices that were formerly fearless have been publicly silenced and the discussions between Government and our councils are no longer a matter for public debate but for mutterings in private meetings, of which we are told nothing. So much for transparency and accountability.
We were told that the historic concordat was a great victory for local government, expanding its freedom of action and ending ring fencing. Of course, that is a nonsense, because ring fencing has been replaced by the straitjacket of alignment—the new COSLA-SNP buzzword—which is just a euphemism for councils doing what they are telt by Mr Swinney.
This is a theme upon which I could expand at considerable length, and I would be happy to do so in a debate about the relationships between central Government and our councils and the principles on which those relationships should be based. As it happens, my colleagues and I are not in favour of ring fencing, any more than we are in favour of councils abdicating their powers for illusory freedoms or signing up to a policy programme dictated by national Government on matters where there should be plenty of scope for local discretion.
Equally, I do not believe in placing statutory duties on councils in matters for which they do not bear the prime responsibility, which is undoubtedly the case in respect of child poverty; nor do I believe in placing on them statutory duties that are difficult to interpret or enforce. Accordingly, I do not agree with the principle behind Mary Mulligan's amendment, although what is the most efficacious method of tackling child poverty in this country is a matter for genuine debate. The subject of the relationships between the Government and councils is a far bigger one that transcends even that of child poverty, and it needs longer and more thorough debate and examination than is possible in a 20-minute debate on a legislative consent motion. For that reason, the Conservatives will vote against the Labour amendment and for the main motion, should the amendment fall.
I make it clear at the outset that Liberal Democrats are very clear in their support for the purpose and intent of the Child Poverty Bill, which is passing through the Westminster Parliament. To that extent, we are content that the legislative consent motion has appeared before this Parliament and very content that part 1 of the bill places on Scottish ministers a series of duties and obligations that we believe have a bearing on tackling child poverty.
I found myself much in agreement with David McLetchie's remarks. Indeed, I was sorry that time constraints prevented us from hearing him warm to the task, as he obviously would have done—what a pity and what a sadness that, on a dull and gloomy Wednesday afternoon, we have been deprived of that pleasure. As Liberal Democrats, we certainly do not believe that the solution to problems of child poverty is to place duties on local authorities—we share that view—and we are therefore unable to support Mary Mulligan's amendment.
The major issue is tackling child poverty, but another issue has arisen for the Parliament. There is no doubt that the document prepared by the campaign to end child poverty on the singular failures that it has found in the 2009 single outcome agreements raises matters that need to be addressed. It is clear that the SOAs are not resulting in the outcomes that we all want to see. The cabinet secretary must address those matters. However, like David McLetchie, I believe that a 20-minute debate on a legislative consent motion is not the appropriate way to tackle that issue or give it the attention that it deserves.
I am bound to say that I am concerned that the campaign's comprehensive report confirms my view that the way in which SOAs have been drafted has resulted in the production of horrible statements about making progress that do not make clear when, where, how and to what purpose progress will be made.
Liberal Democrats are quite clear that the Child Poverty Bill in the Westminster Parliament deserves support. The imposition of duties on the Scottish ministers will be helpful. We will support the legislative consent motion, but we will not support the amendment in Mary Mulligan's name.
I thank everyone who spoke in this short debate. Mary Mulligan said that she wanted to be conciliatory; I take that at face value and will respond in kind. I know that in the Parliament we have a shared objective. Rare though this might be, we have absolute unity of purpose in that we want child poverty to be eradicated and we want to be assured that all steps are being taken that can be taken to make sure that that happens. I acknowledge the sincerity of the comments of all members who spoke in the debate.
In many respects, the debate is about not substance but process. It is about not whether we want to eradicate child poverty but how we best going about doing so.
Does the minister agree with what David McLetchie said about the requirement for a debate on the principle of the matter, particularly given that the amount of money that is available will change, before we get down to the process that we are debating?
In general terms, I do not disagree with the member. I am always in favour of more rather than less debate on such issues. However, we are dealing today with a specific legislative consent motion, which I hope that the Parliament will back.
I say to Mary Mulligan that it is not true that local government is not recognised as a delivery partner—[Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, cabinet secretary. Will members who are coming into the chamber please keep quiet? A debate is going on.
It is simply the case that because of the concordat and the single outcome agreements we do not require to place statutory duties on local government in the way that is required in other parts of the United Kingdom. COSLA is a key partner of the Government in the drive to eradicate child poverty, as is evidenced by COSLA's co-authorship of the poverty strategy, the health inequalities strategy and the early years strategy. COSLA agrees with the Scottish Government's approach to the Child Poverty Bill.
It is not fair to say that 12 single outcome agreements have nothing to say on poverty. The truth is that single outcome agreements deal with reducing poverty in a range of ways. For example, some focus on increasing uptake of benefits and others focus on increasing employment opportunities. All single outcome agreements have that key objective.
We will not support Mary Mulligan's amendment, because we do not think that it is a matter of regret that we have chosen not to place duties on local government in this regard. We think that our reasons for making that decision are the right ones.
I end on a conciliatory note. We will keep under review all our approaches in this area. Indeed, under the duties that we are about to impose on the Scottish Government we will be required to keep those approaches under review. We will do that with a view to ensuring that our approaches are having the desired effect. Although we cannot agree on the precise wording of the motion, I hope that in spirit and in principle not too much divides us. I ask members to support the legislative consent motion.