Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses. Thank you for your time.

I get the point about inflation and the real living wage, and the challenges that they bring. Is there anything that you would like to highlight about those challenges?

Good morning. On the back of Mr O’Kane’s questions, what engagement have you had with, for example, Scottish Women’s Aid, which raised concerns about the fact that the equally safe framework did not align with the bill and other issues, such as victims not being notified of perpetrators being released from prison and the impact that that has with regard to homelessness?

That was the next question that I was going to ask. Are funders expecting you to provide the real living wage without giving you the funding to do so? Does anyone else have any other examples of that happening?

I am pleased to speak in this debate on the programme for government and the Scottish Government’s commitment to eradicating child poverty. It is essential that that is the single most important objective of the Scottish Government. The First Minister is right to say that the material wealth of a child’s family should not hold them back in a modern and prosperous Scotland, so I welcome the intended approach that he set out yesterday and that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has set out today.

I take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to all the volunteers, charities and advice agencies in my constituency, who are on the front line. They are there, and they are always there, providing support to so many in poverty.

Despite the harsh Westminster welfare regime, the actions of the Scottish Government are making a difference in tackling child poverty. As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I regularly hear from charities, academics and those with lived experience about the positive impact of the Scottish child payment. The Poverty Alliance stated that the Scottish child payment

“is having a demonstrably positive impact at an individual household and family level, with Social Security Scotland processes having made applying for this support both less stigmatising and rooted in human rights.”

The Poverty and Inequality Commission said:

“The Scottish Child Payment is undoubtedly a game changer”.

It also said that the importance to reducing child poverty of

“delivering the Scottish Child Payment and getting cash directly to families cannot be overstated”.

The commission’s view has consistently been that the Scottish child payment is the main contributor to progress in reducing child poverty at the national level.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation gathered evidence in a 4,000-person survey and it found that two people in three felt more financially secure once they received the Scottish child payment. It is a hugely significant policy and one that is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Importantly, however, a lot of experts note that, despite the improvements from the Scottish Government in tackling child poverty, without significant action from the UK Government, we will continue to see children stuck in poverty. That has been made clear by the academic Juliet Stone, who stated:

“The Scottish Child Payment ... is for many families simply acting to offset the consequences of UK-level policies that restrict their incomes—most importantly, the two-child limit and the benefit cap. Fully addressing child poverty in Scotland therefore requires action at a UK level as well as at a national level.”

That really is the elephant in the room. Instead of waiting for the predictable heckling, jeering and relishing of a possible attack on the SNP if targets are not met, I remind all colleagues across the chamber that the targets for reducing child poverty are not the SNP’s alone but targets that were set by our Parliament. They belong to us all. They require us to genuinely contribute to finding solutions and they require both Governments to work together.

Labour MSPs can feel no joy that Tory welfare policy is continuing. Labour’s two-child policy and its abhorrent rape clause are denying children what they need to thrive. Labour MSPs dutifully campaigned for those who were elected and followed the herd, so they should at least have the decency to tell children why they are being denied basic levels of subsistence. How can they say they are serious about eradicating child poverty when they failed at the first hurdle?

The Scottish Government will not shy away from admitting that more can be done. However, without significant action from the UK Government to tackle poverty, our efforts will always be hindered. In ignoring the evidence that is readily available, Labour is failing the first big test of government by ignoring the national scandal of child poverty. That was clear in July, when it suspended the seven Labour MPs who voted to scrap the two-child cap—perhaps the only true socialist parliamentarians left in the party, and they have now been removed.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, one in nine children are affected by the two-child limit, which is more than 1.6 million children. That policy is actively causing deprivation, and every year it pushes more children into poverty. Labour is making the political choice to keep children in poverty while lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses—that is the harsh reality of this matter. Prioritising eradicating child poverty means doing the right thing and scrapping the two-child policy and the benefit cap.

We also need to see an essentials guarantee in universal credit. The Trussell Trust points out that almost half of people claiming universal credit ran out of food in the past month and did not have enough money to buy more. It is clear that universal credit is falling short and is pushing people into food banks.

While the UK Labour Party continues to leave children in poverty and its members argue among themselves, the Scottish Government will get on with protecting children in poverty. We will continue to lead the way in tackling child poverty because, for us, this is not just a policy goal; it is a moral imperative and one that we will remain dedicated to achieving.

Let us push forward on the issue and continue to prioritise eradicating child poverty.

That would be helpful to the committee. Thank you.

It is just about giving people reassurances, though. That is their concern, so we need to reassure them. Time will tell.

Good morning to you and your officials, minister. I want to know your thoughts on the financial and resource estimates in the financial memorandum. Do you think that they are an underestimate of the set-up cost?

Concerns were raised in the two evidence sessions by several stakeholders that the funding required for the disability commissioner could divert funding away from other policies that are aimed at disabled people. You also touched on that in your opening speech. It seems that you think that that is likely to be the case, so can you say more about that?

Absolutely. As you know, a woman is most vulnerable when she is trying to leave. We know the statistics on that. I do not know whether any of my colleagues want to come in on that specific point; we have had a wee bit of discussion on it.

It is really important that we simplify the process. On average, a woman will leave seven times before she finally leaves, so it is about putting in place the means to enable her to move. It is good to see that there is good practice in local authorities. Police and partnerships that deal with violence against women are already working together, but we need to build on that.

The bill provides that social landlords will have to consider whether domestic abuse is a factor in rent arrears cases as part of the social landlord’s pre-action requirement. It has been mentioned that there is a gap in those requirements as, obviously, they do not apply to private landlords. Why is that the case?