Chamber and committees

Thanks. That information was helpful.

Labour promises a new direction, but now we see that what it means is that it will rush in brutal cuts to winter support for pensioners. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that betrayal underlines just how important it is that decisions on winter heating benefits are made here, where our devolved Parliament can listen to vulnerable households and make the right decisions for the people of Scotland?

Absolutely. It could be any one of us in that situation. Parliamentarians need to be mindful of the language that they use.

Disabled people are extremely concerned about the UK Government’s plans for personal independence payment and work capability assessments. Do you have concerns about how those plans will impact the social security budget through the block grant?

Thank you, convener. I know that Mr Doris likes the floor, but other members want to come in.

Cabinet secretary, in the parliamentary debate earlier this week, you and I both called out the use of certain language—the specific word was “handouts”. Worryingly, the two main Opposition leaders used that word. Do you worry that, if people persevere in using that kind of language, that will undermine efforts to increase take-up and will deter folk from claiming?

I was looking to come in on theme 1, but I will come in later on with some general questions.

—to take a new direction, and I urge Labour members to get behind it. Being in poverty makes everything more difficult, and everything good less likely. This budget—

—looks forward with hope to a future—

I take the opportunity to wish you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and everyone at the Parliament a very healthy and happy new year.

I speak in support of measures in the draft budget to tackle child poverty and inequality. Eradicating child poverty is not just the morally right thing to do; in the years that follow, it will be paid back in increased wealth generation from a greater number of skilled and creative young workers, and in savings across public services, from health to policing, given that there are long-term costs to public services associated with child poverty. Children in poverty are more likely to have poorer health outcomes, and children in the lowest-income households are four times more likely to experience mental health issues. It is right, therefore, that we step up to meet the challenge of eradicating child poverty.

Despite its restricted powers, the Scottish Government has kept thousands of children out of poverty by taking considered and significant action, yet we recognise that rates remain too high and that there is a real child and family behind every number. The Scottish Government has, therefore, set out a budget with clear action to tackle child poverty and inequality. In education, the budget will provide £120 million to headteachers to support initiatives that are designed to address the poverty-related attainment gap. The Scottish Government will also work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to expand free school meals to primary 6 and 7 children from low-income families.

The budget will also invest significantly in social security benefits in 2025-26, putting money directly into people’s pockets and ensuring that benefits rise by inflation. As the First Minister put it,

“Some argue that investment in social security is the wrong choice for us to make. But we know that inequality is bad for our health, bad for our communities and bad for our economy”.

That contrasts with the views of Labour and Tory politicians, who apparently believe that providing such vital support amounts to giving handouts. Such stigmatising language has no place in the Parliament or as part of a modern and compassionate social security system. Scrapping the two-child cap; increasing investment in the affordable housing supply programme; investment in breakfast clubs; and the expansion of free school meals will all help to tackle child poverty. Those policies are good for everyone. The Scottish Government’s decision to scrap the two-child cap—an inhumane and cruel policy—has been welcomed by many, including the Fraser of Allander Institute and the Poverty Alliance, and CPAG estimates that abolishing the two-child limit could lift 15,000 children out of poverty.

The Opposition lacks credibility, criticising levels of child poverty while supporting keeping in place the policies that are the biggest drivers of it. To continue with those policies makes children the victims of austerity. In their book “Social Murder? Austerity and Life Expectancy in the UK”, David Walsh and Gerry McCartney of the University of Strathclyde show the astonishing impact that UK Government austerity has had on life expectancy and mortality rates. On Labour and the two-child limit, they say:

“worryingly, the Party has publicly stated that they will not reverse the two-child benefits cap ... —a policy seen in many ways as emblematic of austerity”.

It is clear that Labour is letting the people of Scotland down. Labour in Scotland has no influence, as Labour HQ is not listening one bit to the Labour colleagues who are sitting opposite me in the chamber, not on the two-child policy, not on universal credit, not on the winter fuel payment and certainly not on the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality.

The spectacle of Anas Sarwar’s disingenuous belated call on the Scottish Government to mitigate his own party’s two-child policy illustrates that so well. Maybe Labour’s plan to abstain on the budget shows that it is struggling to articulate a vision for Scotland.

The draft budget is a chance for Labour—

—in which we end child poverty in Scotland.

I want to look at that. There will probably be a reduction in disability capability assessments, but we will see what happens. Obviously, the budget is also burdened by the decisions that we have taken to mitigate Westminster policies such as the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. How much is needed to mitigate those policies? Is there any indication that the UK Government will scrap them, or do you anticipate that that burden on the budget will stay constant?