Chamber and committees

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?

Good morning, minister and officials.

Some respondents to the call for views supported the domestic abuse provisions, but they stated that the existing legislation and strategy—particularly the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” report—must be implemented to make a difference. How are you ensuring that the domestic abuse provisions in the bill can be as effective as possible through a more joined-up approach between the existing legislation and the policy?

I know that you touched on that earlier, but is there anything more that you would like to add?

What provisions does the bill contain in relation to the transfer of tenancies from perpetrators to victims? There is good practice in some authorities. Have previous provisions been enacted yet?

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?

I am pleased to lead our debate on action mesothelioma day for a third year. The issue is of huge importance to my constituents, so I will continue to raise asbestos-related issues and seek truth and justice as often as I can.

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their support in signing my motion. Asbestos campaigners deserve cross-party support, so I call on Labour, Liberal Democrat and Alba members to sign the motion, too.

Mesothelioma is a cancer that is usually caused by exposure to asbestos fibres. I congratulate ActionMeso and all the support groups up and down the country on their efforts in raising awareness of the disease. As part of that, members of the public are encouraged to “Go Blue for Meso”. In that regard, given that the United Kingdom general election will be happening soon, I think that it is just as well that action mesothelioma day will be on 5 July and not before.

I welcome the Clydebank Asbestos Group to the public gallery and thank it for supporting today’s debate. It has been assisting asbestos victims for more than 30 years and has campaigned tirelessly for truth and justice. It is there, and it is always there for my constituents at their time of greatest need. I thank the group for everything that it does, and I cannot stress enough that I am on its side.

Unfortunately, since our previous meso debate, two members of the group who were instrumental in the tenacious fight for truth and justice—Bob Dickie and Hope Robertson—have passed. I thank all the MSPs who signed my recent Scottish Parliament motion paying tribute to them. It was an honour to present copies of the motion to the families on international workers memorial day.

Sadly, just this month, Bob Dickie’s wife, Isabel, also passed away. I know that the Clydebank Asbestos Group was heartbroken by that news, and I am, too. I knew Isabel well, and although Bob is famous for his role as Clydebank convener during the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in, it was no surprise to read recently in the book “Crisis on the Clyde” by Jack McGill about Isabel making up the pay packets for the workers with money from the fighting fund.

It is right that I, as the MSP for Clydebank and Milngavie, highlight industry on the Clyde as part of this debate, because the unwanted legacy of Clydebank’s industrial heritage is extremely high levels of mesothelioma in our town. Clydebank was once described as the mesothelioma capital of Europe due to its having the highest death rates. More recently, Health and Safety Executive statistics showed that the local government area that covers Clydebank has the second highest male mesothelioma death rate in the United Kingdom, and it also has the highest female mesothelioma death rate in Scotland and the fourth highest in the UK.

John Brown & Company’s shipyard, the Singer sewing machine factory and Turners Asbestos Cement Company employed many folks from our town. Unfortunately, those industries prioritised profit and production over the safety and welfare of workers. The testimonies from workers at the asbestos factory in the book “Lethal Work: A History of the Asbestos Tragedy in Scotland” by Ronald Johnston and Arthur McIvor make horrendous reading, with one worker noting:

“When you went in the door of Turners asbestos there was a Factory Act with all the stuff. The only problem was that you couldnae see through it with the layer of asbestos cement on the glass”.

The risk to workers’ families is clear, too, with the wife of one of the workers saying, about asbestos dust:

“I used tae take his overalls and take them out tae the stairs and brush them before I could wash them”.

The irony of a national health service hospital now being located on the site of the old asbestos factory is not lost on my Clydebank constituents. It is no wonder that I support the Scottish Hazards group’s call for the devolution of health and safety law as, even now, the legislation needs to be strengthened.

We need to respond to the crime of asbestos exposure in several ways. Cancer Research points out that only four in 10 people who are diagnosed with mesothelioma in Scotland survive their disease for one year or more. Searching for new treatments is vital, so I thank Cancer Research and the Scottish mesothelioma network for the work that they are doing on clinical trials, early detection and better treatment.

Cancer Research highlights that mesothelioma can take more than 40 years to develop. For me, that raises a big concern with regard to people who are now being diagnosed with mesothelioma, because there is often no evidence of those people having an industrial workplace history.

I have raised a case in the Parliament from the Clydebank Asbestos Group involving a woman in her thirties who feels that her exposure happened in the school that she attended. There is growing evidence to support asbestos exposure across a range of public buildings and others as the cause of contracting asbestos cancers. That is why I have called for the phased removal of asbestos from the built environment, starting with schools. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has agreed to meet me and the Clydebank Asbestos Group about that.

We must deal with asbestos on all fronts, and we must support those who are diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses by offering help when it is needed. That includes providing a fair and just social security and compensation system.

It is a disgrace that, despite being in place since 1948, the industrial injuries scheme has been left largely unreformed, and decades have been wasted with regard to including other asbestos-related cancers and ending the exclusion of women from entitlement. Department for Work and Pensions closures have removed expertise and caused delays that penalise those with mesothelioma, when time is, unfortunately, not on their side. We must work together to ensure that the new employment injury assistance scheme is designed to provide wider, more compassionate and quicker support, which is currently denied to many under the UK scheme.

The potential for people to be denied justice because of a three-year time bar has no place in a just compensation system. The Scottish Law Commission report on that issue, which is due to be published very soon, can provide solutions to that injustice.

I have sought assurances in the Parliament that the Scottish Government will act quickly to implement any proposed recommendations and draft legislation. The current position of some asbestos victims losing out must end once and for all.

We must keep going and make more progress. Compassion and the demand for truth and justice should drive the way forward. Any other approach should not, and will not, be forgiven.