Chamber and committees

I am not entirely sure what the cabinet secretary is driving at. Angela Rayner and Keir Starmer, in conjunction with the TUC, have endorsed the document. He will back to the letter the policy that the document outlines, which we will deliver when in government. I have no idea what the cabinet secretary is driving at in her contribution today.

Let us be clear that this is a transformative opportunity to raise people out of poverty wages and into secure work. We know that the SNP has not got the best track record when it comes to things such as paying the living wage in Government contracts or using zero-hours contracts to recruit campaigners. Just a few weeks ago, the SNP abandoned the parental transition fund of up to £15 million a year to tackle the financial barriers that are faced by parents who want to enter the labour market.

In the debate today, we will, no doubt, hear again calls along the lines of, “If only we had more powers, things would be better,” and, “If only independence was here, things would be better.” Perhaps the SNP should first explain why it is not using the powers that it has. It is not just me saying that. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted this week that the SNP Government simply complaining about the powers that it does not have is

“to deny its direct responsibilities for things like employability, economic development, skills, and so on.”

If the SNP does not want to listen to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, maybe it should listen to its own Poverty and Inequality Commission. In May 2023, in relation to the child poverty delivery plan, it said that it is

“concerned that there does not seem to be the necessary clarity or sense of urgency about delivery of these actions.”

It is time for fundamental reform of universal credit. It is time for a new deal for working people, to drive up wages and standards and to lift people out of poverty. It is time to move on from two failing Governments and deliver real change for people across Scotland and the United Kingdom.

I move amendment S6M-10716.1, to insert at end:

“; notes that an estimated two thirds of children in poverty live in working households, 10 per cent of all employees in Scotland are stuck in low pay, and that 72 per cent of that group are women, and welcomes, therefore, the proposal for a New Deal for Working People, which has been endorsed by the TUC and includes plans to ban zero-hours contracts, outlaw fire and rehire practices, and raise the minimum wage in order to tackle insecure work and to make sure that work pays as a key route to ending poverty.”

Can the cabinet secretary explain to the chamber why, in April 2019, she said to The Times:

“It’s not our policy to alleviate the two-child cap”?

Indeed, she has not advocated the Government’s mitigating the two-child cap in taking the action that she has called us on.

The member speaks about “little hope”, but does she accept that, as I outlined in my contribution, universal credit is fundamentally broken and needs to be reformed in all its facets? Does she accept that Labour’s new deal for working people will be a huge game changer in getting people into well-paid work and lifting people out of poverty?

Thank you. Both responses were helpful in understanding the importance of data.

My next question is about barriers. Many of the groups that we have spoken about this morning are, in a broad sense, represented by organisations, but often there are barriers to getting everyone’s point of view. The committee is keen to understand what you feel the barriers are to people feeling that they are part of a representative voice. How might we address that better and how might we get to the root of people’s issues?

Good morning. I have the last few questions, so I am keen to try to pull together the themes we have been discussing. A lot of what I will ask about has come up already.

Transparency is obviously a key issue in terms of people being able to make informed contributions to budget consultation processes. The committee wants to look at transparency in more detail in the next budget process, so I am keen to understand to what extent a lack of data, or a lack of accessible data, hinders people’s participation. The subject has been woven through the answers this morning, but is any particular data missing? Could we make data more accessible?

Dr Hosie wants to comment, and I saw Emma Congreve nodding. I am keen to understand your views on the prioritisation. Following on from Chris Birt’s point about whether the challenges are surmountable, I would also like to know whether we can do more in the reserved/devolved space.

Helpfully, the Government’s timescales are the subject of my next question. You expressed the desire to see the changes happen as quickly as possible. The Government said:

“We recognise that Carer Support Payment from launch will not immediately fully achieve all of the aims … for carers. These aims are intended to continue to guide the development of the benefit on an ongoing basis.”

That is quite woolly. What discussion has there been with the Government about the hard-and-fast timescales that people are looking for?

I will bring Paul Traynor back in, because he started on this topic.

I will return to the theme that I started with, or that we heard some responses on, which is the engagement of people with lived experience and the public in setting priorities. Bill Scott talked about some of the priorities perhaps being revised. How can we better hear what the public and people with lived experience have to tell us and prioritise their views on the budget?

You mentioned SCOSS. It has responded on trying to achieve the broader aims, so would Judith Paterson like to come in at this stage?

Good morning, panel. I want to follow on from that exchange on prioritisation in the budget. At last week’s committee meeting, Neil Gray said that the parental transition fund could not be delivered as intended, so the £15 million that was earmarked for that fund has been redirected to the fuel insecurity fund. What does that reprioritisation say about the Government’s priorities? Is that the direction of travel that we want to see? I ask Chris Birt to respond first, if possible.