Chamber and committees

I think that it is fair to say that, in the evidence that we have heard so far, the views on the second BSL national plan have been mixed. We heard commentary not only on some of its positives but on people’s concerns, particularly the lack of focus, measurable goals, timelines and accountability. We also heard criticism that the plan was watered down, despite the evidence that was given during its preparation. Will the Deputy First Minister respond to those criticisms that the draft version was watered down?

We heard some useful evidence on that point last week, from people with lived experience. It is useful to hear that reinforced in the evidence today.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of her statement, both at the usual time and in her morning press exclusives.

There has been a lot of spin and, in the statement, there is a myriad of excuses, but the reality is that there is also failure. For all the rhetoric that we have had from the First Minister and the cabinet secretary, after the Scottish National Party’s 18 years in office, relative child poverty, after housing costs, has fallen by only 1 per cent. When the cabinet secretary says that rates are “broadly ... stable”, what she really means is that the dial has not shifted.

On the two-child limit, over the history of that policy, Scottish Labour has been consistently clear that we want it to be scrapped, but the haphazard and last-minute decision to include its mitigation in the budget makes a mockery of the claim that the cabinet secretary made over many years that she was powerless to do anything about it. I note the letter that has been issued before we meet her this afternoon, which outlines that applications will be open but does not say when payments will be made. It also talks about using Scottish child payment data—the cabinet secretary was not willing to admit to that in the past.

On the wider picture facing Scotland’s young people and the root causes of child poverty, responsibility for failing to meet the targets lies with the Scottish Government. It is the SNP that failed to deliver on its commitments to expand free school meals; it is the SNP that stripped employability services to the bone; and it is the SNP that created a housing emergency, with 10,000 children in temporary accommodation. Is it not the truth that more of the same will not deliver the 2030 targets and that the SNP Government is out of ideas and out of time to meaningfully reduce child poverty?

On Saturday we received the sad news of the passing of Councillor Betty Cunningham, a former provost of East Renfrewshire, who was known to many members on all sides of the chamber and who was described as a “force of nature”. Among her many achievements, Betty was responsible for setting up an international trust after visiting Kaponda in Malawi in 2007. The trust has supported the provision of education, healthcare, and agricultural skills and opportunities, as well as taking hundreds of young people on cultural exchanges to Malawi.

One of the key areas of interest there is oral health. Can the cabinet secretary say how the Government is partnering with charitable organisations such as the Betty Cunningham International Trust on projects such as MalDent? Does he agree that continuing such partnerships is a fitting legacy for people such as Betty, who had such a love for and connection with Malawi?

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, when your party came to power, relative child poverty was at 23 per cent after housing costs were taken into account. Last year, as we have heard, the figure was 22 per cent, so there has been a 1 percentage point fall in 18 years. The Government’s child poverty summary says:

“in recent years, both relative and absolute child poverty have shown little consistent change”.

Do you accept that that is perhaps just a polite way of saying that you have not moved the dial in 18 years?

If you could cover the point about lone parents, that would be really helpful.

It is encouraging that the cabinet secretary continues to seek engagement on the UK child poverty strategy, which is important. I note her comments about the delay to the strategy’s publication, but she will recognise that Governments often have to take more time in order to understand the work that they are doing. For example, publication of the Scottish Government’s medium-term financial strategy has been delayed again. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has had a number of things to say about that, and its delay has an impact on what we are discussing this morning.

The scope of the UK task force is very important. The cabinet secretary knows my view on the two-child limit: the UK Government should act on that. However, as with any task force, any proposed measures have to be paid for, and I think that that is part of the reason why more time is needed. The Scottish Government, which includes the cabinet secretary, has opposed all the UK Government’s budgetary and taxation decisions—all the revenue-raising measures in the budget have been opposed. I am keen to understand her view on how we should pay for some of the interventions if she is not in favour of the tax-raising measures in the UK budget.

Given what you have said about the Scottish Government’s investment in whole-family wellbeing and employability services, do you expect the poverty rate for lone parent families to decrease over the period in trying to meet those targets?

I know that colleagues will talk about data and that we have already spoken about the child payment—I think that we are all agreed on its importance and on some of the anecdotal evidence that has been raised—but I have a final question under this theme on the modelling that the Government is using.

A year ago, many of your colleagues—and, I think, you, as the cabinet secretary—were speaking about 100,000 children being lifted out of poverty. That was shown not to be the case. I think that the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Government in that regard. The figure was then corrected to 60,000 children being kept out of poverty, and we are now at a figure of 40,000 children being kept out of poverty. Will you clarify whether the 40,000 figure is the accurate one in the Government’s view? How certain are you of the modelling that you are now using to establish that figure? Everyone around the table wants to make sure that we are dealing with accuracy, because it is such an important policy.

On the Scottish Government’s policy on the two-child limit and the background work that has been done on that, we have had a lot of conversation this morning about the need to take decisions over a period of time. The two-child limit was brought in in 2017, and the Government’s policy was that it was not going to mitigate the impact of the limit because it said that it could not. It then introduced the policy that we are discussing this morning, and the cabinet secretary gave figures on the modelling on the impact that that will have on Scotland.

I have asked a number of times when the policy decision was made by the Government. I asked at committee when we originally discussed the proposal, and I know that the finance secretary was asked at the Finance and Public Administration Committee when that decision was made. I have had to ask parliamentary questions, and I have made freedom of information requests, but I cannot get an answer to exactly when the decision was made. It is important in the context of understanding what work on the issue was being done prior to that decision. Will the cabinet secretary put on the record when she took the decision and, if she is not willing to do that, will she say why she is not willing to do that?