Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I just want to check that my “yes” vote was recorded.

The challenge of being the last questioner is that we have covered a lot of ground. However, it is important to pull together some of what we have heard this morning.

In our conversation, we have focused on multiyear funding, as is right—it is at the core of the discussion. However, fair funding principles go beyond that, and a number of different things need to happen in order to move the issue forward. Witnesses might want to touch on anything that we have not covered on relationships or structures. We have heard about parity of esteem. What sorts of things need to be not just put forward but implemented and sustained in order to really help to renew that relationship?

Some of the evidence that we heard when we met organisations over the summer was about the challenge between innovating and trying to sustain something that works. They said that, very often, people get stuck in a cycle between things having to be new and things that have been proved to work. You touched on that. Do you recognise it?

Good morning. One aspect of the bill that the committee is interested in and concerned about is the domestic abuse provisions. We want to ensure that they are being engaged with. I note that, in the summer engagement, you met the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing to discuss those provisions. Will you give an update on those conversations? Do you feel that the discussions were productive in enabling understanding of the required training and the capacity of social landlords to take the action that they will need to take?

Thank you for that answer. I make a similar point to Mr Stewart’s point about not reinventing the wheel. A lot of good practice already exists, and many RSLs have good policy. However, the challenge is often to ensure that those policies can be put into practice and that action can follow, which is what everyone wants to see in such scenarios. The responses of Scottish Women’s Aid and the Scottish Women’s Convention pointed to the fact that the actions that were outlined and the recommendations that were contained in the report, “Improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse” still have to be pushed forward and not lost in this context. Will the minister say something about progress on that and engagement with that piece of work?

Ian Bruce, when you comment, will you say something about the connection and relationship with local government, about which we have also heard? We heard a lot about good and positive relationships from TSIs that are helping to manage funds for whole-family wellbeing, for example. That does not work everywhere, and there is no consistency. What do you want to see in that space?

As always when we debate child poverty, I start by highlighting the consensus that—as we have already heard this afternoon—there is no more important mission or goal, and no more important subject that we debate in the chamber.

The goal to eradicate child poverty, as the Government’s motion sets out, is laudable, and members will find no disagreement from those of us on the Labour benches on the need for a national mission in that regard. However, we have to be realistic, because this is a debate on the programme for government, and reflect that the Scottish Government has been saying that it wants to take meaningful action on child poverty for the past 17 years.

Indeed, the First Minister said yesterday that he has been in this Parliament for every single programme for government. I have been in Parliament for only four programmes for government, under three SNP First Ministers; two of them were in the chamber earlier, and I know that the current First Minister has had to go to another engagement.

The reality is that, each time that there has been a programme for government under those successive First Ministers, tackling child poverty has been at the top of the agenda, and yet we know that, year after year, things have not been getting better—in fact, they have often been getting worse. We have had reannouncement after reannouncement of policy, and very little in the way of new and innovative thinking. That is borne out by much of the commentary that we have seen in the past day or so on the programme for government.

We should look at the numbers: 30,000 children are in relative poverty, which is more children in relative poverty than when the SNP came into office 17 years ago. It is 260,000—

In a moment—I will just make this point.

That is 260,000 children in total across Scotland, according to the most recent figures. They will go through the important years of their lives without many of the essentials that they need.

I give way to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.

It would be useful to understand how that figure has been arrived at, because the Deputy First Minister had trouble articulating it this morning on “Good Morning Scotland”. It would also be useful if, in her summing up, the cabinet secretary could explain how the modelling has reached that figure, because a number of organisations are concerned about the number that she has used.

I am aware that I need to conclude, Presiding Officer. I imagine that there will be much more to say in the coming weeks and months as the programme for government begins to move forward. I am very clear that members on this side of the chamber will work constructively with the Government, as it has sought to do with the UK Government. I encourage it to engage with the child poverty task force at UK level and to support action to create a new deal for working people and improve wages across the UK. There can be no more important issue than tackling and eradicating child poverty, and we must focus all our energy and resource on that.

I move amendment S6M-14322.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“agrees that child poverty should be a national mission for the Scottish Government, but deeply regrets that, after 17 years of a Scottish National Party (SNP) administration, there are 30,000 more children in poverty; acknowledges that child poverty rates across the UK have risen under the economic mismanagement of the previous Conservative administration, but also recognises that Scotland has its own legally-binding child poverty reduction targets that the SNP administration is likely to miss, despite successive First Ministers declaring action on child poverty to be a priority; notes the damning assessment by Scotland’s Poverty and Inequality Commission that progress from the SNP administration in tackling child poverty “is slow or not evident at all”; is deeply concerned by the Scottish Government’s decision to cut measures that act as barriers to poverty, including cuts to the affordable housing budget, parental employability schemes, the Fuel Insecurity Fund and the freeze to the Scottish Welfare Fund; condemns cuts to education funding, including the Pupil Equity Fund, digital device provision and attainment funding in the poorest local authorities; agrees that there is a need to tackle in-work poverty and so welcomes the work of the UK Labour administration to strengthen workers’ rights, review Universal Credit, build a fairer social security system, and deliver a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid people in Scotland with a genuine living wage; welcomes the establishment of a cross-government Child Poverty Ministerial Taskforce by the UK Government, and encourages the Scottish Government to work collaboratively to tackle the root causes of poverty across Scotland.”

Human rights organisations such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Amnesty and the Human Rights Consortium have described the Government’s abandonment of human rights legislation during this session of Parliament as “disappointing”, “unjustifiable” and “a breach of trust”. That is coupled with the apparent abandonment of the Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill and with decisions such as the one to reprofile £10 million of money for changing places toilets. What does the First Minister think that that says to disabled people? What does he think it says more widely to people whose human rights are often most at risk? What will his Government do about that?