Chamber and committees

I think that I am now in my last minute, but I will take the intervention if I can have the time back, Presiding Officer.

I do not think that Bob Doris can characterise my comments as saying that the Scottish child payment was ineffective. Mr Doris has heard me in the chamber, as has the cabinet secretary, being supportive of the Scottish child payment. Indeed, the Labour Party supported its inception and the work that we continue to do. The point that I am making is that the Government has to be very careful about the data and the model that it uses to analyse and report the general impacts to the Parliament.

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.”

We certainly will.

Good morning, minister. On that broad theme, I have some specific questions on the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill and its interaction with this bill. Is the Government still minded to include within the LDAN bill a commissioner who would look at specific issues for people who have learning disabilities and autism and are neurodivergent?

We have debated the variance of views on the commissioners and whether they are the right avenue, but does all this come from disabled people across the board feeling that there is a lack of avenues for them or that there has been a failure on the part of other agencies, other organisations and indeed Government to meet many of the duties that have been placed collectively on Government and Parliament? Do you feel that those views are very often born out of people’s frustration?

I appreciate everything that the minister says and I know that more detail will be forthcoming this afternoon and tomorrow. I am trying to understand whether the Government is generally now less predisposed to having commissioners than it was. We have two pieces of legislation—a member’s bill and a Government bill. Are we saying that there should be a commissioner for one and not the other? Will there be a broader discussion about this? When many disabled people look at this, I think that some will support one but not the other and some will support both. I am just trying to understand the broader picture.

On the point about reasonable steps, and more broadly, in the context of councils’ duty on homelessness prevention, some concern has been expressed about the lack of detail in the bill as to what would constitute meeting that duty. My concern is that we would want to set a floor, and not a ceiling, for our expectation. What is your view on the detail that is perhaps lacking in the bill? What is your view on setting a floor and not a ceiling in relation to what we expect?