Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary and I debated issues around child poverty five or six times in the chamber pre-election, and each time that we did so, I made it clear that the financial decisions and ruinous policies of the Conservative Party have led to an exacerbation of poverty. That is what the new Labour Government, eight weeks in, is going to set about beginning to fix.

We have to fix the foundations of our economy, and ensure that—crucially—work pays. That is why one of the first actions that the Labour Government took was to instruct the Low Pay Commission to look at how we make the national minimum wage a living wage, and at how we implement a new deal for working people that will create security at work and ensure that zero-hours contracts are gone and people do not have to worry about working two or three insecure jobs.

We already know—and, crucially, the organisations that the cabinet secretary referenced would agree—that in-work poverty is a serious issue that we need to deal with if we are to address child poverty. She made a point about the role of the social security system at UK level. We now have a child poverty task force at UK level that is considering reform of universal credit, which does not work and needs fundamental reform. That is the work that Labour has undertaken, within just eight weeks of forming the UK Government.

However, as I have said, the SNP has had 17 years. Quite frankly, the numbers that I have read out illustrate 17 years of failure on many of those policies. Reading the programme for government, we have a sense that there is no new thinking and very little imagination. We have seen the broken promises that have been made, which members across the chamber have already referenced.

It is not just the Labour Party that has formed such an analysis of the Government’s work on those issues. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s own Poverty and Inequality Commission has said that progress to reach the legally binding targets that were agreed by all parties in the chamber has been

“slow or not evident at all”

and that

“without immediate and significant action, the Scottish Government will not meet the 2030 targets”.

Therefore, much more needs to happen to drive our progress towards those targets. In their speeches, members will outline much of that in more detail, but it is clear that we need to have more funding and support for local authorities to ensure that they can deliver at local level on tackling poverty and inequality for children and young people. We need to ensure that we continue to move forward on early learning and childcare. I do not think that the reannouncement of reannouncements on pilot funding will be enough to move the dial in that area.

Alongside the work that the UK Government is doing on wages and on secure work, we need to ensure that more people in Scotland can get into work. In particular, we need to support the work that is being done across the third sector, in very difficult circumstances. Just this morning, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee heard about the challenges that exist in the third sector, and I urge the cabinet secretary to read that evidence. We must ensure that the excellent work that is being done, in particular to help women to return to the workplace, is being well supported and well funded.

More of the same is not going to cut it. This morning I was surprised to hear the Deputy First Minister on “Good Morning Scotland” saying, of the programme for government in relation to child poverty:

“It does not always take brand-new initiatives. Sometimes it is just about focusing on the things that are working really well.”

It would be useful if the cabinet secretary could explain what could have been working so well when 30,000 more children have been living in poverty over that 17-year period.

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.

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.

We all recognise the importance of the role that stakeholders play, but it is our 32 local authorities that have responsibility for enacting the duties. Kevin Stewart made the point about culture change and the challenges around trying to refocus the work of housing departments and so on. Are adequate resources available to enable the shift to be made? Often, training and support are key to that, and the situation can develop into a bit of a postcode lottery—I do not like using that expression. What I mean is that there can be different experiences for young people depending on where they are. How do we get more consistency on that front?

You mentioned co-production, but are you concerned that local authorities are saying that they feel that there is a lack of detail in the bill? As you said, we will touch on resourcing, but do you accept that there will need to be a significant shift in resources for local authority housing departments to be able to deliver on our expectations and our desire for additional support and services?

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?