Chamber and committees

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?

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.

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?