Chamber and committees

Last year, the cabinet secretary published a nine-point plan to end food bank use, but the Trussell Trust stated unequivocally that it was “disappointed” with the lack of ambition in the plan and that it failed to show the “requisite leadership and urgency”.

I hear the cabinet secretary saying that the Scottish Government would want to work with an incoming Government, so I am sure that she will agree that an incoming Labour Government—which would prioritise ensuring that work pays and that we support the stabilisation of the economy so that food prices go down—would be very welcome.

How does she respond to those comments by the Trussell Trust? When will she return to her nine-point plan and ensure that it is delivered with the ambition that is required?

Wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity are the values that, 25 years ago, this Parliament committed itself to and that every parliamentarian must live up to. Those words are also inscribed on the mace at the front of the chamber.

On the opening day of this Parliament, Donald Dewar said:

“We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: ... to do right by the people of Scotland”.

It is for each of us to reflect on how we do right by those who have sent us here. To my mind, that means taking responsibility for our actions and responding accordingly.

Claiming thousands of pounds from the people who sent us here and then misleading the press and the public about it, I believe, shows no wisdom of judgment. I believe that it shows no integrity in holding oneself to account, and it shows a lack of compassion for those who are sitting and watching our proceedings, aghast at what has taken place here today. I think that that damages all of us and the very institution of Parliament.

The events of the past month, and of the past week in particular, have shown an utter failure on the part of the SNP and, in particular, John Swinney, to do anything to guard against that damage. We have had the unedifying spectacle of the SNP and the First Minister spending weeks and months trying to defend Mr Matheson. Just a week ago, the First Minister rejected sanctions in an extraordinary performance at First Minister’s questions. Then, this morning, we heard that the SNP was performing a U-turn and would back the sanction. However, SNP members got themselves into a situation this afternoon in which they sought to abstain—they did not vote on any sanction at all, and then refused to vote for the motion that they had successfully amended. To call it an “unedifying spectacle” is an understatement.

It is, of course, welcome that the sanction has now been applied, but there are serious questions to answer around the judgment that has been exhibited by the First Minister and SNP members over the past week, which has been

“riddled with inaccuracies and reeks of prejudice”.

That sounds familiar, but those are not John Swinney’s words from last week but the words of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson defending himself as the House of Commons Committee of Privileges investigated Tory sleaze, including partygate. Along with his allies, the former Prime Minister deflected, and attacked Harriet Harman for having made public comments and for, in his view, politicising the process.

Now we have the First Minister, no less, and allies of the former health secretary making similar criticisms about the impartiality of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have to say that some of the language that was used in the chamber this afternoon, particularly in relation to the convener of the committee, was outrageous. It should be a moment when we hang our heads in shame because such behaviour has been imported into this Parliament, watched over by the SNP.

Those have been astonishing misjudgments by someone who is supposed to be the experienced set of hands and fresh leadership. Perhaps we should not be surprised, because, sadly, this is not new. My colleague Jackie Baillie outlined in some detail the record of failure in this regard by the SNP.

It is clear that if Michael Matheson does not do the right thing and resign, the saga will be recorded in the growing list of SNP sleaze incidents for months and years to come. The SNP acts with an impunity and a hubris that shows that it thinks that this will never come back to haunt it. All the while, faith in our politics and our devolved system slip further and further.

That is why, if Michael Matheson does not do the right thing and resign, the Labour amendment is so important. It sets out our belief that it is time for Parliament to have a recall mechanism to empower our constituents, so that they can hold us accountable when we fall short of the expectations that we set for ourselves and that they have set for us. We have already seen the introduction of such a system at Westminster. It was used in Scotland in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West recall petition and by-election last year, although I point out that, in the process leading up to the sanction of Margaret Ferrier, the SNP MP Allan Dorans sought to vote with the Conservatives to reduce her sanction to nine days in order to avoid having a recall petition and subsequent by-election. That tells us everything we need to know about the SNP’s priorities—party first, country and constituents second.

It is beyond doubt that this Parliament must have a right of recall. It will be for Parliament to consider such proposals in the coming weeks and months, but today it is for Michael Matheson to reflect on his own behaviour. I am sure—and my dealings with him have shown me—that he is a decent man. He must now reflect on what has taken place. He must reflect on the judgment and the view of the Parliament. He must do the decent thing and resign.

If, however, he clings on and the Government continues to defend the indefensible, it is clear that the public will sit in judgment on this saga, and they will have their say very soon. Is it not clear that the people of Falkirk West deserve the same chance to decide who represents and speaks for them in this place, and to have the opportunity for a fresh start?

On the broader approach, although the strategy is important and sits in certain portfolios within the Scottish Government and local authorities, it is clear that we will need societal approaches. To what extent has it been challenging to develop a cross-Government, cross-authority approach? We appreciate that a number of different challenges are faced by all spheres of government. Is there a sense that the strategy is and will be cross-cutting across various sectors?

I take that point but, as recently as the gathering last year, the former First Minister was making the commitment to three-year funding, and we are some time beyond Covid. Is the Government still committed to that? Do you have influence on funding within the health budget that you are looking to move forward in that regard?

On the point about good-quality data, measuring impact has been of interest to the committee throughout our evidence sessions. Measuring the overall impact of the strategy will be important, but in relation to this line of questioning, how will we understand the impact on the groups that we want to focus on? I understand that there are a range of factors and a range of outcomes. Does Haylis want to start with the data set, and then we can think about other issues?

I will build on that theme of the sustainability of funding.

In the previous exchange that I had with you in the meeting, minister, I think that you mentioned men’s sheds—or, certainly, men’s groups—as being vital. We heard from the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association about the challenges with the sustainability of funding. In the intervening period, the Government had to rethink its withdrawal of funding to the association, but we heard from it that it does not have sufficient money to plan because, sometimes, it has no more than six months to a year’s funding.

I kept asking the third sector organisations who gave us evidence what the challenge is in that situation. We heard that the challenge is about being able not only to test what works and to test change, but to give security to people who feel that those organisations are literally a lifeline.

Does the minister want to reflect on whether the Government—as it has promised for a long time—will move towards more sustainable and longer-term funding?

Good morning to the witnesses. I will focus on the potential impacts of the strategy for groups that are disproportionately impacted by suicide. In the evidence that we heard, people said that, although the strategy’s focus on the contribution of inequalities to suicide is very welcome, there is concern that taking a one-size-fits-all approach will mean that certain groups do not always receive the particular support that they need.

We have looked at LGBT+ people and at men in particular and at the issues that affect them. Will the witnesses comment more broadly on what is being done across the spheres of Government and across communities to support those groups and to have a laser-like focus on the issues that impact them?

I will ask a similar question about local government. We understand the pressures that are on local government to deliver more sustainable funding within local communities, and third sector groups that are funded by local authorities are feeling that challenge. Does Councillor Kelly want to reflect on the challenges that local government is facing?

Good morning, panel. Following on from the earlier theme, I am interested in monitoring and evaluation. We have covered quite a lot of that already, but I would be particularly interested to hear the panel’s views on the Scottish Government’s modelling of the impact of the child payment.

The Government uses a model that looks at a counterfactual scenario, in which certain policies do not exist, and then makes a comparison. On that basis, the Government concludes that the Scottish child payment is keeping 60,000 children out of poverty. The figure of 100,000 children is also mentioned and there seems to be an interchangeability between the ideas of keeping children out of poverty and lifting them out of poverty. Given what was just said about the need for more quantitative data, it might be useful to allow more time to elapse so that we can understand that better. What is your view of the Scottish Government’s modelling and of the figures that it has arrived at?

I am reflecting on Professor Dorling’s answer to Katy Clark on the modelling that looks at a counterfactual scenario and then at how many children are kept out of poverty, and on the point that you have made about the poverty line and the temptation, I suppose, for Governments of all colours to engage only at the level of having kept children above that line. Could that temptation happen in this context as well?