Chamber and committees

On Mr Mason’s point about the expansion of the concessionary travel scheme and the scheme being targeted, does he accept the argument that, as part of an employment or path-to-employment offer, it might be possible to offer concessionary travel support for a limited period, which would then be removed once an individual was in sustainable employment?

One of the tasks that I performed before I left Government was to chair a group of public service ministers. The group met regularly—certainly, during the pandemic, it met intensively. The group provided ministerial supervision of the creation of the child poverty delivery plan, which is at the heart of today’s debate. That work was very rewarding, because it drew together all the various aspects of the Government’s responsibilities in order to focus on the single problem of reducing and eradicating child poverty.

The plan recognised that the solution to the problem of child poverty does not lie in one single intervention, but rests on employment support, the child payment and the provision of a range of other supports in childcare, transport, health and education.

The intervention that I made on the minister earlier was perhaps a bit of self-interest to see whether the things that I believed to be absolutely critical when I was stewarding discussions in the Government are being maintained at the heart of the Government. We have to recognise—Mr Rennie made this point, with which I completely agree—that tackling child poverty must be multifaceted. No area of Government should be left out of activity to tackle child poverty.

It is reassuring that ministers have put on the record for the committee, in relation to its report, the importance that is attached to cross-ministerial working through the tackling child poverty programme board and the ministerial group on driving down child poverty, which is absolutely fundamental to the work.

It is also important to consider the perspective of external organisations, which can provide substantial challenge to the agenda that the Government is taking forward.

Does the minister accept that, in the period since the Government came to office in 2007, more social housing properties have been constructed each year, on average, than was the case for the eight years before the Government came to office?

All of us want more affordable housing developments to be undertaken. However, if the Scottish Government budget was not subjected to the callous cuts in capital expenditure that we have experienced from the Conservative Government perpetually and consistently, would that not help to enable the Scottish Government to fulfil its objectives and to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised by the housing sector?

The minister has just made reference to the importance of childcare and transport issues being addressed. Does she accept—and is it the Government’s position—that integrated and cohesive support needs to be available to individuals to enable them to access employment? It is not simply a case of solving one issue, such as childcare, or another issue, such as transport. We need to put together combined solutions that address the circumstances of individuals and enable them to gain access to employment.

I am interested in advancing the debate, because we have to flush out the rhetoric from the Conservatives on this question.

Mr Briggs is, I think, arguing for taking away from local authorities the power to design the 1,140 hours at local level. Roz McCall and Meghan Gallacher are shaking their heads and gesticulating, as they have done throughout the debate. Is that the Conservative position? I cannot see how they can effect the propositions that they are putting to Parliament, and criticising the Government over, without being open about that very point.

Does Mr O’Kane believe that the Scottish Government would be able to go further and faster on tackling child poverty—its efforts on which I whole-heartedly endorse—if it had followed the Scottish Labour Party’s tax advice in the recent budget debate, which would have resulted in there being a reduction of about £500 million in the resources available to the Government?

I agree with a lot of Mr Rennie’s analysis. The point that I have been trying to advance with the Conservatives is that, essentially, local authorities had the ability to design the arrangements at the local level. Many have chosen to expand the capacity that is under their stewardship. There is a difficult issue there that Parliament has to confront. It is not just about pointing the finger at the Government; we have to engage local authorities about the design of the system. That cannot be ignored in the way that the Conservatives have done today.

Such schemes are integral to the work on tackling child poverty—absolutely. When I removed funding from employability support, the one thing that I checked before I did so was whether there was capacity to absorb anyone who still wished to be part of those employability programmes. Although I may have removed money because I had to deal with rising inflation and cuts to the budget from the United Kingdom Conservative Government, I made sure that there was still provision for anyone who wished to come forward for employability support to have it.

What the child poverty action plan has delivered has been formidable. The committee narrates that, in 2021-22, 23 per cent of children in Scotland were living in relative poverty; the Government estimates that the current figure is about 19 per cent. The modelling demonstrates that if the Government was not applying its policies—if it had not put the child payment and other measures in place—child poverty in Scotland might be at 28 per cent.

To Carol Mochan, who asked what the Government is doing about all this and what powers have been used, I say that the Government is making interventions that have reduced the level of child poverty from what would exist if the Scottish Government was not acting. All that is happening against the backdrop of the prevailing austerity that we have had in our public finances for 14 years, in addition to the significant challenges that we have faced from soaring inflation. When we look at performance in Scotland, we see that the direct interventions of the Scottish Government are resulting in fewer children being in poverty than would be the case if the Scottish Government was not acting as it is acting.

I absolutely loathe the word that I am about to use—destitution—but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s estimate is that destitution is rising at a slower rate in Scotland under the climate of austerity than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I know that Carol Mochan does not like comparisons with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I despise the fact that, in 21st century Scotland, we are still talking about destitution, but that shows what the Government’s actions are delivering in the face of the poverty-inducing agenda that has been at the heart of Conservative policy since 2010.

I am all for more being done. I am all for supercharging. I am all for going further and faster. What I am pointing out to Parliament is that the actions of the Scottish Government have delivered real and substantive reductions in child poverty at a time when the prevailing climate in the United Kingdom is that poverty is increasing as a result of the austerity agenda of the Conservative Government.

When it comes to going further and faster, we have to be able to take more steps on employability. I agree with Mr Rennie’s point about the role of the third sector and securing greater involvement for such organisations. On public transport, I am going through a very agitated period in my life about public transport provision in my constituency. The more the matter is addressed in the interests of the wider public, the better.

I ask the Government to maintain, please, the focus on cross-portfolio working to ensure that every element of Government is brought together to tackle child poverty in Scotland.

Will the member give way?