Chamber and committees

I regret the fact that people have felt the need to take recourse to private treatment. I have made it clear in my answers over several weeks that, particularly as a consequence of the increase in case loads because of the cancellation of procedures during the Covid pandemic, the presentation of demand on the national health service has increased. We are working to reduce waiting times and waiting lists to ensure that people get treatment at an earlier time than is the case just now.

I have to say to Anas Sarwar that he is on very thin ground when he challenges me on the question of private involvement in the national health service. I remind him of the comments of Labour’s shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, who said that a United Kingdom Labour Government would

“hold the door wide open”

for the private sector in the national health service. He also said:

“We will go further than New Labour ever did. I want the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals.”

What we have here is a classic example of what Anas Sarwar gets up to in public debate. He comes here and says one thing in Scotland, and in England his bosses are doing a completely different thing, which will have an effect on our budget here in Scotland. Anas Sarwar has already been caught out on that this week. It is not good enough for him to say one thing in Scotland and be contradicted by his bosses in London.

I was disappointed to read the statistics that came out this week. The loss of life from drugs in Scotland is truly devastating, and I express my heartfelt condolences to anyone who has lost a loved one through addiction.

The Government is working to tackle the drugs crisis by delivering the £250 million national mission to reduce the number of drug deaths and improve the lives of those who are impacted by drugs. The mission has led to investment in a range of measures to prevent deaths and reduce harms, including implementation of medication assisted treatment standards, widening naloxone access, increasing residential rehabilitation capacity and improving surveillance.

The emergence of new substances raises further concerns. However, for those who are affected by problem substance use and for those who work in the field supporting people every day, I reinforce our commitment to continue to do all that we can to reduce the tragic loss of life.

Mr O’Kane is helpfully setting out that there is a UK context to this discussion. In my speech, I was anxious to make the point that a UK Government can choose to follow an agenda that either helps or hinders the Scottish Government’s efforts to eradicate child poverty. I stress to Mr O’Kane the importance that I attach to an incoming United Kingdom Government taking purposeful decisions to help our agenda of eradicating child poverty, rather than hindering it, as has been the case up until now.

Will the member give way?

I hope that Mr Stewart will forgive me for getting in here.

Mr Ross and I know that he and I will never agree on the constitutional question—unless, of course, he changes his mind. There is always that possibility. However, I believe that the issues that I have set out relating to the overall context in which we operate are material, because the fiscal envelope in which we operate is material to our ability to tackle child poverty. Using our powers, we have expanded the resources available to us to invest in a Scottish child payment, for example. We could take other steps if we had wider powers as an independent Parliament. I do not see the constitutional question as a distraction in any way, and I hope that, in our dialogue in Parliament, it is not an impediment to Mr Ross and me finding common ground.

Mr Ross sets out a laudable aim, and the Government is working as fast as it can to deliver on that objective. However, the challenge that Mr Ross has ignored in his contributions so far is the fiscal environment in which we are having to operate and the effect of the erosion of the value of public expenditure because of the inflation that we have wrestled with in the past two years. Is Mr Ross going to come on to acknowledge just how difficult the context in which we have made progress is? If we had not done what we did, relative poverty levels would be 10 percentage points higher than they are today. Will he acknowledge the challenges of the fiscal environment, which is very much the property of the UK Government that he supports?

I agree with much of what Mr Rowley has set out, and I endorse the holistic approach that he has described. However, Mr Rowley must accept that at the heart of the challenge that we now face is the public spending situation. That is the issue that troubles me most about the outcome of the forthcoming election. From what I have heard, I do not see a discernible shift in the public expenditure profile, which will be crucial to affording the direction of policy that Mr Rowley is, quite rightly, setting out to Parliament. I am not hearing that from the commitments that the Labour Party has made about what it will do, should it win the election.

We should probably leave the footballing analogies for another day.

On the question of the poverty-related attainment gap, the Government remains absolutely committed to the agenda of closing that gap. However, I point out to Mr Ross that every educationalist will tell him that the relationship between educational attainment and poverty is absolutely fundamental. That is the core of the Government’s agenda.

I come back to the point that Mr Ross has not really engaged with me on today, which is the fact that, as a consequence of the actions of the UK Government, the fiscal environment and the policy environment in which we have been operating until now have made our challenge more difficult.

We will take forward the issue in dialogue with local authorities. As Mr Marra will know, local authorities act independently of the Government and they have to make their own choices. Nonetheless, he raises an important issue about the support that can be put in place and the need to ensure that the needs of children and young people are met in all circumstances.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I note that there will be material issues in the election campaign that are of significance on the question of whether, after the election, we have a UK Government that helps or hinders the work of the Scottish Government. I hope that we are in a position in which the work that—as I have set out—the Scottish Government is taking forward in its own areas of competence will be enhanced and reinforced by the actions of our United Kingdom Government. In that respect, I will be interested in issues such as whether we have to operate with the two-child limit in place, which is a significant impediment to the work that the Government is taking forward to try to lift children of poverty, as it drives poverty in our society, and whether there will be steps to introduce an essentials guarantee, which would lift a further 30,000 children in Scotland out of relative poverty.

There are important issues to wrestle with in the election campaign that will shape the way in which the Scottish Government is able to take forward its agenda. We cannot deny the impact of that agenda on our priorities in Scotland, and I have already set out to Parliament the cumulative actions that we have taken as a Government to ensure that we use our powers and responsibilities to the maximum in taking action to eradicate child poverty. However, we look to the United Kingdom Government to set a policy direction and a fiscal direction that would enable us to do more and achieve our objectives. We will, of course, engage constructively with the United Kingdom Government after the election to ensure that those issues are well understood in relation to taking forward the Scottish Government’s agenda.

I close my opening remarks in this first debate that I lead as First Minister by reinforcing to Parliament the Government’s commitment to the importance of eradicating child poverty, and by stating that the direction of the Government will be set to achieving that central objective.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that eradicating child poverty is a national mission for the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and society; welcomes the progress made in delivering the Best Start, Bright Futures: Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022-2026, with spend benefiting children in low-income households increasing to an estimated £1.4 billion in 2023; recognises the balance of action required across the three drivers of poverty reduction, which are income from employment, the cost of living and income from social security, as well as the need to drive improvements in wellbeing and outcomes for children and families; warns of the threat that UK Government austerity poses to the action and ambition of the Scottish Government in eradicating child poverty; notes modelling that estimates that 100,000 children will be kept out of relative poverty in the current year as a result of Scottish Government policies; further notes modelling that estimates that a further 40,000 children in Scotland could be lifted out of poverty were the UK Government to make key changes to social security, including by introducing an Essentials Guarantee and abolishing the two-child limit, and calls on the incoming UK administration to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government and to follow Scotland’s lead in taking ambitious anti-poverty action.

Will the member give way?