Chamber and committees

It is a matter for Parliament to consider, but the Government has worked to address that question in the bill. A number of the provisions in the early part of the bill amend the 2008 act. That is about using the foundation of the 2008 act as a basis for trying to address the wider issues that arise out of the pandemic.

As I said in response to the convener, that point was made well by the representative of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities who submitted material to the committee and gave evidence. COSLA recognised that the 2008 act works when there is an outbreak of an infectious disease in a locality and you have to take particular measures—Mr Rowley will be familiar with those arrangements from his leadership of Fife Council. The director of public health has statutory roles and responsibilities to act. However, COSLA indicated that it was generally supportive of the bill because, when it comes to a national pandemic, the 2008 act just does not get there.

If the 2008 act had been fine, we would probably not have had to make as many changes as we did in 2020. I contend that the Government is amending the 2008 act to make it appropriate for the challenges that we face now but, if members of the Parliament believe that we have to make further changes, I am open to that.

Yes, that is the case. However, members might wish to come back to the point to provide a degree of further legislative constraint if the bill is not felt to be sufficiently strong on that.

Let us do it this way. An example of a direct restriction would be for us to apply a particular constraint on people leaving their houses. I would say that that is a direct consequence of the measures that we are taking. An indirect provision might be that we have to ask people to observe a particular form of behaviour that is less specific than a direct provision, as in the example that I have just cited. We are trying to find ways that we can address the limitations that would be necessary to be applied that may not be ostensibly obvious as part of the original justification.

Does Mr Lockhart not realise that his comments are somewhat thin on constructive ideas about how the Government’s plans could be advanced and enhanced? [Interruption.] Mr Briggs is going on about our not consulting. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government consulted everybody, including Parliament. What stopped the Tories or Mr Lockhart making a constructive suggestion this afternoon that would break the monotony from Tory members?

I will not, at the moment.

There was a contrast between comments that were made by the Opposition and the speech by Elena Whitham. Her contribution was the most powerful lived testimony and was in stark contrast to the political posturing that we heard from the Opposition.

My colleague Ruth Maguire made a comment about the context in which we are operating. That context is crucial in determining the extent to which we can be successful in tackling child poverty. What she said was in contrast with the announcements that were made in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement yesterday, as was the case with a number of other members. Graham Simpson—a Conservative—went on television last night and gave an interview in which he said of the chancellor:

“I think he should have looked at doing something on benefits because we should be looking at the least well off in society. They’re going to be the worst hit.”

Not one single Conservative member has reiterated those comments in the debate. Instead, they cast a veil over the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer walked on the other side of the road yesterday and did not do a thing to help people on low incomes.

Alexander Stewart made a comment about the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom being deployed to support people. The Daily Telegraph, one of the two house journals of the Conservative Party, said in its headline this morning that the chancellor’s announcement represents “The biggest fall in living standards on record”. The other house journal of the Conservative Party, The Daily Express, had the headline, “The Forgotten Millions Say: What About Us?” That is a question that the Conservatives should be confronting, as their spokesman did on television last night, not one that they should be avoiding.

We can look at the path of child poverty. It was falling until 2010, but then something happened. There was a change of Government in the United Kingdom and the Conservatives and Liberals conspired to inflict austerity on the public. What happened? Relative poverty in this country increased. We have been battling that tide. No member should be mistaken about this Government’s determination to do everything that we can, within our powers, to address that situation.

Pam Duncan-Glancy cannot get away with that remark, because the Scottish Labour Party, when the moment of truth came, voted against the Scottish child payment in the budget. It is pointless for the Scottish Labour Party to come to the chamber and engage in the debate to then vote against the payment when the moment of truth comes. That is hypocrisy.

Where does the member get his facts?

I am grateful to Mr Briggs for giving way. His argument for the importance of the Scottish child payment is well made. Does he not think that he should follow it through and enable the payment by supporting the Government’s budget, which he singularly failed to do earlier this year?

The Government is acting as swiftly as it can to put in place the Scottish child payment measures that will have an effect on children in Scotland. We are moving at pace to achieve that, and the steps that we have announced today demonstrate the substance of the Government’s endeavours.

The third element of the strategy is about employability support. With the increased resources that we have set out, there is a focus on additional support for early learning and childcare and for transportation costs.

Other flexible funds have been made available to our partners in local government—I will come on to its funding in a moment—to assist 12,000 people into employment. Long-term employability is crucial to tackling child poverty. Getting individuals into long-term sustained employment can be of benefit.

We do that through the employability support that we have in place and through measures that are already being implemented by the Minister for Social Security and Local Government to strengthen the position of people who have disabilities.

The strategy covers these three areas: social security, tackling the cost of living and employability support. The most charitable that I can be about the Opposition’s reaction to the plan is to call it somewhat grudging.