Chamber and committees

Will the member give way?

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

One point that Miles Briggs got correct—there was not much that he got correct—was that the national mission on child poverty is a cross-Government priority in the Scottish Government. My presence in closing the debate is designed to reinforce that point and to support and endorse the excellent leadership that has been shown in formulation of the delivery plan by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, Shona Robison. She has worked extraordinarily hard, with her officials, to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, with parliamentary committees and with our partners in the Green Party to formulate the policy programme that is before Parliament.

For it to be a cross-Government strategy, it must be balanced across a range of relevant factors that will make a sustainable difference to eradicating child poverty once and for all, which Meghan Gallacher talked about. The measures that we take must be sustainable across the whole policy spectrum.

The strategy covers a range of measures, including enhancement of social security measures—on which the Government has already taken action, as Marie McNair pointed out. We responded to the calls for a child payment. Originally, that payment was to be £5. After saying that it would be £10, we doubled it to £20, and it has now gone up to £25, which is five times the original amount that was asked of the Government.

We have used our social security powers to effect other such changes. Just this week, the Minister for Social Security and Local Government announced a 6 per cent increase in the benefits that are under our control. Today, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government has announced—as a consequence of the dialogue that we have had with the Green Party on the plan—the steps that will be taken to mitigate the effects of the benefit cap, which will have a huge impact on child poverty in individual families. That is the first element of the three-pronged strategy.

The second element is tackling the costs that families are having to endure. We have set out a range of measures, including our steps on council tax, the work that has been done on the renters strategy—which Maggie Chapman mentioned—and the work that Ruth Maguire talked about in relation to income maximisation in order that families can tackle the cost of living and to ensure sustainability of our interventions.

The Scottish Government is determined to use the powers that we have at our disposal—as we have just done in uprating benefits—to tackle the crisis in living standards that people face, but the Conservatives have not lifted a finger to help people one iota, in that effort.

I said that I would come back to the subject of local government. That is because the Conservatives, after all their years of austerity, have dressed themselves up as the protectors of local government. Let me put a couple of facts on the record. In the budget for the forthcoming financial year, there is a 9.2 per cent cash increase in the local government budget, which is a 6.3 per cent real-terms increase. We are funding local government—our partners—to deliver the actions on child poverty that we are determined to take, through the plan.

My last comment is this: some members really need to keep up with the events of the afternoon. We have had a host of quotations read out in the debate on the points of view of commentators and stakeholders. Well, in the course of this afternoon, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Save the Children, the Poverty and Inequality Commission, the Independent Food Aid Network, the Trussell Trust, the Poverty Alliance, Barnardo’s Scotland, and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland have all welcomed the steps that the cabinet secretary announced this afternoon and have said that they are in stark contrast with the walking on the other side of the road by the UK Government yesterday.

I acknowledge the significance of the points that Ms Villalba puts to me. We are now going through very significant levels of community transmission, which is presenting itself in a number of ways in university and college campuses around the country, where it is important that we are taking every measure to sustain the education of young people and to protect their safety into the bargain.

In the strategic framework that the Government has published, there is a range of baseline measures that we expect institutions to take forward, and some of those will be around ventilation. We have a mandatory position on face coverings, but Ms Villalba will realise that that position is not universally welcomed in Parliament—the Conservative Party vigorously opposed our extension of the face coverings measures. However, I think that those measures are appropriate for the moment, given the significance of the challenges that we face. Of course, the Cabinet will consider those measures for review at its meeting on Tuesday, and there will be a statement to Parliament next week about those issues.

The question of multiyear funding models is an issue that arises from the degree of prospective information that we have on the financial arrangements from the United Kingdom Government. We are in a different situation at this moment, because we now have a longer line of sight than we have had for a number of years. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy will reflect on those points, because it is desirable for us to give multiyear settlements, and I know that the finance secretary has shared that position with the third sector.

I encourage Pam Duncan-Glancy to look at all budget lines, not just individual budget lines where there might be changes that members would like to see reversed. The Government is making a range of funding streams available to third sector organisations. Within the “Covid Recovery Strategy”, there is a heavy emphasis on the role of the third sector in supporting the work on Covid recovery.

More will be said tomorrow when the social justice secretary shares with the Parliament the approach to the child poverty implementation plan. Obviously, the third sector is critical in supporting our work to eliminate child poverty in our country.

Priorities for recovery will vary by location. Across Government, we are committed to working with communities to understand local needs and tailor support services to support them. We announced an £80 million Covid economic recovery fund for local authorities to target support for businesses and communities. South Ayrshire Council will receive more than £1.68 million and will have full discretion over how to target that support to maximise economic recovery.

Further to that, the Scottish Government is investing £103 million in the Ayrshire growth deal, which will see transformational investment in projects across Ayrshire to support long-term inclusive growth. Regional partners estimate that the deal will create 7,000 new jobs and unlock an additional £300 million from the private sector.

This is a very important issue. The type of service that Sharon Dowey talks about is increasingly evident within our communities, and is also increasingly developing, because communities are building their capacity to make services and support available on an on-going basis. Just last week, I had a helpful conversation with a number of community development organisations to establish how the good example that Sharon Dowey has put to me can be replicated in other parts of the country. There are many other comparable examples that are already working well.

I am keen to explore how we can ensure that that capacity exists, not just to deal with a situation such as Covid, but to deal with other situations such as winter weather or flooding or other examples where we can use community capacity to assist the public services in addressing need within communities.

I welcome the information about the example that Sharon Dowey has put to me, and I assure her that the Government is keen to build up community capacity.

Emma Roddick makes a very fair point. I highlighted the fact that the drive to tackle and eliminate child poverty lies at the heart of our Covid recovery strategy. Although, as the Scottish Government announced in December’s budget, the Scottish child payment will be increased in the next financial year, at the same time, the UK Government has removed important increases that were put in place on universal credit. That is a glaring example of how the efforts of the Scottish Government to tackle child poverty are undermined by the actions of the UK Government.

As I said in my answer to Rona Mackay, I have not had a large amount of time to take in all the details of the spring budget statement, but I heard the strong contribution of my parliamentary colleague Alison Thewliss, in which she made the point that not nearly enough action had been taken to tackle the effects of poverty on low-income households. Such action is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s strategy. We would like to have our actions reinforced, not undermined, by the UK Government.

I do not think that, in these circumstances, Jackie Baillie’s characterisation of the issue is appropriate. The made affirmative procedure is only ever used where time circumstances do not allow us to undertake the normal consultation and dialogue around the affirmative procedure.

I have gone on the record before the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to make it clear that the Government does not routinely intend to use the made affirmative procedure. We would prefer to use the affirmative process, to enable the type of dialogue that Jackie Baillie talks about.

What the Government is trying to do—I am very keen to engage with Parliament on this question—is ensure that we have a statute book that enables us, having learned the lessons of Covid, to respond swiftly and promptly to challenges that may come towards us. Jackie Baillie knows the issues of Covid well; she knows how quickly events have changed in front of us. The legislative framework that we are putting in place is designed to create the capacity for us to act swiftly.

I am keen to ensure that I work with parliamentary colleagues to try to address the legitimate concerns on this question, but, fundamentally, we must have a statute book that is fit to deal with the challenges of the pandemic, and that is my objective in this legislation.

Well, that is a rather interesting development of the Conservative position, which I am very happy to explore with the Conservatives, since we are now talking turkey on the issue. That is very welcome. Maybe Jackie Baillie will catch up with the new reformist thinking of the Conservatives, who have once again moved ahead and dumped her from the better together alliance.

I welcome Dr Gulhane’s suggestion. What we are trying to do—I go back to my answer to Jackie Baillie—is ensure that there is a framework of legislation in place that enables Parliament to act quickly, where we require to do so. Dr Gulhane has offered an interesting perspective on that, and it is obviously something that can be advanced in the legislative process. If he would care to write to me, I would be happy to meet him and his colleagues to explore what might be involved in that, because—as always—I am keen to build consensus in the chamber.