Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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?

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.

We have lifted the legal requirement for venues to operate a Covid certification scheme, but some venues might opt to use certification to make their customers and staff feel safer.

The Covid status app will remain in place for as long as it is needed to facilitate international travel. A domestic certification scheme will remain in our package of protective measures and might be used if it is required in the future to manage Covid outbreaks, although we hope that that will not be necessary.

No, I do not take that view, because the arrangements around the gathering, handling and processing of information relating to the Covid certification app are all carefully regulated and compliant. Any business would have to be mindful of its policies, decisions and legal obligations in administering any scheme. I am satisfied about legal compliance, and the onus is on businesses to ensure that their operations are legally compliant, too.

By working collaboratively with our partners in local government, business and the third sector, we will deliver a strong recovery that meets needs specific to each area. For example, the Glasgow city region deal empowers Glasgow and its city region partners to identify, manage and deliver a programme of investment to stimulate economic growth and create jobs in the area, thereby supporting the region to achieve its shared long-term vision for the local economy.

The Government is actively involved in dialogue on the city region deal, and we will continue that dialogue, with our focus being on recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

I do not recognise Mr Kerr’s characterisation of the situation. There is an open procurement process, and the Government has to ensure that such services are procured properly and are legally compliant. That process was followed in these circumstances.

The scheme was expanded significantly beyond its original purpose, which is why it cost more money. Clearly, if we expand a scheme beyond its original concept, it will cost more money—that is as straightforward as B following A.

The Government subjects all its decisions to careful scrutiny with regard to financial handling, legal compliance and compliance with other regulatory arrangements. The scheme has complied in every aspect.

I stress that the scheme is a valuable tool in ensuring that we can take the necessary steps to suppress circulation of the virus. It also allows individuals to provide a crucial piece of evidence to enable them to undertake international travel. If Mr Kerr wants to support our airports in attracting more custom, he should note that they require their customers to be able to comply with the requirements of the Covid status app.

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.