Chamber and committees

Presiding Officer,

“Growing up in one of Scotland’s most deprived communities is likely to put a person at the bottom of the class and, in too many instances, into an early grave.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2016; c 47.]

That is what I said to the Parliament in my very first speech back in 2016. Tragically, child poverty and inequality remain a scandal of epic proportions in our country. In Scotland today, one in three families with a baby under the age of one are living in poverty. The cabinet secretary rightly talked about our shared aspiration to eradicate child poverty, but that is more than an aspiration; it is our legal and moral obligation to babies, children and young people in every corner of Scotland.

Ahead of the debate, the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland highlighted the crucial role that schools play in addressing child poverty. Although they cannot single-handedly solve child poverty and should never be expected to do so, our schools mitigate some of its worst impacts by helping to reduce household costs, maximising income and supporting children from lower-income households to learn, thrive and reach their potential. I therefore say a huge thank you to the teachers and education workforce of Scotland for the amazing work that they do.

We know that increasing family incomes is key to reducing child poverty. I am pleased that it is a priority for the UK Labour Government, but there is more that we need to do in this Parliament and elsewhere. Save the Children, which has been mentioned by other speakers, has highlighted that the poverty-related attainment gap in education is already well established long before a child starts school. It is therefore important that the Scottish Government does all that it can to expand publicly funded early learning and childcare from the end of paid maternity leave, and that we do not get complacent about the Scottish child payment and its uptake. We need to simplify it so that as many families as possible who are entitled to it get it, particularly because of its link to accessing free school meals.

In the casework that is keeping me busy at the moment, I am seeing far too many children and young people who are not getting the support that they need. As Martin Whitfield said, it is not always because of poverty, but there is an intersection with poverty. Families are struggling with poverty and low incomes, and children are waiting for the correct pathways around autism, ADHD and access to speech and language therapy. What I see in my inbox and advice surgeries is childhoods evaporating as people wait for support that comes far too late. We have to do better.

In South Lanarkshire, which is part of my Central Scotland region, more than one in five children are living in relative poverty. I have been asked to ask the cabinet secretary what additional provision will be put in place for young people in S5 and S6, as EMA has not changed for more than 20 years, remaining at £30 a week, with low eligibility criteria. As I said in the chamber yesterday in an intervention on Ross Greer, I welcome the commitment to expand access to free school meals. However, we are already a long way behind and we have to speed that up. As the cabinet secretary knows, we have discussed the importance of young people’s voices being at the heart of that.

We have learned a harsh lesson in this Parliament about setting targets and not living up to people’s expectations. We missed our climate targets because of delay and inaction, and we must not do that when it comes to the targets for reducing child poverty. We have the evidence and, I think, the political consensus. We just have to get on and do it.

Is the cabinet secretary able to say whether such work will include looking at the school uniform grant rising in line with inflation?

How would you try to balance public access aspirations with security? Would you consult communities on a land management plan that would set out principles for the short, medium and, possibly, long term? That is the kind of work that you do already—is that correct?

I will ask a final question, because I know that the convener will want to move on. We heard from the first panel of witnesses that perhaps there needs to be more emphasis on biodiversity. Rather than just sustaining biodiversity, the land management plan should be a tool to improve and increase biodiversity. Do you have a view on that?

Yes. Rob, do you have some examples of current land management plans and the consultation that you mentioned? I looked on your website before today and had another look today and, although there was lots of information for investors, I could not find anything on it that was for the community. Where do we find case studies on community engagement and examples of consultation? Can you give us a brief example?

No. However, a number of other points that have been made do not sit comfortably with me. I am thinking about comments on taxation and community wealth that were made by the previous witnesses. We have not talked about the amount of public funding that Gresham House benefits from—for example, from the Scottish National Investment Bank—and the foreign interests that have been reported in the media. We members sometimes struggle to understand how to debunk those things and discover what is true.

Rob Carlow, I think that you have come here today and minimised the influence that Gresham House has. You have said that it is quite a minor player in land ownership. Do you want to leave the committee with the impression that you are very much a marginal stakeholder as regards land ownership and land management, or have you a more significant role in Scotland? Certainly, the impression that you have given is that you are really on the margins of the debate.

I have been asking similar questions to Mark Ruskell’s about land management plans. How do we ensure that the plans add value—instead of being just performative and adding bureaucracy—either on their own or with other processes, such as local place plans? Max Wiszniewski made the point that owning land is a privilege, because very few people in Scotland do so. In relation to rights and responsibilities, what needs to be done to strengthen the bill to ensure that land management plans can add to our net zero ambitions and our climate and nature goals? Is something missing from that part of the bill? What should we advise the Government to do differently in the bill to ensure that land management plans do good things for Scotland?

I see Sarah Madden nodding, so I will bring her in first.

Does anyone else have a view on whether we need to amend the bill when it comes to land management plans? Tara Wight? I think that Tara is possibly—

Thank you.

Thank you, Tara. Sorry for the confusion and interruption. I know that it is harder when you are not in the room.

I do not know whether Max Wiszniewski has any comments to make, after which I will hand back to you, convener.