Chamber and committees

No, I am not suggesting that for a second; I am simply acknowledging that there is poverty everywhere and that there is a fixed budget. I am saying that, from my perspective, I see evidence that that targeted assistance to my area, which was in great need, has made improvements. If we found that, down the line, spreading the money across the whole country was having an impact on those improvements or had resulted in the money not having a great impact, would that change your thinking around whether the support should be targeted or universal? That was my question.

Just while we are on that refreshed approach, I would say that I think that all of us would recognise that there is poverty everywhere. Certainly, Oliver Mundell made some good points about poverty being in rural areas and not just in urban areas, but the timing of the change is hugely difficult for the nine challenge authorities. I think it is widely acknowledged that the areas of greater deprivation have been affected the most by the pandemic and its impacts.

I should declare an interest in that my local authority is one of the areas that was a challenge authority, and it made excellent progress. We have spoken a bit about evidence of improvement. Education Scotland’s 2021 report about the Scottish attainment challenge said that, in North Ayrshire, the attainment in literacy and numeracy between 2016 and 2019 had improved for learners at all stages and, in addition, the pace of improvement of literacy had been faster for children and young people living in the most deprived areas. Clearly, the work that was being done was helping.

If we are operating within a fixed budget and we acknowledge that there is poverty everywhere, is there any evidence that you could hear or any situation that you could see that would change your position that it should go to all 32 authorities? If there is evidence that the improvements decrease, for example, should the approach be changed back and the money targeted to the areas of greatest need? How do we deal with this hugely difficult decision?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the “SnareWatch Annual Report 2021” from OneKind. (S6O-00913)

I thank the minister for that very full answer. Ending cruelty against animals is tremendously important to me and my constituents. With that in mind, will the minister tell us more about the second review that she has commissioned?

We are operating in challenging times. The Scottish Government’s budget has been cut. We have outlined a number of areas in which the Government is taking action. I have just said that one of the most important things that we can do is to put money directly into the pockets of families who are affected.

Until we have the full powers and responsibility of independence, we will have to work with one hand tied behind our back. Despite that, the Scottish Government is maximising incomes and providing support through devolved social security powers, with the eight Scottish social security benefits being increased by 6 per cent from 1 April. That will go some way in helping the most vulnerable with the cost of living crisis.

Of the almost £6 billion that has been invested over the past three years to support low-income households across Scotland, more than a third—about £2.18 billion—has directly benefited children. The benefit take-up strategy is crucial, too. Despite what some of the nastier commentators might have us believe, a lot of people are not claiming their full entitlement. I know that to be true from my casework. Income maximisation is an important offering in a lot of our community organisations, but I particularly acknowledge the work of North Ayrshire Council’s money matters team. In the past two years, it has helped North Ayrshire residents to secure £30 million in state benefits—money that those citizens are entitled to, and money that is, more often than not, spent in the local economy.

Social security alone is not the answer. We need continued, focused action from other parts of the Government to contribute to meeting targets. Housing is crucial. Rent payments are the single biggest cost for many households, and year-on-year increases from social landlords squeeze family budgets that are already stretched. I know that the cabinet secretary agrees that we must ensure that affordable housing in Scotland is truly affordable, and I look forward to hearing about the work that the Scottish Government is doing in that regard.

Bringing together policies on economic development, transport, skills and childcare provision, with a focus on knocking down barriers to employment, would be a hugely powerful and effective approach. I know that there are limitations on what the Scottish Government can do to improve job quality in the private sector, but the commitments in the national strategy for economic transformation to improve wages and conditions in sectors such as leisure, hospitality, early learning and childcare, through central fair work agreements, provide a very welcome focus. No one action in isolation can make the scale of difference that we need, but with direct efforts to get more cash into the pockets of families now and action on economic development, transport, skills, childcare and other family supports, we can make a difference to families now and make real progress on sustained poverty reduction.

Eradicating child poverty has been declared a national mission by the Scottish Government, and it must be a mission for us all. As we have seen during the pandemic, it is often the most vulnerable who suffer the most, and with rising fuel, food and housing costs, that mission requires urgent action now more than ever. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s remarks that the current cost of living crisis and international uncertainty have strengthened the Government’s resolve to work across society.

I also welcome the actions that were laid out in the statement: increasing the Scottish child payment to £25, which is five times the initial amount, and extending it to all under-16s at the end of the year; increasing employment services and supporting up to 12,000 parents into fair and sustainable work; introducing the new £15 million fund to tackle financial barriers to work; and taking steps to mitigate the UK Government’s benefit cap.

The development of the delivery plan identified a range of priority groups among which, as the evidence shows, the prevalence of child poverty is higher: households with a disabled parent or child; minority ethnic households; larger families; lone parents; mothers under 25; and families with a child under one year of age. People’s lives do not fit neatly into boxes and, inevitably, there will be many people who have more than one of those vulnerabilities. All those groups will benefit from the actions that have been outlined. Doubling the Scottish child payment to £20 in April, then increasing it to £25, is an example of real action that makes a difference to families, especially children, and it underlines the Scottish Government’s commitment on this matter. When we can, getting cash into the hands of those who need it is crucial, and it is the most dignified approach. Families themselves know what they need.

I have heard the line a few times from Opposition members—admittedly not in this debate, but this week—that there is not a constitutional solution to the cost of living crisis. Of course, simply having the power and the responsibility does not mean that a Government will tackle poverty and inequality. We see that at Westminster, where, yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not use every lever and resource at his hands to protect and support families. However, no one serious can fail to acknowledge that the actions of our Scottish Government are being undermined by the UK Government’s austerity. Combined with a deeply damaging £20 cut to universal credit, the constant need to mitigate the actions of the Conservative Government to protect our citizens means that investment made to alleviate policies such as the obscene bedroom tax is money that is spent to stand still.

I have greater ambition for my country than simply reducing the worst harms caused by a Tory Government—a Government that Scotland did not vote for. We can see the difference. Better choices can be made here, even under the current set-up.

Convener, I note for the record that Angela Cousins is my constituent and that we met in 2018 to discuss the matter.

Angela, thank you for being with us this morning. I am sorry for what happened to you. Thank you for being so brave in speaking up for other people.

I will ask you about the suggestion that the Scottish Government has made that it will consider and address any future recommendations made by the current inquiry to improve legislation, policy and practice. Will recommendations from the current inquiry be able to address the concerns that you have about what happened to you in the religious organisation of which you were part?

You say that children within the organisation would not talk to anyone outside it. Is that why you feel that mandatory reporting should be introduced?

While I do not in any way disagree with my colleague Paul Sweeney, I ask that we be thoughtful about how we proceed. We do not want to just generate lots and lots of correspondence. Perhaps we can do a bit of desktop research to find out what the differences might be from the point of view of guidance.

Yes—it is seachdain na Gàidhlig or Gaelic week.