Chamber and committees

Good morning, panel. Thank you for the evidence that you submitted in advance, and for all the information on the issue that you have shared to date with the committee and others.

I take the point that the plan is not written as a cost of living plan. However, it has been written during a cost of living crisis that is—I hope—the biggest that any of us will ever live through. Although the modelling suggests that we will meet the initial relative poverty target—only just, but we will get there, nonetheless—it does not feel like that for people on the ground. Things do not feel optimistic at all. It does not meet the sniff test, I guess; it is just not quite right. Is the modelling optimistic? Given the circumstances that we hear about from people who live in poverty, and their experience right now, will we still be saying, in a year’s time, the same thing about possibly meeting the targets?

I am sorry; anybody could probably answer; I do not want to target the question specifically.

I thank everyone for their answers so far.

Following on from the themes that we have been discussing concerning intersectionality, you might be aware that Close the Gap published a blog post this week that highlights some concerns, which I share, about the delivery plan. It says:

“This was a time for building on the actions in the previous Child Poverty Delivery Plan and applying increasing focus on women’s poverty. Instead, the sharp focus on women’s poverty is diluted within this Plan.”

It also says that

“there are no actions explicitly designed to address this beyond a vague commitment to continue taking targeted action on the gender pay gap”

and that there is instead

“a continued reliance on pre-existing strategies and interventions which are not well-gendered including No One Left Behind, Individual Training Accounts and the Flexible Workforce Development Fund.”

That is, obviously, quite concerning, given what we have heard about this morning about the need to focus on addressing women’s equality in the workplace, in particular. I think that everyone in this discussion today agrees about how important that is.

What could we do specifically to redress that imbalance and ensure that we progress the work that the previous plan started on women’s equality in the workplace? I direct that question to Bill Scott and Marion Davies.

Thank you, Peter, for that helpful answer, and I thank Bill Scott for the additional information that he provided.

My final question on this theme is for Claire Telfer. The submission from Save the Children notes that

“Any delay in implementation to the planned increase to the SCP will put meeting the interim targets at risk.”

We can all understand that. Are you worried about that? What should we be doing for the children who are on bridging payments and are not getting the additional money at all?

My other question is about the presumption that children have the capacity to express their views, which will be a huge step forward. We have heard a lot about the structural changes that we might need to introduce that. Will we need specialised professionals who have experience of taking the views of particularly young children in the context of criminal and civil justice cases? Will you both answer that? I am keen to hear your thoughts.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. I have been particularly struck by the good practice that we have heard about, particularly from May Dunsmuir, and by the ingenuity that has been explained and described. I have often said that, if we can get it right for disabled people and disabled children, we can often get it right for everyone. That seems to be a really good benchmark. It is really important that we engage in an inclusive way. Well done on everything that you have outlined, your approach, and sharing your learning. I have been struck by the fact that you have all said that it is important to learn from one another.

I want to ask about the Children (Scotland) Act 2020. It has been said that we could learn a lot from the children’s hearings system and said that we could replicate some of those things in the family court system. It would be good to hear from Alastair Hogg about what he thinks those things are, where they should be replicated and how the good practice that we have heard about this morning in your various services could reach other parts of the system.

As a supplementary to that, what impact do you believe the delay in introducing the changes under the 2020 act has had on the ability of children and young people to fully participate in decisions?

What training would be needed? Who in particular would be best to provide it?

Thank you. Jordan Croan, would you like to contribute?

Good morning, panel, and thank you for joining us. It is also nice to see people in what I think is called the public gallery for the first time since I came into Parliament.

Thank you for the evidence that you have given this morning and all the work that you have done over the years. My first question, which is for Sarah Axford, is about the Children (Scotland) Act 2020. Children 1st submitted quite a lot of evidence on the original bill and made a number of recommendations, some but not all of which were taken on board. What impact do you think the changes that were taken on board will have when the provisions come into effect? Has the delay in introducing them had any implications?

In written evidence to the committee, the Scottish Association for Mental Health estimated

“that the delay by a year in ADP”

meant that about

“141,000 people in Scotland”

were going to

“remain on PIP or enter the PIP system who would otherwise have been eligible for ADP.”

It also estimated that, of those people,

“55,000 ... have a mental health problem with a large proportion”

having to go through face-to-face assessments for PIP, which will of course have caused them a great deal of distress.

SAMH went on to state that,

“To mitigate this”,

it was asking for

“the rapid transfer of people to ADP from PIP who successfully made a PIP claim during the delay period.”

Would the Government consider doing that?