Seòmar agus comataidhean

So, big lessons to be learned there.

Your report mentions that the just transition commission has raised concerns about the minimal engagement of workers, the community and Government that took place around the Petroineos announcement. The commission has also emphasised the difference between investment in net zero and investment in a just transition. Do you think that the Scottish Government sufficiently understands that distinction?

I agree that, if we get that, it is win-win-win across the board.

On a more specific point, you will be aware that the Scottish Government announced around £100 million for the green hydrogen sector and then some of that money was shifted towards the offshore wind supply chain, and the former Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, Neil Gray, gave his reasons for that. Is it right for the Scottish Government to prioritise support for the offshore wind sector ahead of the potential development of a green hydrogen sector, and where do you think are the best opportunities for economic growth in green industries in Scotland?

That was helpful; thank you.

I need to move on to a question on governance. I am keen to hear how well you think the Government is set up to deliver on its climate policy goals and whether there is anything that should be done differently.

I am mindful of the Auditor General’s report of April last year, “How the Scottish Government is set up to deliver climate change goals”, which is all about governance and risk management arrangements. Chris Stark, in particular, will know the Scottish Government well from his previous roles. Is it a matter of concern that there was no permanent director general for net zero until January last year? We came back to Parliament after the election in May 2021, but no permanent DG for net zero was put in place at the time, and we have had a few years in which that portfolio area has not had a workforce plan. Have some time and some important opportunities been wasted in that period?

I make it clear that I was not picking out one individual. I would just note that in the two key messages in its report, Audit Scotland says:

“The lack of frequent and consistent reporting, alongside gaps in performance monitoring, make it difficult to gain assurance of overall progress.”

It also highlights the lack of a workforce plan and points out that

“Systematic risk management is needed so the Scottish Government can identify the key risks to meeting its climate change goals and take effective action to address them.”

Given what happened last week, people might think that that factor contributed to the situation. Just to give a more balanced view, though, I should say that Audit Scotland told the committee fairly recently that it is happier now.

However, do we need to look back at that period? Is a lesson that we need to learn that we must ensure that local government, other public bodies and everyone else gets their house in order, so that we can have the proper governance that we need?

Thank you. I will hand back to the convener, for the purposes of time.

I do not want to lower the mood, as you were trying to take us to quite a positive place—you will be missed in your role. You opened the evidence session by describing the dangerous moment in which we find ourselves. Last week, we heard reactions from charities and veteran climate campaigners about scrapping the 2030 climate targets. We heard from Oxfam that it is a “global embarrassment.” We heard from Friends of the Earth Scotland that it was

“the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament”.

People who know the climate science, the importance of getting things right, the opportunities and the prize that awaits us are not taking it well, and they are certainly not exaggerating.

You have spoken about a climate act that is in danger of being an empty vessel. There are blank pages where we should have good, bold policies. The Scottish Government has had 15 years to deliver transformative action. How do we get things back on track if it looks like there has been a real lack of political courage? There will be a lot of debate and discussion during the rest of the parliamentary session, there is a motion of no confidence and the Bute house agreement is in jeopardy. How do politicians find the courage here? What advice can you give to Government and Parliament?

It is great to talk about what all those Labour MPs will do. When we have a manifesto—no party has put out a manifesto yet—our Labour candidates will be campaigning to end child poverty. That is absolutely a given. I hope that we can all agree that we need political change and a change in Government at Westminster. That change is a choice between the Tories and Labour.

I do not expect Clare Haughey and her colleagues to say nice things about Labour in the chamber; however, if we are interested in what Labour is saying, as well as Angela Rayner, I will mention Gordon Brown. In an interview, he talked about the fact that it is a terrible policy and that it needs to be looked at as part of the reform. Just last week, Cherie Blair, the human rights lawyer who is part of a campaign, also made some good points. If we want to quote the Blairs, maybe it is Cherie Blair whom we should look at.

We need to think about the wider system change that is required, including what we, in this chamber, need to do. Let us pay attention to the End Child Poverty coalition, which includes more than 80 groups in Scotland. The most recent scorecard is a bit of a wake-up call. That is very much about what more we can do on the Scottish child payment.

We also have to be mindful that we heard from the Scottish Government, in Parliament last week, that the climate targets for 2030 are being scrapped. I hope that we do not get to a situation where the child poverty targets for 2030 become unachievable and also have to be scrapped. I hope that, when we hear from the cabinet secretary, she will give us some reassurance on that.

I believe that the majority of members come here to tackle the issues and to end child poverty, but we cannot be complacent. During the time that members have left in the Parliament, we must focus on those issues. Let us try to work together on that.

I agree with a lot of what the cabinet secretary has just said. Does she recognise that charities in Scotland are warning that the legally binding child poverty targets are at risk and are calling on the First Minister to make good on the commitment that he made when he ran for SNP leadership to increase the Scottish child payment to £30 a week straight away and to get on to a path of £40 a week by the end of this parliamentary session?

As we have heard, there has been a lot of agreement tonight. There is a lot of unity about and a lot of resentment felt for the policy, so it is right that we have had an opportunity to debate it. Clare Haughey was concerned about the lack of numbers in the chamber, but it is good that we have had an extended debate, because people are so passionate and the majority of us in the chamber believe that the policy is wrong.

We must channel that anger and be careful that we do not become complacent. No Government or political party is doing enough, and the two-child benefit cap is far from being the only injustice that we need to tackle. I hope that debates such as this evening’s will help us to think about other areas in which we need to go further and faster.

Scottish Labour has been clear, not just tonight but in recent times, that the two-child benefit cap and the rape clause need to go. We have been opposed to the policy from the very beginning.

I will in just a second. Other members have made the point very well that we need extensive review and reform not only of universal credit but of the whole social security system. When Angela Rayner was campaigning in Glasgow and Rutherglen last summer, she was very clear that the clause is abhorrent and that the Labour Party is committed to an ambitious child poverty strategy.