 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1.4406, in the name of Elaine Smith, on ending austerity, poverty and inequality. Can invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their question-to-peak speak buttons now. There is no time in hand, so I call on Elaine Smith to speak to and move the motion. Eight minutes please, Ms Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A few weeks ago, during challenge poverty week, I led a member's debate to consider the work being done in our communities to deal with the consequences of poverty and inequality. In responding to that debate, the cabinet secretary remarked that putting forward ideas to challenge poverty and I quote, should not necessarily come without the appropriate challenge to government and people in power. I agree, so today Scottish Labour has chosen to use debating time to once again raise the issues of poverty and inequality to challenge the Scottish Government to use the powers of this Parliament to their full capacity to address poverty and inequality and to end austerity. We know inequality impacts on people's life chances, their life expectancy and their education and employment opportunities. Tomorrow, a report will be published by the HRC, which, according to the Herald, will show that Scotland remains unequal with little improvement over the last three years. We know that women, disabled people and ethnic minorities are all more likely to be living in poverty and that women are less likely to have a job than men and those who do work are likely to earn less. As inequality increases, so too does the gap between rich and poor. The recent publication of the latest life expectancy figures by the National Records of Scotland must also give us serious cause for concern. That tells us that life expectancy has fallen for the first time in 35 years. The UK figures are amongst the lowest for comparable countries internationally and within the UK, Scotland has the lowest life expectancy. That trend is completely unacceptable. Further, within the overall Scottish figures, there are great disparities within different local authority areas. For example, there is a variation of more than 10 years depending on whether you are born in parts of North Lanarkshire or in Perth and Kinross. That is harsh evidence of the growing gap between rich and poor, not just in financial terms but in general health and how long your life will be. Back in 2004, John Swinney, who was then the Opposition leader, described the differences in life expectancy as a national scandal and accused Labour of complacency and inaction. In reality, of course, the interventions that Labour were making were beginning to close the wealth gap and slowly improve those life expectancy figures. So now it's time for the current SNP Government to explain how, under their watch, that progress has stopped. This is today's national scandal and Labour expects all the powers of the Scottish Parliament to be used to improve life expectancy for all of our citizens. With life expectancy stalling across the UK, the consequences of austerity must be placed firmly at the door of those in government. Responsibility, of course, rests with the UK Government. There is no clearer illustration of their contempt for those in need of a hand than the way in which universal credit has been rolled out across the country. Case after case demonstrates the devastating impact of the punitive way in which universal credit has been introduced. The DWP's own survey of claimants, published in June, showed that nearly half of new universal credit claimants are falling behind with their bills. It has been a disaster for so many already vulnerable households and Labour would have supported Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment to pause the roll-out had it been chosen today. However, my colleague Polly McNeill will be expanding on that in her contribution. Of course, that is not just about material and economic resources, it is also about social relationships, social processes and the controlling exercise of power. Any proper consideration of poverty, inequality and wealth raises fundamental questions about the organisation of society, its structures and social justice. The IPPR, commission on economic justice report, which I mentioned in the previous debate, Prosperity and Justice, a plan for the new economy, addressed that and specifically detailed the belief that a new moral purpose is needed to define the goals of economic policy. The report argues that the economy needs to deliver prosperity and justice together and that is one good reason why I agree with Alison Johnston's comment in her unselected amendment that much more must be done to end austerity. As local authorities around Scotland are trying to set budgets and priorities for local services, audit Scotland reports that council budgets have fallen by 9.6 per cent since 2010-11. In one year alone, 2016-17, our councils have 2,500 fewer workers than they had the year before. Quite simply, it is not possible to deliver the services that our families need with a continually reduced workforce and, for households with the least, those services are actually needed the most. Preventing poverty and reducing its impact means investing in our local government provision, not cutting their budgets. My colleague, Alec Riley, will address that issue in more depth. We also know that families in poverty have less money to spend on food, but they spend a greater proportion of their household budget on food than those with higher incomes. That makes increasing the entitlement of free-skill meals and it makes initiatives like North Lanarkshire Council's Food 365 to tackle holiday hunger absolutely vital. It is why Scottish Labour supports an immediate £5 top-up of child benefit. Poverty in a rich country for people means not being able to eat properly and healthily, access school trips or social events, or living a warm, safe, secure, affordable home. Poverty affects mental health and wellbeing as well as physical, and Shelter Scotland's briefing for this debate reminds us that poor health and homelessness are inextricably linked with a particularly high rate of admission to mental health services for those in households experiencing homelessness. It is clearly the uneven distribution of wealth resources and power that allows the rich to grow richer while the poor grow poorer. Working towards redistributing wealth, Labour would make the riches pay their fair share, unlike the Tories who cut the £50 tax rate and the SNP who have not reinstated it despite election promises. What we now have is a super-wealthy class in our rich country, while at the same time one in four children are growing up in poverty. In the last year, 94 homeless people died on Scotland streets and life expectancy has fallen for the first time in 35 years since market thatcher. I have to say, Presiding Officer, that all politicians should hang their heads in shame when they hear those statistics. Writing in this month's children in Scotland magazine, John Dickie of CPag and Peter Kelly of the Poverty Alliance make the point that, whilst the Scottish Government's new income supplement is welcome, urgent action is needed right now as families simply cannot wait. Presiding Officer, the reality is that, to get urgent action, what we need is a Labour Government, both here and across the UK, to redistribute wealth, to stop austerity and to eradicate poverty and inequality by implementing policies for the many, not the few. Thank you very much. I now call on Aileen Campbell to speak to her. I beg your pardon, you did not move your motion. I move the motion in my name. I call on Aileen Campbell, Cabinet Secretary, to speak to her and move amendment 14406.4. Six minutes please. Let me start by saying, Presiding Officer, that there is much that I do agree with in what Aileen Smith has said today. It is unacceptable that, in what is a rich and prosperous country like Scotland, there continues to be such persistent and deep-rooted inequalities. It is right that, as a Government, we are asked to do all we can to tackle this inequality, not just in the here and now, but to rebalance our economy and to ensure that we deliver lasting and impactful change for years and generations to come. However, what is inescapable is the background against which we seek to do this, because it is against a backdrop of ideologically driven austerity that has impacted on our budget and impacts on our ability to protect those most vulnerable in our society. The UK Government's welfare cuts have pushed more and more people into poverty and its impact is devastating. Our analysis suggests that welfare reforms will reduce social security spending in Scotland by £3.7 billion in 2021. Alarmingly, the target of those reforms have explicitly focused on reducing benefit generosity towards families with children. For example, over the first year of implementation of the two-child limit, around 3,800 larger families in Scotland saw their incomes reduced by up to £2,780, a situation only set to worsen year on year. A quarter of people moving from disability living allowance on to PIP were told that they do not qualify for support. Because of the decision to reduce universal credit work allowances, each year more and more working people in Scotland are losing out as they move to UC. By 2021, working UC claimants in Scotland are expected to lose around £250 million per year in total. The delays in initial payments on top of the lower rates of benefits overall results in more people in rent arrears or reliant on food banks. That is why the UK Government must halt the roll-out of universal credit. The reform estimated to bring about the biggest reduction in spending in Scotland, around £370 million by 2020-21, is the benefit freeze. Contrary to the Prime Minister's analysis, for the most vulnerable in our society, austerity is far from over. It is hurting people hard and it is penalising them. Elaine Smith I thank the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. I certainly do not disagree with her about the cruel approach to the benefit system by the Tories, but this Parliament was supposed to be a buffer against that kind of situation, so perhaps we could hear about what the Scottish Government is going to actually do to tackle poverty and inequality 10 years on. I have to call you, cabinet secretary. As I was going to go on to say, we cannot sit back and allow this to happen, which is why we have acted to mitigate the worst impacts of UK Government welfare reform policies. The truth is, however, that unless the UK Government reverses reductions in social security spending, then it will be even more challenging for the Scottish Government to meet the ambitious targets in the child poverty Scotland act and, more generally, work towards creating the equal society that we seek. Where we can take action, we are doing so. Since 2015-16, we have spent nearly £400 million on welfare mitigation. In 2018-19 alone, we will spend over £125 million on welfare mitigation and measures to help protect those on low incomes over £20 million more than last year. That includes fully mitigating the bedroom tax and resource for the Scottish welfare fund, which has helped 296,000 individual households, a third with children, over the past five years. We have given people in Scotland the choice to receive their universal credit award either monthly or twice monthly and to have the housing cost in their universal credit award paid direct to the landlord. Our Child Poverty Scotland act was passed by unanimous vote in the Scottish Parliament last year, articulating a bold statement of our collective commitment to end child poverty in Scotland. The actions that we need to turn that vision into reality were published in spring this year in Every Child Every Chance, our first tackling child poverty delivery plan that sets out initial steps towards meeting our ambitious targets supported by a range of investments, including our £50 million tackling child poverty fund. Our new social security agency, Social Security Scotland, made its first payments of carers allowance supplement in September. This investment increased the amount paid by the UK Government for the carers allowance by 13 per cent, putting an extra £442 in carers pockets. Helping our children in their earliest years will replace the Sure Start maternity grant with the best start grant, increasing the payment to their first child and continuing payments for subsequent children, unlike the UK system. In Scotland, free-skill meals are available to all children in primaries 1 to 3 and for children with families on low incomes. That is just some of the work that we are doing to help to relieve the burden of austerity from the people of Scotland, but we are not complacent and we know that there is far more work to do in order to further reduce child poverty and create a more equal and fairer Scotland. That is why, in the forthcoming publication of our disability action plan, we will set out how we work towards achieving our ambition to more than half the disability employment gap, a commitment that we made in our disability delivery plan. We will also be taking forward actions on the gender pay gap. Both areas of work being noted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as being potentially transformational in tackling poverty. That is why, in recognition of the fact that poverty is fundamentally about a lack of income, we will be working towards introducing a new income supplement to provide additional financial support for low-income families. In terms of the heartbreak in reality, facing people who are homeless or sleeping rough, we have allocated £50 million towards accelerating measures to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place. The homelessness prevention and strategy group will set out a five-year programme to transform temporary accommodation and end rough sleeping and homelessness for good. I have set out not just a clear set of actions that we are taking but also our plans of where we need to do more and where we need to go further. I think that today's debate holds us legitimately to account, but many of us will agree with where the ultimate finger of blame for the misery and pain caused through cuts and reforms should point. The UK Government needs to halt universal credit. It needs to stop austerity and instead opt to treat people across the UK with dignity, respect and provide the support that they need. I move amendment in my name. Just before I asked you, thank you. I now call Michelle Ballantyne to speak to and move amendment 14406.35 minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move amendment in my name. I am pleased to have the opportunity to open for my party in this important debate on ending poverty and inequality. George Bernard Shaw said that the reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself, therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. If the speakers from the other benches are aimed today to paint the UK Government and these benches as unreasonable, it probably underpins for me their unwillingness or inability to address the real drivers of poverty and inequality with the sincerity and intellectual rigor that the subject deserves. Looking at the motion submitted by Labour and the subsequent SNP amendment, one could be forgiven for thinking poverty and inequality began with the election of a Lib Dem Conservative coalition and that universal credit was devised simply to attack and punish people. In Elaine Smith's opening speech for Labour, there was no reference for the reasons universal credit was introduced and the catastrophic failure of the legacy welfare system under Labour, which showed no interest in improving our people's life chances. Tax credits have been hailed as the panacea by the Labour benches for the poor, but in reality a quarter of a million people have never received the tax credits that they were eligible for. Neil Findlay has an intervention on an intellectual giant such as herself. Has she had any representation from people in her constituency telling them about the outrageous situation that they find themselves in with universal credit? Yes, but not nearly as many as you refer to, and those that I have had, I have been able to resolve. There was no human point of contact to talk to if you had issues with tax credits, and worst of all, many people who progressed their situation and earnings then found themselves with demands to repay large chunks of the money that they had been given. Hundreds of thousands of people have been driven into debt under the legacy systems, and it has meant that 60 per cent of those coming on to universal credit are carrying that debt with them on to the new system. Labour allowed debt to spiral, both for the individual and the government, and the cost to families across the UK was a contribution that rose by nearly £3,000 a year. Labour also paid out without due diligence, opening the system to fraud, and the cost of that fraud was estimated at between £11 billion and £20 billion. Worse still, it was hidden in the UK treasury budget where it was not subject to audit. I am proud to be associated with a welfare change that is genuinely designed to tackle poverty and inequality. The member says that she was proud of welfare reforms. I wonder whether she is proud of the two-child limit and whether she is proud of the rape clause. Michelle Ballantyne. The two-child limit is about fairness. It is fair that people on benefit cannot have as many children as they like, why people who work and pay their way and don't claim benefits have to make decisions about the number of children they can have. Fairness is fairness to everybody, not to have one part of the community. Sorry, Mr Findlay. I would like to hear what the member has to say, whether you agree with it or not, it is to be heard. Universal credit may have its flaws, but the thinking behind the system is sound, a point that has been reiterated by all those who have given evidence to this Parliament. Government cannot address poverty and inequality without improving people's life chances. It is about making it better to be in work than not to be in work. Universal credit is an evolving benefit and the roll-out was implemented to allow issues to be explored and addressed. By its very nature it is flexible with the ability to adapt. The roll-out process is designed to allow checks to take place to assessive issues or policy issues or operational and to date they have almost wholly been operational. That means that the flaws that are there can be fixed. Something that could have been difficult under the legacy benefits system with its Byzantine processes and incomprehensible regulations. It was an important feature of UC design that, as the universal support system that would support the more vulnerable claimants was in place. That is exactly what we have seen in recent weeks with the allocation of £39 million to system advice to provide support with the roll-out of UC, showing that the DWP recognised operational difficulties and have the confidence to address them. Regardless of what others may say, it is a fact that universal credit is working for the many UK Government employment policies. Since 2010, youth unemployment has fallen by more than 50 per cent. 1.1 million Britons are back in work. The number of children in workless homes has plummeted by 637,000 and the UK has reached a record employment rate of 75.7 per cent with a female employment rate of 71.3 per cent. All of those during one of the worst recessions of all time and at a lower price than Labour could achieve even when the sun was shining. That is why universal credit is a key part of reducing inequality in this country and why I will continue to lend my support to it, as should every member in this chamber. Thank you. I now call Alison Johnson to speak for the green's four minutes please, Ms Johnson. At the start of this month, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned that one in four Scottish children are living in poverty. Highly regressive and aggressive cuts to our social security system are driving increased poverty, including child poverty and rapidly burgeoning food poverty. I would like to inform Michelle Ballantine that it is my view that the two-child limit is not fair and it is certainly not fair to the third child in a family. I will not. I have four minutes. By 2020, the on-going benefit freeze will have taken £300 million out of the pockets and the wallets of our poorest people. Perhaps most cruelly the introduction of PIP reduces or eliminates entirely the extra cost-benefit entitlement of thousands of disabled Scots. Some people have lost motability vehicles as a result. They cannot get out to work. They cannot visit friends and family and all of that is before we get to universal credit, which has cut support to families despite promising not to do so. The full horrendous impacts of this policy are yet to be seen. The Labour motion is right to call attention to the terrible impact of those reforms. It is important to note the progress that we are making in Scotland to establish a fairer social security system, a system that offers real security to people and recognises the social bonds between us all. Only covers a small part of the overall budget, but it is based on the principles of dignity and respect. As a result of green amendments of which we are proud, it is a system that is explicitly aimed at reducing poverty. In a system where £16 billion worth of benefits are unclaimed every year, Scotland is pursuing an income maximisation approach. Scotland is also aiming for a significant increase in the uptake of the best start grant, which is welcome. Scotland has taken a stand against benefit sanctions, which no longer operate through Scottish employment schemes and other green manifesto commitments. All parties in this chamber have made this a stronger social security system. All have made changes to the founding legislation. It is important to note the progress. I feel that the Labour motion falls short in this regard. Further, Labour is calling for an end to austerity while recklessly pursuing a jobs first Brexit. Brexit is predicted to cause unprecedented levels of economic hardship across almost every sector and region of the UK. We absolutely must stand against austerity, as the Labour motion rightly notes. However, a Tory Brexit will also hit the poorest, the hardest. Nor are we content with the Conservative amendment's attempts to cover up the impact of decisions that the UK Government is having on Scotland's poorest. The Scottish Government is to be congratulated for taking a stand against the welfare reforms that are causing so much poverty, but it can and it must go further. The Scottish Government won't use the powers available to it to apply a universal £5 top-up to child benefit, which we know will take tens of thousands of children out of relative poverty. They are too timid to allow local authorities the power to levy taxis to fund vital local services, dragging their feet even on a tourist tax. They won't look at a workplace parking levy and a new system of local taxation has to be investigated. We need to replace the outdated and regressive council tax. If we are serious about reducing poverty in Scotland, we have some real challenges ahead of us, but our social security system is a positive step in the right direction. The Green amendment would have kept in the motion an acknowledgement of the need to end austerity and stand against falling living standards, rising poverty and inequality, the roll-out of universal credit and the damage that the Tory party is wreaking on our social security system. However, we cannot take credibly a bid to end austerity, while the party proposing it is supporting an exit from the European Union, which will also cause huge damage to those most impacted by austerity. We also want to see the Scottish Government do much more than it is already doing, take a more radical stance, use the powers that we now have, enable us to do all that this Parliament can to end poverty, inequality and austerity. I know that you will do that. I will, Deputy Presiding Officer. By any measure, poverty has increased demonstrably since the crash of 2008. All told, wage packets are 3 per cent lower than they were in 2008. That has been compounded further with the impact of Brexit, the devaluation of the pound and the incipient rising cost of living. That has been a product of that calamitous decision. Poverty is not just a reduction or absence of household income. It is manifest also in the health inequalities that we debate in this place, in educational attainment and in arrested social mobility. How we respond to that in the chamber and in the corridors of government, either through investment in education or in the deployment of the new welfare powers that we have at our disposal will be the test through which we are all judged. I suspect that we in this place will be mopping up, however, after the flawed delivery of welfare reforms from Westminster for many years. I understand my party's role in that. I am ashamed of aspects of that role in that. The staying influence of the Liberal Democrats in that coalition government are now self-evident in the changes that the Conservatives have since made to things like universal credit since they have been unencumbered by our influence. It is in the delivery of universal credit that I wanted to amend today's motion. We wanted to restate our commitment to pausing the execution and delivery of that very flawed roll-out. That is what our amendment would have spoken to. The problems of the delivery of universal credit were very well described by Frank Field in his role as chair of the Work and Pension Select Committee when he said that wonderland visions of welfare reforms collapse on contact with real life. That is absolutely right. Those problems stem from the conflicting objectives of universal credit, which initially was to provide a minimum family income of simplification, saving money and creating incentives to work. The fact is that it is in the saving of money and the incentivising of work that has taken absolute precedence over that first priority, that crucial priority of sustaining a minimum family income. That is self-evident in the two-child limit that we have heard mentioned several times in this debate. Practical problems have also been ignored. Reasons for delay, which have been seen in the pilot roll-out, have never been resolved. Unintended penalties for self-employed people have not been overcome. We are still using single bank accounts for divided families and those who are affected by domestic abuse, where finances can be used as a tool of coercive control. The list goes on and it is an embarrassing litany of failure. The conclusion of the Work and Pension Select Committee—I agree with it—is that robust safeguards must be in place to stop family income falling further. I absolutely agree with that. Since we left office, the measure of the Tory assault on those families dependent on it has been laid bare. A total of £3 billion has now been slashed from the work allowance. The taper, where recipients keep a larger proportion of their money before benefits are cut, has been hacked to pieces. As was foretold by my colleague Stephen Lloyd, when he sat on the Work and Pension Select Committee, we are starting to see in those families who are already in receipt of the housing benefit component of universal credit no longer being paid directly to landlords that half of those are rent arrears of a month behind or more. That is why we need a pause. We need to understand the problems as we have identified many times. We adjusted the threshold of the roll-out. I will conclude by saying that this went to many of our constituents' faces. I have to spoil the track record, but never mind. I will forgive you. The speeches are four minutes now in the open debates. I welcome the fact that Elaine Smith has brought forward this motion today, and we are having this discussion. I would rather focus or try to focus on where we can agree rather than where we disagree. In terms of the motions and amendments, I accept that the SNP is not going to accept Labour's premise that more can be done. On the other hand, we can agree—and we need to have this debate in communities across Scotland—that, fundamentally, the failure of austerity, needless austerity—and, as Elaine Campbell says, the ideologically driven austerity—sits at the root of the issue. That is why we are talking about the growing poverty, deprivation and inequality that we see in Scotland. It has halted the progress that has been made over generations by a number of political parties to try and tackle the deep-rooted deprivation that exists in far too many of communities up and down Scotland. The Conservative Party is in complete denial where it then attacks the fact that tax credits, for example, under the last Labour Government, lifted over a million children across Britain out of poverty, 200 children in Scotland, 200,000 children in Scotland out of poverty. That is to be complete denial. In 2010, when the Conservative-Liberal coalition was elected, I was not aware that there were any food banks locally in Fife. Now there are food banks in nearly every community up and down Scotland. That is the evidence that, as a direct result of Conservative policy supported by the party over there, we have this unacceptable level of poverty, deprivation and inequality in Scotland that should galvanise the rest to us to look at where we can agree and where we can work together. I have that debate across Scotland so that people know what the real consequences of voting Conservative are. Michelle Ballantyne. Is the member arguing that the legacy systems as they existed should be returned to? I am saying that, as a direct result of tax credits, a million children across the United Kingdom were lifted out of poverty. One thing that I would say in terms of the SNP motion here, the amendment, the SNP states that they have included certain targets to eradicate child poverty. Let's not forget, it was the Conservative party who removed the targets for tackling child poverty once they came into power, because they knew that as a direct result of their policies, more and more children in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, were being driven into poverty. We should stand up against that. It is unacceptable in this day and age that that would be the case. I have argued for some time that what we need in Scotland is a national poverty strategy. The poverty alliance set out a whole number of areas. Labour has put forward that we believe that increasing child benefit by £5 a week would have an impact lifting immediately 30,000 children out of poverty, benefiting half a million children. The SNP Government looked at the options in terms of further top-ups and more targetting it. Let's have that discussion. Let's enter into discussion because our concern would be that an income supplement would be bureaucratic and perhaps cost more money. In all those areas, let's look at where we can work together to tackle poverty in Scotland. You must conclude. If you select short debates, it is brutal, but we have to have four-minute speeches to the nail. Tom Arthur, followed by Jeremy Balfour. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Debating poverty and inequality is one of our fundamental duties in this place. It is a debate that taxes us intellectually because of how challenging an area is. There is also a debate that taxes us emotionally because each and every one of us in our role representing our constituencies and regions will have had come face-to-face with people who have been at the sharp end of Tory austerity. I have had their lives, in some cases, utterly destroyed and shaken as a consequence of their engagement with the welfare system. I want to recognise the motion that Labour has brought forward. Unfortunately, I cannot support it because of one line in it that states that the Scottish Government has failed to use the devolved powers adequately. I am happy to always argue for more powers to be used, for more powers to come to this Parliament and for new and innovative ways of using these powers. However, this Parliament and this Government has delivered in a lot of areas, be it on the 2030 targets on child poverty, full mitigation of the bedroom tax, launching the carers supplement, extending access to free sanitary products, the homeless and rough sleepers action group, commitments to implement and recognise all the recommendations, increasing the fair food fund, setting up social security Scotland, using the income tax powers progressively to offset cuts from the UK Government, the pupil equity fund, £750 million, committed towards closing the attainment gap, increasing provision of free childcare at the end of this Parliament, a commitment to the real living wage for all Scottish Government employees since 2011, the new best start grant coming on imminently, and the baby box as well. These are a range of other areas in which we do not have the powers over employment law, we are taking strong steps such as with the Scottish business pledge and also carer positive, a great scheme that I would encourage all MSPs to sign up to and to become carer positive employers. Let me just finish this one point and to send a message out to all those businesses and employers in your constituency and region that they too can become carer positive employers. I'll give way to the member. Elaine Smith. I thank the member for giving way and of course much of that has to be applauded and supported but also over that time the SNP has passed on Tory austerity to councils with the cuts of £1.5 billion stripped out of the budget since 2011. Mr Arthur. I thank the member for intervention. That actually comes to a fundamental point in this debate because fundamentally it comes down to two views of what this Parliament is for. There's a view of the Labour Party which is a buffer. Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about this Parliament having to mop up the consequences of Tory welfare reforms. That's a view and a philosophy that the Labour Party are entitled to but it's not the view that I have because I don't want to have to be the Parliament that mitigates. I want to be the Parliament where all of the powers are in this Parliament, powers over employment law so we can make sure that there is a real living wage and under 25s aren't being paid the poverty national minimum wage. I want to have the full range of powers so we can truly transform Scotland and I want the full powers so we don't live in a country where colleagues of Michelle Ballantyne get to dictate social security policy in this country. I have to say that in my two and a half years in this Parliament the contribution from Michelle Ballantyne was one of the most disgraceful speeches I have ever heard. Six minutes of pompous Victorian moralising that would have been better suited to the pages of a Dickens novel and to suggest that poverty should be a barrier to a family, that people who are poor are not entitled to any more than two children. That's what an absolutely disgraceful position and she should be utterly, utterly ashamed of herself. Inequality comes in many different forms and some of it we have already discussed, sometimes loudly and sometimes softly, already this afternoon. One area that I want to pick up in my brief time is that around education and early years. This is an issue that clearly has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government since the Parliament started. I think that it would be interesting to review where we have come in the last 25 years or perhaps to say how little we have come in the last 25 years. What we have seen through different political parties and policies is the attainment gap growing wider and wider for those who come from the most disadvantaged part of our society. One of the advantages of being a member of this Parliament is that you get to meet individual and interesting groups and you learn lots. I think that the one thing that I had been unaware of, to be honest, until two and a half years ago was the importance of the first three years in a child's life, that those three years will often set the direction of where that child will go. The simple answer is that we are failing far too many of our children at that age. Too many are not getting the opportunities that they deserve or require. Until we can tackle that issue, the attainment gap will never go down and the attainment gap will more likely grow larger and larger. What we need to do is work out what is working and then do that as good practice. I would point to organisations within my region such as Dad's Rock, which are going in and trying to offer farers of all ages how to parent, how to bring up their children and to give them the techniques that they lack. We do that by not simply sitting down and giving academic discussions but, on a regular basis, bringing together farers and their children and teaching them how to play and the benefits of play. For some of us, that will seem very obvious, but to learn those techniques to show us how we can encourage our children to read, to sing, to talk at that early age will set them up for an education later on in life. If we carry on at the speed that this Government is setting, it will be 40 years before the attainment gap is brought to zero. That will be several generations who have been failed again by this Parliament and by this Government. We can talk about other inequalities and other disadvantages but, unless we tackle the people who have been born into our society now, then simply nothing will change. We need to support the third sector and those on front-line services to make sure that they are given the appropriate resources to be able to do that work. We can have all the warm words or shout as much as we want from different parts of the chamber, but the root cause is clear. We are failing our generation of younger children. We have done it for 25 years, we are still doing it and until we change that, nothing will change. If Alex Rowley had written the motion and made the opening speech, I think that my speech would have been much different. His was a much more sensible tone. It was putting the blame where it lies and it was talking about being able to work together to try and solve the problems. Unfortunately, what we get from the Labour motion and what we got from Elaine Smith's speech is the usual. We will touch on the Tory party, say that they are to blame for the general thing and then have a go at all the shortcomings that she sees in the SNP without acknowledging at all all the work that the SNP has done, that the Scottish Government has done to mitigate the problems that have came from Westminster and came from that Tory party. That is not unusual. Every time that the Labour party comes into this chamber with a motion, all they do is play politics. All they do is play politics. No, I can't. I've only got four minutes, Neil. I always like to take you. I've only got four minutes. I'm really sorry. Why should we be surprised by this? You're a party that has done nothing. You're the only party that's done anything to mitigate the effects of the Westminster decisions. You're the party who campaigned to make sure that Westminster stayed in charge of us, despite the fact that it was likely by the Tories. You're the party who abstained when welfare cuts came to Westminster, which meant that we were in the situation that we were in now. Then, when you were given the opportunity to get those powers devolved to this Parliament, you were the party that said, no. Now, there's nothing in your history, recent history that suggests anything but contempt for this Parliament. I'm sorry, it's just not... Why should we be surprised by this? Everything is about opportunism. Last week, we saw a party who had to go to throw millions of pounds to keep women in their place and then have to go to try to pretend to people that they're the champions. There was the exact same woman. Led by the same union, the GMB of which the present leader, Richard Leonard, was a highly placed official at the time, who came to the agreement to sacrifice women's rights to protect their male workers. That doesn't sound like for the many to me. I don't mention this to have a go to strikers because they were... I understand their frustration, they're fully entitled to go and strike, but the stink of hypocrisy from the Labour Party last week was quite something. This week it was, sorry. Please don't tell me it'll be all right when Jeremy's number 10, because that's just not going to happen. There's more chance of me eventually taking over a few Bruny in the centre of Celtic's midfield than there is of him becoming Prime Minister. Just look at the opinion polls now. They don't have a great record and accept that, but when poll after poll shows him behind the worst PM in living memory, he's getting a chance. I know for any serious party to want to change things in this Parliament, there's a process which allows every party to put forward their proposals for a better Scotland and to combat austerity, and it's called the budget. Last time we'd won, the Government and other parties took that opportunity to work together to produce a budget that would best serve everyone. Labour's contribution is here for all to see nothing. They decided their role of carping from the sidelines and trying to steal credit for other people's work. They clearly didn't need to do was enough for them. That's why I find this motion from Labour both distasteful and hypocritical. I wish I could remember last time that Labour contributed something positive to the chamber, but I've only been in this Parliament in different guises since 2007, so unfortunately I can't. Please defeat this motion and treat it with the contempt that it deserves. Brian Whittle is followed by Colin McNeill. Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. How would you follow that? I thank Labour for bringing this topic to the chamber. I'm going to focus my short time specifically on health inequality. I know that we've all seen the diagram of the Glasgow Underground, where, within that two-mile radius life expectancy varies by a staggering 16.9 years, depending on which vicinity station you live in. I would start by saying that the very basis of any health agenda is rooted in good nutrition and being physically active and inclusivity. I would also suggest that there are very few conditions that cannot be positively affected by improving those. If we follow that argument, it then leads us to that ease of access to an understanding of good nutrition and physical activity and the environment in which that takes place. I think that the health conversation has got to change because there are many levers available to the Scottish Government that would not require huge budgetary commitments but which would have a significant long-term impact on the health of our nation. The educational environment should be a key battleground in delivering a healthier future for Scotland from that nursery to higher education and closing that health inequality gap. When we're considering physical and nutritional education, we need to look not only at the learning environment but at how we ensure that that learning can be implied outside of the school timetable. It's not enough to learn the theory. Pupils must be given the opportunity to apply that learning in practice. Looking outside to the environment that is adjacent to schools, we need to look at the planning department and be cognisant of where licences for things such as fast food restaurants are granted. We need to look at preventing food vans from being parked close to schools. We also need to consider at what age we should allow our children to leave their school premises. I've got no problem with fast food. However, I have a huge issue when it becomes the staple diet. There are generally more fast food outlets, gambling outlets and access to alcohol in the more deprived areas per capita than in the more affluent areas. However, the child's background is, in my view, if we are able to make a positive impact, we have a duty to do so. That whole start is, as Jenny McBalfour was talking about, starting with that active play framework in nursery along with that good basic nutrition. That early intervention directly tackles the situation where children are reaching primary school age. I won't take the school age already two years behind in their learning. The attainment and ultimately productivity is the significant subplot of successfully tackling health inequality and doing so. We open up more opportunity to more of the population. What the Scottish Government has failed to recognise is that many of the nation's health issues are best tackled in the education portfolio. Therefore, if we are truly serious about tackling health inequality, a long-term cross-portfolio strategy has to be implemented. Anything less, and the Scottish Government is not developing that long-term strategy of sustainability that is merely managing its demise. The Labour motion, quite frankly, is a hotspot of cobbled-together notions devoid of any original thought or idea. It is designed to be able to try and attack both Scottish and UK Governments on a very superficial level. I think that they are desperately grappling for some kind of foothold. In fact, it is really poor fare. As for the SNP, as long as they can blame someone else, they won't have to take any action themselves. They tinker around the edge and look for headlines instead of actually being brave enough to make the big changes that would actually make the big differences. Deputy Presiding Officer, there is huge inequality in this country. Of that, there is no doubt that there are solutions available to the powers that be are resolute and brave enough to take the bull by the horns and make the change. From what we have heard today from a very tired Labour Party and an entrenched SNP Government, the solutions do not sit with them. Education is a solution to health and welfare. It should be the SNP Government's priority, but we know for sure that their focus is somewhere else. The Universal Credit Project is in crisis. It has been universally condemned. It has fatal design flaws. It is hugely underfunded and it is hurting the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society. Do not take my word for it. The fact that it is underfunded and it is hurting people is the admission of Secretary Esther McVeigh, who contradicted Downing Street by saying so that families would be worse off to the Scottish Tories not know this. John Major, your former Prime Minister, has said that it will be your poll tax moment. I would suggest that the Benches on the other side who have consistently defended this might want to think ahead a little bit about how universally condemned the system. The facts are, even how the Allen MP says that it is a question of morality. Let us even look to the facts. Resolution foundation suggests that overall universal credit is set to lose £33 billion across the system that it replaces the legacy benefits referred to. It will leave families on average £600 or more worse off a year and single parents even worse off at around £1300. The worst element of this universal credit system is the two-child limit, the most draconian element of the reforms. To say this to Michelle Ballantyne, you say that parents should think about how many children they should have. Why should any policy ask the children to pay for the price of that? Universal credit is not even fully rolled out yet. It is a system that promised to change the face of the welfare system using benefits to encourage people to work. Yes, there have been some positive outcomes, but overall universal credit has been a key factor pushing people into poverty and widening the inequality gap. It just does not end there. It is a problem for many people and women in particular in abusive or co-est relationships. The tax credit and child system that Alex Rowley talked about did lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty, but this group of parents who have not previously been subject to conditionality will now have conditionality attached to that element of universal credit. They will be poorer under this system and it will undo the work of the last Labour Government under Gordon Brown in reducing child poverty. Even the Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that the full roll-out of universal credit will affect at least a third of working households. Even back then, when tax credits were floated by Labour, women MPs quickly saw that the Treasury plan would cause problems because a credit system means that it is generally paid to the main earners who are usually men. That is why child tax credits were brought in addition to that to make sure that mostly women would have some control over their families' finances. Abusive relationships is a subject that we have discussed in this Parliament because the reason why it is a problem is that it is paid into one person's or a couple's bank account. For example, if one partner in a two-income household receives a bonus, universal credit treats it as a joint income and a just payment accordingly. However, there have been issues and cases where one partner refused to share the bonus that they earned. In the end, universal credit, not as Ian Duncan Smith claimed it would do, does not increase fairness and it certainly does not increase simplicity. Women's aid and the TUC notice that 52 per cent of survivors living with their abusers said that financial abuse had prevented them from leaving their relationships. Universal credit is pushing people into poverty. It is creating the deepest social problems. We must scrap it now until we can make absolutely fundamental reforms to do what it was meant to do. I welcome Labour's motion today that draws attention to the problem of poverty, but it is a missed opportunity. Instead of taking an honest look at the complex and deep-seated problems that underlie the recent decline in life expectancy, their motion is more concerned with scoring political points. There is agreement across the chamber. Elaine Smith and Aileen Campbell have said that it is not acceptable that persistent and deep-rooted poverty and inequality persists. That is a point that we can all agree with across the chamber. Michelle Ballantyne highlighted that universal credit is a better, modern benefit that replaces an old system that desentifies work. Neil Findlay mentioned Michelle Ballantyne. Will he apologise on behalf of his party for the utterly shameful comments made about people who are on benefits that they cannot have more than two children? Will he apologise for that shameful comment? Maurice Golden? The only shameful thing in this chamber is the remarks from Mr Findlay. I completely agree with Michelle Ballantyne and her case, where she highlighted that universal credit will mean that 700,000 more people getting the extra money that they are entitled to and 1 million more disabled households are getting more money per month. In fact, 83 per cent of claimants are satisfied with the system and, indeed, the roll-out. Jeremy Balfour, in addition, spoke about the need to get it right for the youngest in society, particularly those under three years old. Brian Whittle spoke about how we must tackle health inequality. Focusing on the motion, the steady rise in life expectancy that we have seen in recent decades is to be celebrated. It is a clear sign of the advance we, as a country, have made in improving living standards and ensuring that the next generation fares better than the last. It is for that reason that the recent decline in life expectancy is so concerning. Our children must be able to look forward to a bright, healthy and prosperous future, not a state of decline. Any drop in life expectancy should be a wake-up call to whatever party is in government, and I genuinely hope that the SNP is up for this challenge. Unfortunately, their record in government gives little reassurance of that. The gap in educational attainment and missed healthcare treatment targets, which they just yesterday admitted will continue to be missed for at least three more years, are evidence of that. More than ever, Scotland needs a Parliament that will be tackling poverty as a key priority. We have the appalling situation in Scotland where one quarter of children live in poverty. For too long, Scotland has been let down. After all the years, Labour dominated Scottish politics, Glasgow is still plagued by deprivation. The SNP are no better, shirking responsibility by trying to blame the UK Government for their failings, but on SNP's watch, homelessness has risen for the first time in eight years. We need to work together in areas of common ground. We all recognise that ending poverty is a challenge that we need to drive up standards. Ultimately, I and my party are up for tackling poverty, for tackling inequality, and I would like to see that from across the chamber as well. It has been a passionate debate today, and rightly so, as I said in my opening remarks, it is unacceptable that, in what is a rich and prosperous country like Scotland, there continues to be such persistent and deep-rooted inequalities. I think that Alex Cole-Hamilton was absolutely right to point out the far-reaching impact of poverty and inequality, affecting life chances, educational attainment and in health and wellbeing. The key therefore is to enable people to have their fair chance to flourish and it is to tackle this deep-seated inequality in poverty. As Alison Johnston said, be imaginative in cross-cutting in our approach to interrogate where we more need to be done. While the debate was passionate, there were areas of agreement. To be honest, if you are living in poverty, if you are reliant on food banks, then the very least you can expect that you have a right to see your elected representatives work together to find solutions in spite of the punitive acts of the UK Government. All by one party in this Parliament recognised the brutal impact of universal credit, the impact that sees universal claimants being six times as likely to be sanctioned as claimants of any other legacy payment or that sees 3,800 Scottish families have their incomes reduced to the two-child limit. Pauline McNeill is also right that it is hurting people and its morality is questionable. Tom Arthur was also correct to get angry and call out the Conservatives moralising that seemed to suggest that if you are poor you are not allowed any more than two children. That view is utterly, utterly reprehensible. I am quite willing to go back to the OR tomorrow. However, I think that we all heard that there was a suggestion that if you are poor you do not deserve any more than two children. That is something that we need to call out because it is not right what Michelle Ballantyme. If she did not mean that then fair enough, however, I do think that it showed us a glimpse of the Conservatives and their true reasons for pursuing those policies. That is why the UK Government must halt the roll-out of universal credit and the Conservatives must face up to the impact of the ideologically driven welfare reforms that their party is taking forward. The impact that includes food banks, two-child limit, rape clause and the gendered impact of poverty is outlined by Pauline McNeill. That is not a system that I would ever associate with any sort of pride. That was a pride that Michelle Ballantyme mentioned, so I am happy to take an intervention if she wants to tell us how proud she is of that system. The issue here is fundamentally whether you are saying or suggesting that the legacy benefits that existed before universal credit is something that you want to go back to, whether you fundamentally disagree with the principle of universal credit on whether you are willing to work out and make sure that we iron out the flaws as we roll it out and make it work. I do not want to tolerate the brutal impact that universal credit is having in the here and now. If the Tories do not want to face up to the fact that their decisions are having that impact here and now and that they will not halt it, I think that you do a disservice to the system that you are trying to articulate is in place, because it is not the reality of what people are experiencing in their daily lives. The food banks are a reality. The two-child limit is a reality. The rape clause is a reality, and you need to face up to the fact that it is your party that is perpetrating and peddling that misery on people in the here and now. Alison Johnstone also talked about the establishment of Scotland's new social security system and how this Parliament worked together to ensure that what emerged from the legislation was a system based on dignity and respect, giving just a glimpse of what is possible. When we have the chance and the powers to shape and hone an approach that seeks to make a positive impact to people's lives, supporting people and not stigmatising them. Alex Rowley was absolutely right to point out how the progress that has been made in tackling poverty, whether by the previous Labour Liberal Executive or through the measures that I outlined in my opening remarks that we have taken forward, has been halted by the Conservatives and that they are absolutely and continue to be in denial about that. I also recognise that we need to do more. If we want to make good on our ambition to make Scotland the best place to grow up, then we need to do more than our plans to go. We currently have, that suggests, £12 million of fund to support parents into work and develop their skills, a £7.5 million innovation fund to support new approaches to preventing and reducing child poverty and a whole list of other actions that we are taking forward to eradicate child poverty. We are committed to doing more. That is why, in recognition that poverty is fundamentally about a lack of income, our tackling child poverty delivery plan commits us to work towards introducing a new income supplement to provide additional financial support for low-income families. I was pleased to hear Alex Rowley's offer to work together, to work out where we can find agreement, to work in collaboration, recognising that a lot of what has been said today is agreement that the Tories are perpetrating misery on our society and that we need to respond to that in a way that is responsible. I welcome his commitment to work with us, to work out what more we can do in a reasonable way. I look forward to working with him and welcoming him to his new post. I certainly want to continue to work with other parties because together, all by one party, we are in agreement that this country needs to move forward and we need to help children to have their fair chance to flourish. David Stewart concluded a debate for the Labour Party. There can be few more important topics for debate than one that aims to end austerity, poverty and inequality. Understandably, the debate was passionate, it was mostly well informed and occasionally animated about poverty and deprivation. Richard Leche once said, Today we stand with the brains of hunter-hunter-gatherers in our heads, looking out on a modern world, made comfortable by some by the fruits of human inventiveness and made miserable for others by the scandal of deprivation in the midst of plenty. You do not need to look far to find evidence for Richard Leche's powerful comments in the human condition in Scotland. Many speakers have mentioned this. In each year between 2014 and 2017, 1 million people in Scotland were living in poverty. 8 per cent of people are in persistent poverty. The poverty rates, as Elaine Smith said, for single adult women were higher than for single adult men. Particularly worries about minority ethnic groups, poverty being higher than white ethnic groups and relative pensioner poverty is also a major issue. Elaine Smith said that no one in 21st century Scotland should have to live in poverty. She said that it is simply unacceptable that one in five people and one in four children are forced to live in poverty. Many speakers today, such as Alec Rowley, Pauline McNeill, Alec Cole-Hamilton and Brian Whittle, mentioned health inequalities, where the poor die younger than the affluent. We know that poverty, social deprivation and inequality are significant contributors to poor health expectations. It is the least well-off who are most at risk. Back in 1948, the NHS represented the advance of egalitarianism in our nation. There was great hope for the new future at Heraldine. A Guardian news article at the time said that the health service was designed to offset, as far as it can, the inequalities that arise from chances in life to ensure that a bad start or a stroke of bad luck, often crippling economic pelty had in the past should be changed. Inequality and health is fundamental to the debate, but we know that life expectancy in the UK has stalled. In the past 50 years, the chasm between the health outcomes of the rich and the poor has widened. Is it not, Presiding Officer, for those who can listen and outrage that, in the 21st century society, individuals' health expectations are intrinsically linked to their postcode? I believe that inequalities are just a symptom of the problem. We have to look at the wider issues. In the brief time available—and I apologise, I cannot mention all the speakers—I will make the final few comments, Presiding Officer, that the greatest enemy we face is not some distant foe hiding in foreign fields, but it is here today and every day in Scotland hiding in plain sight. It is poverty, it is discrimination, it is inequality, it is ignorance and it is want. Different creatures in the size and scale to the five giants of the beverage report of 1942, but the same root, too many people living below the poverty line, the poor dying younger than the affluent, a dysfunctional and inadequate system of welfare protection, a postcode lottery of healthcare. The root cause is a fundamental inequality of power, rights and wealth in society, and we slay the five giants only when we win the battle against austerity and the war against inequality. All we need is the will to do and the soul to dare. That concludes our debate on ending austerity, poverty and inequality. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1-4427, in the name of Graham Day in behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on Graham Day in behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 1-4427 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motion 1-4428, in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau, on a stage 2 timetable for a bill. I call on Graham Day to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 1-4428 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of three Parliamentary Bureau motions. I call on Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau to move motions 1-4429 to 1-4431 on approval of SSIs. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that amendment 1-405.1, in the name of Clare Hockey, which seeks to amend motion 1-405 in the name of Richard Leonard on keep the Monklands in Monklands, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1-405.1, in the name of Clare Hockey, is yes, 94, no, 26. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 1-405, in the name of Richard Leonard, as amended, on keep the Monklands in Monklands, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1-405, in the name of Richard Leonard, as amended, is yes, 98, no, 21. There were no abstentions and the motion is therefore agreed. I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Aileen Campbell is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Michelle Ballantyne will fall. The next question is that amendment 1-406.4, in the name of Aileen Campbell, which seeks to amend the motion 1-406, in the name of Aileen Smith, on ending austerity, poverty and inequality, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1-406.4, in the name of Aileen Campbell, is yes, 61, no, 59. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in the name of Michelle Ballantyne falls and therefore the next question is that motion 1-406, in the name of Aileen Smith, as amended, on ending austerity, poverty and inequality, fall. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1-406, in the name of Aileen Smith, as amended, is yes, 66, no, 54. There were no abstentions and the motion as amended is therefore agreed. I would finally propose to ask a single question on three parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? Please say so now. Good. The question is that motions 1-4429 to 1-4431, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the bureau, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move shortly to members' business in the name of Angela Constance on support for families of loved ones killed abroad. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.