Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

Alison Gillies, you wanted to comment on that point. I ask you to be brief. If you have any further points, you can make them in writing.

I believe that Vivien Thomson wants to come in before you move on.

Thank you. That leads me to my next question, which is on the cost of the school day. We have discussed the huge challenges for those on low incomes and the barriers that our young people face in relation to the costs of the school day. In its written submission, CPAG welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to policies on

“digital inclusion, curriculum cost removal”

and

“trips and activities”.

The local examples that were provided in the submission were also very helpful.

However, with the cost of living soaring, I feel that the barriers will only be strengthened. Will Sara Spencer expand on the areas relating to the cost of the school day that she believes should be a priority? We talked a bit about stigma earlier, but that was more about stigma for parents. I am interested in policies being carried out in a way that focuses on reducing stigma for children, too. Could you elaborate on that?

I thank everyone on the panel for their comments, which have been very helpful.

I want to ask about wraparound care, which Stephanie Callaghan touched on, and the work that is done with different organisations. We know that poverty—lack of money—is at the heart of the poverty-related attainment gap. Families’ benefits have been cut this year, and the cost of living is rising; food and fuel prices are going through the roof. I am worried about the impact that that will have on children.

Children cannot thrive in a difficult home environment. Although we say that the issue is poverty, other issues can stem from poverty. The following problems are not restricted to families on low incomes, but living in poverty can lead to drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, domestic abuse and other problems at home. Children cannot concentrate when all of that is going on. Families need support.

Jim Wallace touched on this matter, but I would like witnesses to expand on it by telling us how they ensure that the work of their organisation is aligned with other services, such as social work and health. Do witnesses think that that could go further, into debt agencies and women’s or addiction services?

That is really helpful. The idea of stigma is important. You mention free school meals. The way that things are done in practice in schools matters. I remember that, when I was at school, you got a free school meal by standing in a separate queue and getting a dinner ticket, and you were in a small group of people who got one. It is nice to know that things like that have been phased out. It is important that we continue to work with young people, as you have said, to discuss how we can ensure that stigma is reduced.

I am conscious of the time. I can leave it there if other panel members want to come in.

Because I have not sat on the committee previously, I declare that I am still a councillor on Renfrewshire Council.

It is important that organisations do not work separately with no overall consideration of all the issues that a family or child face at home.

I am not sure whether any of the other witnesses want to speak on that, but I would like Sara Spencer to respond.

I am sorry—I know that there was a lot in that.

On my last point about support from local authorities themselves, have you had discussions with local authorities in Scotland?

This morning, we have heard legitimate concerns about the proposal, but we have also heard legitimate responses to those concerns. I do not think that we should delay the proposal any further.

There has been a lot of emphasis on the cap on charges, and we have heard examples of extreme circumstances relating to the implementation of the levy, but I have lost count of the number of times that the point has been made that it will be for local authorities to decide what happens in their areas. As my colleagues Jackie Dunbar, Fiona Hyslop and Mark Ruskell have pointed out, those opposed to the levy seem to have very little faith in the ability of local councils to implement the levy in a way that works for their areas. As a councillor, I find that shocking. Councils are best placed to know what is going on in our local areas and what would work in those areas. The consultation, and the regulations that have to be implemented in line with the levy, back up even more the point that local authorities are best placed to take the levy forward.

I do not understand the idea that local authorities in Scotland should not have the same powers as those in England. We have seen that the levy has been effectively used in England and Wales.

The levy will not happen overnight—we have heard that it will take years. Local authorities have to go through a due process and consultations to find the way that, in the end, works best for them.

Achieving our 2030 target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions will require significant changes to behaviour. This is a tool for local authorities to support that. I am absolutely behind it. It is extremely positive that the revenue that will be raised by the levy will be used to support the objectives of local transport strategies.

I completely understand members’ sentiments about the cost of living crisis that we are experiencing, but transport improvements that could come about as a result of the levy could be hugely beneficial to people in poverty and on low incomes, who are disproportionately affected by poor public transport services. Again, it will be for councils to decide what is best in their areas.

I concur with what we heard about Mr Simpson’s 2017 comments about empowering local councils to take decisions. I am wondering what has changed. This morning, there appears to have been more interest in playing party politics than in empowering local communities to follow through and tackle climate change.

The levy will be hugely beneficial for some areas. There are areas where that will not be the case, but councils, which know their areas best, will have the option whether to implement the levy. They will be able to shape the scheme, set fees and, as we have heard, provide exemptions. Again, councils will be able to decide whether the levy is right for their area.

We talk about localism and handing more power to local authorities. We should continue with the proposal and I will vote against the motion to annul.