Chamber and committees

I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing the debate to the chamber and for her long-term commitment to this work.

It is hard to take a long view in politics. We often talk about the future of the children and young people whom we know and see, but political timescales tend to tip the balance towards considering the current electorate. However, what of those who are not yet born? The UN declaration urges us to consider them all, as it refers to being

“Cognizant that future generations are all those generations that do not yet exist, are yet to come and who will eventually inherit this planet.”

That is a sobering responsibility, which calls on us to look ahead, not just to 2026 or 2050, or even to 2100, but as far beyond as we can reasonably expect human beings to live here. Of course, the future survival of humanity depends largely on what we do now, so we need a way to assess the decisions that we make now in terms of how their impact on future generations will shape the world to come.

We need to take those responsibilities seriously, not just in politics but in wider society. To a large extent, in comparison with peoples across the earth and across time, we are cultural outliers, in that we do not do that. The UN declaration points that out, stating that:

“many social, cultural and religious or spiritual belief-based practices, as well as numerous national constitutions and legal systems exist, that seek to safeguard future generations and promote intergenerational solidarity and responsibility”.

That intergenerational solidarity—intergenerational equity—is particularly acute in relation to our earth, with its climate and biodiversity, and how we can either co-exist with or extract and exploit non-human nature. As the declaration recognises, that is more important now than ever. It says:

“our decisions, actions, and inactions today, have an intergenerational multiplier effect, such that our conduct today will impact future generations exponentially”.

That exponential impact demands serious informed consideration.

Sadly, such attention has not been a feature of Westminster politics for a long time. The Sustainable Development Commission, which was set up to do exactly that work, was abolished during the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition’s so-called bonfire of the quangos. It will be interesting to see whether Keir Starmer’s Government chooses to reinstate the commission.

Wales responded to that piece of policy vandalism by passing the bill that became the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. From Scotland, we have watched the impacts of the 2015 act with interest, and not just a little envy. It took time, of course, for the act to make substantive change—Sophie Howe felt that it took three years for significant progress to be made. Nonetheless, its effects have been real, influencing not only individual decisions but ways of thinking and working. For example, the current Future Generations Commissioner for Wales is working on resources for long-term thinking and is tracing the links from current decisions to their impact on people’s lives as this century makes way for the next.

Another of the ways of working involves identifying a growing movement of individuals, in and beyond public services, who are pushing for change. Of course, that does not always require legislation, as the Dundee Changemakers Hub in North East Scotland shows.

Much of what the UN declaration calls for is happening in civil society, including the recognition of the need for intergenerational dialogue and engagement that is dynamically enacted here in Scotland by generations working together. However, other aspects of the declaration will need Government action if they are to be fully realised. The declaration talks of

“building a strong foundation for sustainable peace, prosperity and the protection of human rights”

as being

“the most effective way to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations”.

That is because intergenerational responsibility is not an optional extra to be added on to democracy and good governance; it should—and must—be at their heart, as a matter of justice, equity and human rights.

In the debate and in the many briefings that were circulated before it, we have heard and have had shared with us many examples of the Christie commission’s findings of the generational effects of social and economic inequalities and of the imperative—which is more urgent than ever—to prioritise prevention. The prevention of poverty, and thereby the prevention of pain, ill health, physical and psychological scars, and so much more, must motivate us all. We have also heard that the sticking plasters, such as food banks, are battling under burgeoning demand.

Poverty is a political choice—yes, we are responsible for the choices that we make. I am sure that Willie Rennie will embrace as his own all the decisions that were made when his party was instigating and perpetuating austerity as part of the UK Government for those fateful five years. There are consequences to the decisions that we take as politicians. I am proud, for example, that it was the Scottish Greens’ influence two and a half years ago that led to the mitigation of the UK Government’s benefit cap being written into the tackling child poverty action plan. Was it enough? No, clearly not—it was not nearly enough. That is why we need to heed the calls for action on the fundamentals of poverty prevention.

The Child Poverty Action Group’s briefing for the debate clearly identifies the areas that must be our focus, including social security, employment and childcare, the cost of the school day, tax, and housing. Alongside the urgently-needed increase to the Scottish child payment, we must plug the gaps in Scotland’s social security system, and we must remember that the right to decent living standards is not restricted according to nationality or immigration status. Close the Gap reinforces CPAG’s call for employment support, especially for parents who are experiencing intersectional barriers to well-paid, secure, flexible work and childcare that is free, accessible and flexible. Several members have talked about that in the debate.

I, like others this afternoon, celebrate the social security system that we have in Scotland. Social security is not a burden. It is not something that we should be ashamed of, but a mark of a decent, compassionate and humane society that values collective care and responsibility for each other, not the individualised alienation that has been the consequence of too many years of Tory rule in Westminster. We have already heard much in the chamber about the need for sufficient support for the costs of the school day, particularly school meals. Universalism matters: it destigmatises, it equalises and it endows recipients with equal respect and worth. Undoubtedly, there is more that we can do to reduce the cost of the school day, which includes uniforms, trips and activities and digital devices, which are no luxury, but an essential tool for learning.

Others, including Collette Stevenson and Miles Briggs, have spoken of the importance of decent, secure homes for all children. We need to see action on the affordable housing supply programme. As Shelter and Crisis have shown us, ending child poverty is impossible without ending the housing emergency, with almost 10,000 children in temporary accommodation. That is up 138 per cent since 2014, and another 45 children become homeless every day. I urge colleagues on the Labour benches to press their Prime Minister to end the two-child limit, and not to wait for a wholesale review of benefits. We know that it is wrong now, and it needs to go now.

We are living through a transition, whether we want to or not. The climate and nature emergencies cannot step aside and wait while a couple of Governments argue over who is most to blame. The question is whether that transition will be one of justice or of oppression. Cutting budgets for walking, wheeling and cycling and bringing back peak rail fares—none of that will grow a world in which today’s children can breathe and thrive, or in which today’s parents can model the behaviour that we will all depend on.

Our decisions matter. I would much rather see money that currently subsidises private companies or invests in unproven, unreliable or expensive technologies that will not help us to address any of the emergencies that we currently face going to vital services that our children and their families need. I therefore urge the Government to think again about these short-sighted cuts—about the losses to the budget for children’s rights, protection and justice, and its shamefully diluted position on free school meals. I ask the Government to imagine the position of carers, especially single parents, who are kept in poverty solely by the randomness of childcare provision.

I implore the Government to think again about dropping its commitment to a human rights bill and a ban on conversion practices—commitments that it once made to the most marginalised, excluded and silenced of our neighbours. The human rights legislation in particular could be an important tool to tackle child poverty. It could provide the framework for focusing public expenditure and improving our public services, helping us to deliver our minimum core obligations. We will not—indeed, we cannot—achieve the laudable mission of eradicating child poverty without meeting those core obligations.

There are stark choices to be made by a Government that is facing tough financial decisions. It is up to us to ensure that the consequences and burdens of those decisions—those financial choices—that we make do not fall on the shoulders of Scotland’s most marginalised people: our children.

Thanks very much.

Good morning, minister. In many ways, my questions follow on from those that were put to you by Evelyn Tweed.

You have talked about the potential to give existing bodies—or existing structures—more teeth if we do not go down the line of having a disability commissioner. Given our persistent failure to deal with the stark inequalities that are faced by disabled people, which Evelyn outlined, is there any value in having such a role, whether it be that of a disability commissioner, specifically, or something with a stronger mandate to tackle these matters? In earlier responses, you talked about having a balance across all organisations and mentioned the SHRC’s concern that this commissioner, as outlined, would be more powerful than it was. Given the failures to address disability inequality, do you think that we need more clout specifically in this area?

Following on from that and your points about intersectionality, which you have highlighted as being extremely important, there are concerns about how we manage to take a mainstreaming approach while recognising that disability covers a range of disabilities and a range of very different needs, which, if not conflicting, are at least in tension with one another, given the breadth of what a pan-disability approach could look like. How do you see that balancing act, which involves the integration of genuinely intersectional approaches, being done, given the complexity that exists within disability, even before we start looking at the other issues that you have highlighted to do with things such as ethnic minority status and gender?

I want to take you back to your comments about the review of the public sector equality duty and where we go next. We will have to wait until tomorrow to find out exactly what is in the programme for government, but it is clear from what you have outlined that there are gaps in the powers that existing bodies have, whether through the PSED or through the mandate of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I am curious to understand where you think more powers are needed and what those powers should be, if we are to ensure that we tackle the issues that are raised by the bill.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is undertaking to tackle racism in justice and community safety-related public bodies. (S6O-03636)

The public inquiry into Sheku Bayoh’s death in police custody heard that officers could reasonably have assumed that Bayoh was a terrorist solely because of the colour of his skin. Neither the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner nor the Crown Office considered the role that racial prejudice might have played in his death, despite human rights law requirements to do so.

What assurances can the minister provide that our justice system is addressing institutional racism? Will she commit to providing regular updates on the actions and cultural changes that are needed for compliance with human rights laws and the provision of anti-racist services?

I am grateful to Humza Yousaf for lodging his motion and for securing the debate in the chamber. I echo other members’ comments that recognise his leadership on the issue.

I know that many people around Scotland will be watching us to see what we in Parliament say and do about the awful genocide that is wreaking death and destruction across Gaza. I believe that those of us who have consistently been calling for a ceasefire for more than eight months, and for the world to recognise the state of Palestine for much longer than that, will, in time, be shown to have been on the right side of history.

We desperately need peace in the lands of Palestine and Israel—and it must be a just peace. The on-going conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has roots that go back more than a century. A peaceful resolution, although not simple, is a moral imperative. We come to the debate after the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, the murder of children and healthcare workers and the destruction of hospitals, universities, libraries and schools. We come to the debate at a time when Israeli occupation forces have used an injured Palestinian as a human shield, strapped to the front of a military vehicle. We come to the debate when Israel is not just bombarding Gaza but restricting services and support across the occupied territories.

Israel has stopped transferring tax that is collected from Palestinians to the Palestinian National Authority, so public sector workers have not been paid for months. Israel was given control over Palestinian tax and customs in the Oslo accords in the 1990s. The Oslo process saw the then Palestinian Liberation Organisation recognise the state of Israel. Indeed, the PLO did what was asked of it in those accords, but it was consistently undermined by the forces of occupation and apartheid, as the Palestinian Authority has been. Education is an inalienable human right, but the education of young Palestinians is being restricted because the Palestinian Authority has not received the money that it needs to pay teachers’ wages, if, indeed, they still have schools to teach in. The same restrictions apply to healthcare, which is another inalienable human right.

I will say a bit about the attacks on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East—UNRWA. When the International Court of Justice instructed Israel to ensure that sufficient aid was provided in Gaza, the immediate response was not to make that aid available but to claim that UNRWA was implicated in the 7 October attacks. No evidence of that has ever been produced. More UN workers have been killed in this war than in any other. Hundreds of aid installations have been destroyed and damaged, which has compromised UNRWA’s ability to do its life-saving work.

International humanitarian law—particularly the Geneva convention—emphasises the protection and assistance of civilians. Defunding and otherwise compromising UNRWA’s attempts undermines those protections. We must apply all the international pressure that we can on Israel to stop it from acting in bad faith, and so that the UK and the US reinstate support for UNRWA, stop sending arms to Israel and recognise the state of Palestine. A just peace cannot be achieved by the obliteration of a people and the destruction of their world.

I have a different position to others on the issue of a two-state solution, one that is shared by many workers for peace in Israel and Palestine. The occupation of east Jerusalem makes such a proposal unworkable, I believe, as do the illegal settlements in the West Bank. I urge colleagues to read Jeff Halper’s writing on that. However, that difference does not diminish my support for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine, for an end to supplying arms to Israel and for a ceasefire. The Palestinian people should be given the power and the means to determine their own future.

To conclude, I will share the words of Shahed Bdeir, a 13-year-old Palestinian child whose poem, “Mother Palestine”, has been on display in the Scottish Poetry Library as part of the Hands Up Project’s “Moon Tell Me Truth” exhibition:

“Sadness in her eyes
as everyone dies
She remembers the old days
How beautiful she was
But no one can realize
that she wants to survive
Everyone, everywhere, must realize
that Palestine deserves life.”

Baillie Gifford holds billions of pounds’ worth of investments in fossil fuel industries and in companies with links to Israel’s occupation and its genocide of Palestinians. Fossil Free Books is a collective of more than 800 book workers, including authors and illustrators, whose campaign seeks to persuade Baillie Gifford to divest from those destructive companies. Members will recall how Baillie Gifford divested from Russian firms in 2022, in response to political pressure.

Will the cabinet secretary join me in recognising the work of Fossil Free Books and applauding it in its aim of highlighting how cultural events and institutions are used to launder corporate reputations? Does he share its vision?