 Diolch yn fwy o fwy o ddawyd o cysylltu, a wnaeth yw panfelly nifer 1 o aethion Julian Martin. Diolch yn fwy o arbennigol. Am fwy oedd y Gwwellffordd ysgoloshion i'r peilwyr sy'n gawm aethon yn rei hwn teimlo i gael yn fawr iawn, ac mae eu gweld o bwylfaedio yn yn ei fod, oherwydd yn ynllun i gyd. Diolch yn fawr iawn. O ffwrdd, mae'r gweld o bwylfaedio yn yn yn ddim yn laen, ac mae'n drafoddan i gael ein gwylltu a dleshigol i'r gynhwys am gweithio gwaith. A gweithio gwaith mae'n gwybod dw i'n gwneud ei wneud yn cywethaf mlyneddol i'n gyfn�haith i'r gennychau a gennychol 65% o'ch cyfle, sy'r 2010 mae'n gen respecting i'r gweithio. Mae'r gyfer bod y gweithio newid yn gwrs i'n gweithio g discoveringol y fathau a dgyfyn nhw, boeddoch yn gwaith, mae'n gwneud i'r gwaith yn cyfrifio sydd a'r chyfeiadau, of children and of in-work families receiving child tax credits, 87 per cent of them are women and of all the in-work families who are single parents receiving child tax credits, 94 per cent are women. Those cuts represent a massive step backwards for equality for women across the UK. Julian Martin I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. When it comes to the Tony's appalling policy to limit child tax credit support to children unless a woman can prove that she was raped, does the cabinet secretary agree with the position of rape crisis Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid, who have refused to be third party assessors for this vile policy, along with the many other organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland who have roundly called for the policy to be scrapped? The cabinet secretary said that the heinous policy to limit child tax credit support to two children and, in particular, to the exemption that requires a woman to prove that she was raped is completely unacceptable, deeply harmful to women and their children and is a fundamental violation of women's human rights. There are no circumstances under which it can be acceptable for a woman to disclose that she has been raped in order to access social security for her child. We believe that the UK Government must, as a matter of urgency, scrap this policy. It is anti-women, it is anti-family and it is fundamentally wicked. I totally understand the position of many organisations who have refused to support this policy. I very much agree with the joint statement of rape crisis Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid, who stated that the problem is not that organisations are unwilling to change their service to help to operate the family cap and rape clause. The problem is this policy, and this is what must change. Gillian Martin Before I ask the next supplementary question, I would like to pay tribute to Alison Thewlis, who has campaigned on this for the last two years. Suddenly everyone else seems to be waking up to the fact that this is going on. Given that tax credits are given to working families who are in low incomes, can the cabinet secretary give me an assessment of the potential effect that this policy might have on child poverty in Scotland and the in-work poverty of women with children? Alison Thewlis I would also like to pay tribute to Alison Thewlis, who has worked very hard across the political divide to build as much consensus about this much-hated policy. At the end of the day, I can say to Gillian Martin that it is indeed the children that will be affected the most. Our efforts to reduce child poverty across Scotland will be made all the harder as the Tories and Westminster continue their assault on the poor. It now seems that Theresa May wants to continue that assault for another five years. Around £1 billion will be cut from welfare spending in Scotland each and every year by 2021, with a £0.2 billion cut coming from the changes introduced this month alone. The respected Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that a three-child family will lose on average £2,500 per year, while families with four children or more will lose £7,000 a year, and four million families across the UK will see their entitlements fall. By 2021, 50,000 households in Scotland will be impacted by the two-child cap on child tax credits in Scotland. The impact is massive, the reach is far and wide, so there is no doubt that Tory policies will push families into poverty and into crisis, so it is no wonder that they scrapped their child poverty targets. Adam Tompkins I wonder what exactly is the decision that the minister dislikes. Is it the decision to restrict child tax credits—a decision that is widely supported by taxpayers right across the country, as I think we will see in the forthcoming general election? Or is it the decision to make a number of exemptions to that policy? If it is the former, the Scotland Act of course ensures that this Parliament has the power to do something about it, either through the top-up power or through the power to create new benefits. Does the cabinet secretary intend to use either of those powers in this instance? If not, why not, given her rhetoric on the matter? There is nothing like rhetoric from the Tories or indeed a bit of deflection from a policy that is anti-women, anti-family and absolutely fundamentally wicked and a policy that violates the human rights of women. It is always interesting that, instead of standing united in this Parliament to oppose a much-hated policy, the Tories would rather stand up and be apologists for it and defend a policy that is anti-women, anti-family and fundamentally wicked. It is always wonderful that Mr Tomkins expects the women in this Parliament and the women in this Government to clear up the mess of his Government. He always expects this Government to mitigate the mistakes of his Government, and he expects this Government and this Parliament and the people of Scotland to pay twice, because whether it is the 15 per cent of the social security system of social security spend that is in the process of being devolved to Scotland, or indeed the 85 per cent of the social security system that will remain reserved, we are all entitled to expect a social security system that is fair and a social security system that does not penalise women and children. Of course, his policy is not just wrong for women and children in Scotland, it is wrong for women and children right across the UK. If the Tories intend to save £12 billion from those cuts, they should pass on to Scotland our share of those savings so that we can make different choices and make our own choices that are based in dignity, fairness and respect. Claire Baker Thank you, Presiding Officer. The family cap will push more women and children into poverty, and the rape clause is an indefensible policy that does not belong in a civilised society. We are seeing strong opposition to those reforms that reflect the anger that is towards those changes. Gillian Martin talks about the role of the third parties in the strong stance that is being taken by women's organisations. Can I ask the cabinet secretary if she can confirm whether guidance will be issued to the public sector and what the expectation is in terms of compliance in Scotland? Claire Baker For her question, she probably knows from the contribution that the health secretary made on radio this morning that we are opposed to healthcare and other staff and specialist organisations being used by the DWP to implement their policy. For the reasons that I have outlined already, we are concerned about the proposed third party assessment model. We have grave concerns that no suitable infrastructure or training to support the implementation of the policy have been put in place by the UK Government, and neither does it appear to be forthcoming. It is also very important that we do not expect our healthcare professionals to act as gatekeepers to the benefits system. Of course, the chief medical officer has advised that she cannot agree to disseminate guidance because she wants to seek the views of the professionals that are expected to act as approved bodies. She wants further information about unintended consequences. Of course, there is the widely publicised letter from the RCN to Alison Thullus that has also raised many concerns. Question 2, Liam McArthur. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent comments by the Children's Commissioner on protecting children from physical punishment. Mr Mark Dunald The Scottish Government does not support the physical punishment of children. We have no current plans to introduce government legislation in this area, but we will consider carefully the member's bill, which we understand John Finnie intends to introduce. We continue to support positive parenting and recognise that physical punishment can set children the wrong example and is not an effective way to teach children discipline. I thank the minister for that response. It is perhaps worth reminding the chamber what Tam Bailey said at the weekend. He told the Herald newspaper that his failure to see the law changed on justifiable assault of children was, quote, the biggest regret of his eight years as Children's Commissioner. It sets us apart from practice in most civilised countries and has led to sharp criticism from the United Nations. We all share the ambition for Scotland to be the best country in the world to bring up children. Does the minister believe that we can justifiably claim such an ambition as long as we maintain the practice of physical punishment? As I have stated, the Government does not support physical punishment of children. We take forward an approach that is about positive parenting and ensuring that parents feel confident and empowered to take forward different approaches in relation to the discipline of their children. Evidence from the growing up in Scotland longitude in a study that the Government carries out demonstrates a significant shift in attitude towards the issue of physical punishment among parents in Scotland. As I have said, the Government does not have any current plans to introduce legislation in the area, but we are aware that Mr Finnie will be taking forward a member's bill and the Government will give careful consideration to that bill when it comes to Parliament. Thank the minister for that further clarification. Obviously, one of the criticisms of proposed legislation is that it may seek to criminalise parents around Julian to fear with family life. I believe that that is misguided. As with the ban on smoking in public places and smoking in cars where children are present and brought forward by my former colleague Jim Hume, it is about changing culture and practice. Does the minister agree that when Ireland recently introduced a similar change in its law, it did not result in parents being criminalised or being unable to control their children? Would he not accept that introducing equal protection against assault could help to reduce the physical abuse of children in this country? Of course, the area of legislation to which Liam McArthur refers in Scotland predates both he and I being in this chamber. I believe that it was legislation that was piloted through the Parliament by Jim Wallace at the time, who was the justice minister. There was much debate that took place in Parliament at that time around the position that the Scottish executive of the time was taking. We will always pay close attention to international examples and the experiences of other countries. As I have said already and I repeat once again, the Government will give consideration to the bill that John Finnie is bringing forward when he introduces it to Parliament. John Finnie. I hear everything that the minister says and certainly Mr Bailey's comments are a welcome contribution to a debate. The minister will be aware of growing support for the equal protection of children from assault. Is the minister able—I note that the detail comments that he has given to my colleague Liam McArthur—to indicate, because he cited international examples, what priority the Scottish Government gives to the very clear position that the UN has taken on ending the physical punishment of children, please? The Government gives consideration to the findings in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is work taking place across Government to look at how we can ensure that the principles that sit behind the UNCRC are taken forward in a Scottish context. That is the work that continues to go on across all portfolios in Government, including my own. John Mason. I wonder whether the minister can reassure families that they are a key part, the key part of our society, and that parents are the key part of their children's lives, and perhaps he can give examples of what the Government is doing to support families and children and parents? The Government absolutely has the aspiration for all of Scotland's children to have the best possible start in life. We believe, as I said to Liam McArthur, that the way in which we do that is to ensure that we have parents who feel empowered and confident to support their children as they grow up. The Government takes forward a number of different strategies, the national parenting strategy, being the most obvious in relation to that, but also, as part of our Children and Young People and Families Early Intervention Fund, we awarded £14 million to 116 organisations supporting children, families and communities across Scotland. From within that, around £4 million has been allocated to organisations who specifically work in the area of parenting and family support. The Government is committed to ensuring that parents across Scotland have the support and advice that are required to ensure that they can make positive impacts on the lives of their children and be a positive support to them as they grow up. The minister will know that, in the past, Scottish Conservatives have raised concerns that a smacking ban would criminalise parents. It seems that the ban introduced in New Zealand has not been wholly successful, and the minister said in response to Liam McArthur that the Scottish Government is considering international examples. Can he advise Parliament what lessons the Scottish Government has drawn from the smacking ban in New Zealand, particularly relating to false allegations and the risk of criminalising parents? I would not seek to single out any one example as being indicative of what may or may not occur in a Scottish context, but we can look broadly at international evidence. Liam McArthur has cited Ireland, Douglas Ross has cited New Zealand. We can look broadly at international examples and determine what the right approach would be for Scotland. The Scottish Government currently takes the position that the right approach for Scotland is to promote positive parenting strategies, but nonetheless we are aware that Mr Finnie intends to introduce legislation, and we as a Government will obviously give that careful consideration once we have seen the detail of it. Given the convincing body of evidence that shows physical punishment of children can have long-term negative impacts on a young person's mental health and wellbeing, can the minister tell me how he plans to work with the mental health minister to address his issue and what action is he taking to ensure that the long-term impacts of physical punishment will be considered as a factor in the roll-out of the 10-year mental health strategy? As I mentioned earlier, in terms of our responsibilities in relation to the UNCRC, we take a cross-government approach in relation to that, looking at how each of the different portfolios interacts with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In relation to Monica Lennon's specific point on the mental health strategy, we are also going to be taking forward a children and adolescent health and wellbeing strategy, which will very much tie in with the mental health strategy and its long-term aspirations. I cited that in my initial answer to Liam McArthur. We recognise the negative impact that physical punishment can have. That is why we as a Government take a very firm position that we do not support physical punishment, but the approach that we take is around promoting positive parenting, and that is the approach that we seek to advance through the work that we are taking forward and the funding that we allocate. That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a debate on motion 4948 in the name of Neil Findlay on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee on its inquiry into the preventative health agenda. Can I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now?