 Felly, dim ond ifydig i'n meddwl theor i dda, a fyddwn yn fwrdd yn ddangos i'n ddiwylliadau i ddiddordeb sgwbl mewn oedd diwedd y Scymdeithas Cymru ar sicrhau 17. Rym ni'n ddydig i'r dda i ddiddoriadau y peth i ddim byddai mewn i'r ddoi, bob, fel mae'n mynd i nhw i'r ddiddorg iawn. Ac Lord HaenYd yn fywodol i'r ddysgu chi'r siaradau ddysgu ac Richard Leonard yn ddarparu ar y gwybod a'r rydw i ddirlunio yn ffosifol iawn. Agenda item 1 is the Child Poverty Scotland Bill, and we will only have that on the agenda today, which is consideration of the Child Poverty Bill at stage 2. I would like to highlight to the committee that if we finish stage 2 proceedings today, we will not need to meet on Monday next week to receive our briefing on the social security bill and consider our approach. We could use our usual Thursday morning slot for that meeting. Hopefully, that will be an incentive for today. I would like to welcome the cabinet secretary and the accompanying officers to the meeting. Welcome and good morning. We will now start the proceedings of stage 2 of the bill. I will first call amendments 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Groups with amendments 10, 12, 12A, 13, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29. Cabinet secretary called you to move amendment 2, sorry, amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group. Good morning, convener, and to committee colleagues. I will now speak to my own amendments in this group. I have requested and respond to the amendments in the name of Pauline McNeill and Adam Tomkins. There has been a growing body of support for the introduction of interim targets. We have heard during the committee evidence sessions many stakeholders speak to the importance of interim targets to instill a sense of urgency and to drive action to meet the 2030 targets. I agree with many of the arguments put forward. Amendment 12 therefore places a duty on Scottish ministers to meet a set of interim targets in the financial year 2023-24, the midway point between now and the 2030 target year. The interim targets will be based on the same four measures as the 2030 targets, relative poverty, absolute poverty, combined low income and material deprivation and persistent poverty. Amendment 12 proposes that the interim target levels are set in regulations and there are two justifications for this. Firstly, the interim targets should be based on all available evidence and we will be producing baseline projections for the first delivery plan, which will give us a robust basis on which to set realistic but sufficiently stretching interim targets. As I made clear during the stage 1 debate, it is my firm view that we must be led by the evidence in our work to tackle child poverty. Given that we know that child poverty is projected to rise across the UK, largely as a result of welfare reform, we need to consider carefully what the impact of that will be and how it will affect the work that we take forward. I believe that setting arbitrary interim target levels on the face of the bill before that detailed and important work has been done would be unwise. Secondly, convener, we intend to seek advice from our independent poverty and inequality commission, which we will come to discuss later on this morning. We will discuss with the poverty and inequality commission on what appropriate those interim targets should be. Amendment 23 arises as a result of amendment 12. Section 9 of the bill requires that the final annual progress report to set out whether the 2030 targets have been met and if not, why not. Similar provisions will be required in relation to the annual report covering the interim target year. The progress report for financial year 2024-25 will refer to the 2023-24 interim target year statistics. Amendment 23 requires that report to include details of whether each of the interim targets have been met and in an event that they have not been met to explain why that is the case. Amendments 9, 10, 24, 25, 28 and 29 are minor technical amendments, which arise as a result of the fact that there are now two sets of targets and it is necessary to be clear which set is being referred to throughout the bill. In particular, amendments 28 and 29 establish the difference between interim targets, 2030 targets and child poverty targets, which is, to be the term, applied to both sets of targets where both sets are relevant for reporting purposes. My proposals on interim targets and interim reporting are thorough and robust. They will allow us to develop evidence-based interim target levels and to increase the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of Scottish ministers' progress by requiring us to give a detailed interim report. They take into account evidence that we heard during the committee evidence sessions. As Jim McCormack of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said, there is a strong case to have a thorough route and branch look at whether we are making substantial progress at pace towards achieving the targets by 2030. I now turn to amendment 12A in the name of Pauline McNeill. Although I very much understand the rationale behind Ms McNeill's proposed targets, which appear to be the halfway point between the latest published statistics and the 2030 target level, I would argue that my proposal for the interim targets to be based on evidence and considered by Parliament when I bring forward regulations is a more robust approach. The same argument is applied to amendment 13 in the name of Adam Tomkins. I would be interested to hear how Mr Tomkins arrived at the levels that he is proposing, which seem to me to be arbitrary and take no account of the likely impacts of external factors such as the on-going programme of austerity. It is also not clear to me why amendment 13 requests the Scottish Government to estimate the number of children living in persistent poverty in 2014-15 in order to then establish an appropriate interim target level. The Scottish Government has already published persistent poverty rates for 2011-2015 for Scotland, and the current level is 12 per cent. Much of amendment 13, therefore, in my opinion, appears to be unnecessary. I do wish to be clear on one point, although I propose that the interim targets be set in regulations, I absolutely accept that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the level of the interim targets. That is why I am proposing that the regulations that I will bring forward will be subject to affirmative procedure. I can also confirm today, convener, that my intention would be to bring those regulations forward in sufficient time so that the interim target levels would be set in statute in time for the publication of the first delivery plan in April 2018. For the reasons that I have set out, unfortunately, I cannot support amendments 12 and 13. I move amendment 9 and ask members to support my other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Pauline McNeill, to speak to amendment 12A and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Good morning. First of all, I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said up till now on the need to have interim targets. That is very much welcome. That is an amendment that was drafted by the law society. When I saw it, I thought that it could make perfect sense. I was in favour of having interim targets set on the face of the bill, and they seem to be a half way between 2030 and on the specific targets on absolute poverty and persistent poverty. That is certainly my concern. If it is not on the face of the bill, I am pleased that you said that that is an affirmative procedure. However, I do feel strongly that it should be on the face of the bill, and I think that the Parliament should have a full say in it. It is a very short period of time, as we know. It is ambitious targets and that has to be commended. It is important that we are clear about what the interim targets before 2030 are. Adam Tomkins, who speaks to amendments 13 and other amendments in the group. I support the Government's recognition that interim targets are needed. Like Pauline McNeill, I think very strongly that the interim targets should be on the face of the bill. I do not think that it is fair to describe the interim targets as arbitrary unless we also think that the 2030 targets are arbitrary. There is nothing any more arbitrary about the 2024 targets than the 2030 targets, so I do not think that that is a helpful way to proceed. All witnesses who gave oral evidence to the committee in its stage 1 inquiry thought that the bill, who expressed a view about the matter, said that the bill should include interim targets and that they should be on the face of the bill, not agreed subsequently by delegated legislation. That is what the committee unanimously said in its recommendation at paragraph 65 of its stage 1 report, which says that the committee is of the view that interim targets should be on the face of the bill. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary's amendment does not deliver on that, but Pauline McNeill's amendment 12A to the Cabinet Secretary's amendment does, so we will support Pauline McNeill's amendment 12A. If that is agreed, I will withdraw my amendment 13. My amendment 13 seeks to create a series of interim targets that are not arbitrary but which are calculated at halfway by halftime. There is a 12-year period that we are talking about here between the enactment of this bill and 2013-2030. The halfway point is 2024, and the interim targets are calculated by looking at where we sit now with regard to these targets, as recorded in the Government's most recent annual report on the child poverty strategy in Scotland, and looking at that marker and looking at the 2030 target in section 1 of the bill and saying that we should be halfway to achieving those 2030 targets by halftime. The reason why there is no figure given for the fourth statutory target on persistent poverty is because there is no figure given in the annual report on child poverty for 2014, which is the most recent one, and so I was proposing to give the Government some discretion in terms of calculating what that is. However, if the Cabinet Secretary already knows the figure, that could be adjusted at stage 3. However, if amendment 12A in the name of Pauline McNeill, which we will support, is accepted today, I will not press amendment 13. However, I strongly think that the committee unanimously, only a few weeks ago, very strongly thought that interim targets should be on the face of the bill, and amendment 12A delivers that. Amendment 12 does not. I think that it is important to emphasise that, under my proposals, Parliament will indeed have a full say in interim targets, because interim targets will be set out in regulations. Parliament of course has to approve those regulations. I hope that, given the tone and tenor of my opening remarks that I have demonstrated that the Government has certainly listened to committee and to others. However, to summarise my position, convener, I do believe that interim targets should be informed by the evidence of outline, the work that we need to do in terms of baseline projections. It would also be my intention to have the support and advice from the poverty and inequality commission as well. The Government has also demonstrated enhanced opportunities for scrutiny, given that we will have an enhanced progress report that is clearly saying if targets have been met and if they have not been met, why not? Of course, we are all familiar with the affirmative procedure and I repeat my commitment to have the work done and to have the regulations taken through Parliament, if it is Parliament's will, in time for the very first delivery plan. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We now go to the vote. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary. We are already debated with amendment 9. Cabinet secretary, can you move formally please? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Call amendment 3 in the name of Adam Tomkins, grouped with amendment 4. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 3 in the name of Adam Tomkins, grouped with amendment 4. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I move amendment 3 in the group. We all know that section 1 of the bill contains four income-related targets, measurements of child poverty that are focused on income. We also all know that poverty is much more complex than that. This is underscored by the Government's own comprehensive and holistic approach to child poverty in its child poverty measurement framework, which has 37 indicators of poverty contained within it, most of which do not relate to income. The approach that we want to take to this bill is not to reduce or dilute the income targets at all, but to supplement those income targets with two further sets of targets, targets that are concerned with children growing up in work-less families or households and targets that are concerned with the education under attainment gap. Our approach is not that we should take an either-or view of poverty. We are not saying that we should look only at income or that we should look only at education and worklessness, but that we should look at all of those issues in the round. The amendments in this group are amendments that seek to add to the bill a target concerning the number of children growing up in Scotland in work-less households. The way in which we have tried to identify and define what we mean by that is drawn directly from the Scottish Government's own child poverty measurement framework. The Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland already recognises the importance of parents' employment rate, so does the United Kingdom law in the Life Chances Act, and our view is that this child poverty bill should also recognise the importance of this in statute. The target is calculated with reference to the parental employment rate in Scotland between 2007 and 2014, as recorded in the Government's most recent annual report on child poverty in Scotland, which has moved up from 80.4 per cent in 2007 to 81.8 per cent in 2014. The target that we are proposing is that that should rise to 86 per cent by 2030, which is a 4 per cent increase on the 2014 figure. We think that that is ambitious and stretching but realistic and is therefore commensurate with the ambitious but stretching and hopefully realistic targets, which the cabinet secretary has already set in section 1 of the bill that has been introduced. Thank you, Adam Tomkins, for going through and explaining your amendments as proposed. I have some misgivings about the logic and the principle to bring them forward in the legislation, particularly the notions and the language used. We all share an ambition across this Parliament to increase employment and to help those who can and need to go into employment to access those labour markets. However, the way that the amendments are articulated and the notions behind them, in my view, seem to shift the cause of poverty on to people. The utilisation of the concept of worklessness within the amendments as drafted is language that I do not think helps the principles of addressing poverty and is language that does not belong in the 21st century as we try to address those issues. On a logical basis, I am not clear what definition workless households encapsulate within this set of amendments and, for those reasons, I will not be supporting those amendments. I share a colleague's concern about that. I think that the term worklessness is part of a rhetoric that shifts the blame of poverty onto individuals rather than recognising the structural aspects of it. It is measuring employment as well and not income, which is what the bill is about. Income is what needs to be measured, because you can be in work and be in poverty still. You could have low pay, poor hours. Worklessness also does not take into account that there will be people who are not employed, who have caring responsibilities, who are studying. I really object to the amendment and the term. I would like to add that I do not think that worklessness is a reliable indicator of poverty, although worklessness households are more likely to be in poverty than working households. 70 per cent of poor children are in households with at least one working parent. Some families can be in poverty with two working adults. The bill defines poverty in terms of income, and I am not convinced that that should be included. I agree with my colleagues on that. The term worklessness is not the term that we want to be using. Ben is 100 per cent right when he says that in the 21st century we should not be using that term. When you look at it, it almost makes it out as if it is individuals' problem. It is them who created that. As we have already said, there may be various reasons why people are in those positions, whether it be a carer looking after a disabled member of their family, or whether it be someone who has given up to support other members of their family. I find that the term is just not what we are looking at. I believe that we have the actual targets and the data that we need. I just think that that is probably not where we should be going with this. I just wanted to add very briefly. I agree with what others have said up until now. I will not be supporting the amendment, but one of the reasons I will not be supporting it is because I think that what the committee has heard over the past few months is that two thirds of people who live in poverty are in work, so being in work is not necessarily a pathway out to poverty. I think that it would give the wrong signal if we were to put this in the bill. I will say to Adam Tomkins that the word worklessness and the definition of worklessness can be someone who is disabled. It can be a full-time student at university, so they are not workless. Some are studying, and it can also be early retirees. I am not minded to support this amendment, simply because the word worklessness households is demeaning. We are looking at a social security bill, which is based on dignity and respect. I think that anything that says worklessness or work less is more demeaning to the people than anything else. I have had my say along with the other members of the committee. The Scottish Government is making a clear statement that income or lack of income is central to poverty, which is a view that our stakeholders strongly share. It is why the four targets are set at the heart of the bill and the focus on a range of aspects to do with low income. It would not be a surprise to Mr Tomkins. I am opposed to amendments 3 and 4. As those amendments in themselves will do nothing to increase the income of families of children living in poverty, the new target that amendments 3 and 4 seeks to introduce does not relate to income, in fact. It relates only to persons and employment. As we know, employment in itself is not necessarily a route out of poverty. As Ms Johnstone and others this morning have outlined, in 2015-16, 70 per cent of children in poverty were living in households with at least one adult in employment. That is a 15 per cent increase from 2010-11. While rates of employment in Scotland are relatively high, changes to the quality and nature of work alongside welfare reforms from Westminster, as we have seen, have driven up in work poverty. The four measures that are outlined within the bill convener are well known and are well understood amongst the stakeholders. Retaining them would provide a degree of continuity. Those measures were chosen to follow an extensive consultation and are designed to complement each other with each capturing different aspects of poverty. They are also strongly supported in Scotland and across the UK. Analysis of responses to a department of work and pensions consultation on the targets in 2012 concluded that there is a very strong support for the existing measures and near universal support for keeping income poverty and material deprivation at the heart of poverty measurement. As outlined by Jim McCormack of the Joseph Renterie Foundation during the first committee evidence session, he said that it is important that we have a small core set of the right targets that are informed by a richer measurement or monitoring framework that gets more into the detail of the connections that drive the outcomes around those targets. I have no doubt that we will probably, later this morning, talk in more detail around our existing measurement framework and how we can improve that to ensure that it captures all the correct causes and consequences of poverty. Those are my reasons why we have selected the four core measurements and, for the reasons that are set out, I do not support amendments 3 and 4. Adam Tomkins, you wind up the presser with a draw. I thank all committee members and the cabinet secretary for their remarks about those amendments. They are based on the insight from the Joseph Renterie Foundation in its report on how we can solve UK poverty in September 2016, in which the Joseph Renterie Foundation said, that, for those who can, work represents the best route out of poverty. Our very strong sense is that no anti-poverty strategy is going to be effective unless it includes, I am not saying that it has to be uniquely focused on, but unless it includes a focus on employment rates employability. The word workless is used simply to capture both employment and self-employment. It is not meant to connote any negative or 19th century connotations at all. It is just a widely used word that includes both employment and self-employment. The amendments do not seek to blame anybody for being in poverty—quite the opposite. There is nothing in my remarks about those amendments earlier on this morning to suggest that poverty is caused by worklessness, but there is clearly a correlation between poverty and worklessness, or if you prefer, between poverty and unemployment. Otherwise, we would not have in the Scottish Government's own child poverty measurement framework indicators of child poverty that are to do with parental employment. We take the view that there is a correlation between unemployment and poverty, and we take the view that no effective child poverty strategy is going to work unless it includes a focus on employment. For those reasons, I will press those amendments. Thank you very much, Mr Thompson. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, so there will be a vote. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Those in favour, raise your hand. I should have explained that. There is a gynth. I have got to tell you a couple of minutes to get the vote counting. Thank you very much. Sorry, seconds, I was told. Total votes for 2, total votes against 1. No abstention, the amendment is disagreeing. Thank you very much. Call amendment 11, in the name of Adam Tomkins, in the group on its own. Adam Tomkins, to move and speak to amendment 11. Thank you, convener. This amendment, in a sense, is a companion to the amendment that we have just debated and voted on. Again, it underscores our approach to child poverty, which is that to narrow a focus on income alone is not going to work, and that a number of what you might call life chances indicators need to be added to the bill, not in order to dilute the focus or distort the focus on income, but simply to add to that. Again, this is perfectly consistent with the approach that the Scottish Government already takes to its child poverty measurement framework, which includes quite a number of indicators, which quite rightly includes a number of indicators pertaining to educational attainment. The child poverty strategy for Scotland recognises educational attainment as an indicator of child poverty. Indeed, it states that education plays a key role in contributing to the future prospects of Scotland's children. Education Scotland Act 2016 already provides that ministers must have regard to the link between socioeconomic disadvantage and educational attainment in the exercise of their powers relating to school education. That is important and welcome, but it is not going far enough because the statistics produced by the Scottish Government themselves show that educational attainment is an increasing problem in Scottish school education, not a decreasing problem. My amendment 11 is designed to add to and give even more backbone to the must-have-regard duty that we already have in the Education Scotland Act. My proposed target in amendment 11 is derived directly from the child poverty strategy in Scotland, which measures the performance of P7 pupils from the 30 per cent most deprived SIMD data zones, including in numeracy and writing. That is the measure that I have, as it were, copied and pasted in amendment 11, with the target set at 80 per cent. Current performance is 54.3 per cent in numeracy and 56 per cent in writing. Those are shocking statistics that we should all be concerned with. It seems to me that no child poverty bill that this Parliament passes is likely to be successful in its aspirations, which we all share right across the chamber and across the committee, unless it is prepared to confront and tackle the problem of educational attainment in the way in which amendment 11 seeks to address. As we have just heard, amendment 11 attempts to establish a new target for educational attainment, based on two of the indicators from our child poverty measurement framework. For the reasons that I set out in the debate on the previous groupings, I am opposed to an additional target on educational attainment. My firm belief that the focus on income is crucial and correct is an approach that is welcomed by stakeholders. I think that we would be unwise to depart from what is generally considered by those who are experts in the matter as an appropriate and robust set of poverty measures. Of course, Mr Tomkins is aware of a renowned child poverty measurement framework. It does consider a wide range of factors that impact on the lives of children and their families, including educational attainment and underemployment. Those matters and a range of other matters are the causes and consequences of child poverty. They have to be confronted, they will have to be measured in the measurement framework and they have to be addressed in the delivery plan. I accept that it is absolutely important to look at the broader picture and that is why I have made that commitment to review the measurement framework in time for inclusion for the very first delivery plan. I would very much welcome views from Mr Tomkins and, indeed, any other committee members on the review of the measurement framework. My strong view remains that the central focus of the bill and the targets must be on income. I do not think that I can usefully add convener. I do not agree with the cabinet secretary, I am afraid. I agree with her about much of this bill, but I do not agree with her that an effective child poverty strategy that focuses only on income is going to work. I am trying to add some further teeth to that strategy and some further teeth to that bill so that we can all stand a better chance of realising our collective ambition to eradicate child poverty in Scotland. I do not understand the argument that you can do this by focusing on income alone and not having tough statutory targets to close the attainment gap. The First Minister of Scotland has said that education is her Government's number one priority. That amendment gives us the opportunity to give some legislative teeth to that political aspiration. Education should be the top priority of everybody in the Scottish Parliament, not just everybody in the Scottish Government, and here is an opportunity to do something about it. I would like to press the amendment. Thank you, Mr Tomkins. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. We are not agreed and there will be a vote. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to or be agreed to through your hands was in favour of the amendment. That is fine, thank you. Those against the amendment, please, raise your hands. The results of votes are total votes for two, total votes against seven, no abstentions. The amendment is disagreed. The question is that amendment 12, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which is already being debated with amendment 9, be agreed to move formally. The question is that amendment 12A, in the name of Pauline McNeill, or already debated with amendment 9, be agreed to move or not move. The question is that amendment 12A, in the name of Pauline McNeill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed in amendment 12A and there will be a vote. Those in favour, please, raise your hands. Those against, please, raise your hands. The results are total votes for five, total votes against four, no abstentions. The amendment 12A is agreed to. Cabinet secretary, do you wish to press or withdraw amendment 12? Withdraw. It has already been moved, so that is unfortunate. I do not have to press, but it is already moved. You wish to press amendment 12. Those in favour of amendment 12A, are we agreed with amendment 12A? No. I am confused about what we are voting on that. We have just agreed 12A, which is an amendment to 12A. We are now voting on 12A as amended. I agree with 12A as amended. I have been advised to put the question again in for avoidance of any doubt. The amendment, at the moment, is in cabinet secretary's name, but amendment 12, which has been amended by 12A, are we all agreed in that amendment? Amendment 13, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is already debated with amendment 9. Adam Tomkins, to move or not move? Not move. The question is, at section 2, to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. The amendment 14, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is in a group of his own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 14. Okay, thank you, convener. Amendment 14 changes from negative to affirmative. The procedure attached to the regulations that the Scottish ministers may bring forward under section 3. This amendment will ensure that any regulations specifying a change to the base year for calculation of the absolute poverty target should be subject to the enhanced parliamentary scrutiny afforded by the affirmative procedure. This amendment responds directly to the recommendations of the committee and the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee. I move amendment 14. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is, that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is, that section 4 and 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 35, in the name of Pauli McNeill, group with amendment 36. Pauli McNeill, to move amendment 35 and speak to both amendments in debate. Thank you, convener. These are probing amendments. I thought in view of the evidence that the committee heard, first of all in relation to people with disabilities or long-term illness, and the evidence that we heard about the additional costs of being disabled. I thought that I was quite struck by that evidence and I think that it is something that the bill and the work of the Government should address in the long run. I thought that there was a certain logic, therefore, to just simply debate and look at the question of whether or not we are calculating the net household income of those with someone in the household with a disability might be something that should be considered when we are looking at who is living in poverty. As I say, it is a probing amendment. I really wanted to hear what the cabinet secretary had to say about the issue. Similarly, for similar reasons on amendment 36, I was also struck by the evidence given to the committee of low-on parents. Not just the question of living in low income, but the difficulties arising for those families with only one parent. One of the reasons I am going to move a later amendment in relation to the automation of benefits was around what I had heard in Glasgow City Council around the automation of benefits, which helped a lot of single parents because one of the issues about their lives is that somebody just does not have time to fill in forms and so on. However, in relation to those amendments, convener, I simply want to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on those points. Convener, stakeholders who work consistently on poverty issues have made it clear in both their consultation responses and their evidence at stage 1 that the targets that we have proposed are robust, widely understood, comprehensive and complementary and allow for comparisons at UK level and allow us to track progress over time. The targets are based on definitions of net household income and have been developed over decades with substantial input from independent international renowned experts, including senior academics from Scotland. However, I understand very much why Pauline McNeill wishes to amend the bill to make reference to the additional costs that disabled people and lone parents have to bear. I agree with Ms McNeill that those are vitally important issues and I hope to reassure her and committee that the existing measures in the bill do already go some way to address them. The material deprivation measure, for example, provides some indirect evidence as paying additional costs will leave individuals with less money to buy the basic essentials that are included in our material deprivation measure. What is more, the calculation of household income is already equivalised, that is, it is adjusted to take account of household composition. In short, the fact that a lone parent household costs more per adult than a two-person household is already taking account of in the measures in the bill. Making a material change in how household incomes are calculated as implied by those amendments would, in my view, be a substantial and, frankly, a risky task. My statisticians have advised me that there is no accepted methodology for assessing such costs. They have assured me that developing any new methodology would need substantial time and resources, and data on household income is collected on a UK basis, and data collection on a differential basis for Scotland is likely to be costly and difficult. I am concerned that problems may arise in agreeing such a methodology that would be difficult to resolve. In short, those amendments have the potential to cause serious difficulties for implementing the bill. Even if the methodology were agreed and data collection issues resolved in several years' time, we would end up with a methodology for calculating net household income that was untested in practice and different from UK definitions, meaning comparisons across the UK were no longer viable, and comparisons with the recent past would no longer be possible. I know that Pauline McNeill and other committee members want to see us move quickly to take strong action on child poverty, and I could not agree more with that sentiment. I am sure that I do not want civil servants to spend the next year focused on redefining net household income when we already have internationally renowned methodology in place that already considers issues of cost and household composition. Statistics on loan-payment poverty and disability poverty are already published on an annual basis, but nonetheless I have asked my statisticians to consider how we can make sure that the stats that we produce are as useful as they can be going forward to inform our understanding of loan-payment and disability poverty, and that debate about additional costs. I would be very happy convener to write to the committee setting out this in more detail. However, convener, for the reasons that I have set out at length above, I cannot support amendments 35 and 36. I am not going to press these amendments. I welcome the very comprehensive answer that you have given the committee. I think that it would be useful if there could be a better breakdown of statistics showing the impact of poverty on loan-payments and people with disabilities. Everything that would be really helpful on that basis, convener. I am not going to press those amendments. You are going to withdraw amendments 35 and 36. Is that agreeable by the committee? Thank you very much. The question now is at section 6, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 4, in the name of Adam Tomkins. Already debated with amendment 3. Adam Tomkins to move, I will not move. Call amendments 15, in the name of Adam Tomkins, group with amendments 15A, 30, 20 and 47. Adam Tomkins to move amendment 15 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 15, in my name, which seeks to establish a poverty and inequality commission in statute. Independent scrutiny of the Government's delivery plans and progress reports with regard to child poverty will be essential if we are to succeed in our collective ambition to realise the aspirations and achieve the target set by this bill. That scrutiny needs to be robust and it will, of course, come from multiple sources, the Parliament itself, the third sector and, I hope, an effective statutory commission. However, it is not just me who hopes this, convener. It is the whole of the committee. We were agreed unanimously in our stage 1 report that, as the bill currently stands, there is a concern that the potential for the scrutiny arrangements around tackling child poverty will be weaker than those previously in place at UK level. I quote directly from paragraph 122 of our report, therefore, that the committee believes that the establishment of a commission on a statutory footing with the duty to scrutinise the Scottish Minister's delivery and progress plans is required. My amendments 15, 30 and 20 in this group seek to give effect to that unanimous recommendation of this committee in a stage 1 report a few weeks ago. My amendments seek to do that as simply and as straightforwardly as possible. In this way, amendment 15 creates the commission. Amendment 30 is a schedule that makes detailed provision for a small commission. It includes provisions on the commission's size, period of appointment and remuneration. I have deliberately tried to construct the commission so that it falls within and does not violate the fact that there is no financial resolution for this bill. The presiding officer has, as I understand it, ruled that these amendments do not require the passing of a financial resolution with regard to this bill. That is why the commission is relatively small at five members. That is why there is no provision for the automatic remuneration of members of the commission that would be for the cabinet secretary's discretion. I have tried to create a commission in these amendments, which does absolutely nothing to get in the way of the cabinet secretary's ambitions for a statutory commission. It does absolutely nothing to get in the way of the cabinet secretary's ambitions for a poverty and inequality commission. Amendment 15 creates the commission. Amendment 30 is a lengthy schedule that makes detailed provision for the commission in terms of size appointments, period of appointment, remuneration and so on and so forth, designed specifically with the limits of the absence of a financial resolution in mind. Amendment 20 provides for the commission to have a number of statutory functions convener, all of which fall within the scope of this bill. I fully understand that the cabinet secretary's ambition is, in the short term, for there to be a poverty and inequality commission that does not look only at child poverty. However, I cannot in this bill move amendments that confer on this statutory commission functions that go out with the scope of the bill, and the bill is a child poverty bill. The functions that the commission will start with are functions relating to child poverty, functions relating to the delivery plans, functions relating to the progress reports provided for in this bill. However, I would expect—indeed, if I may say so—a hope that, in the future, the cabinet secretary and others will seek to amend and enlarge the scope of this commission so that it does not focus only on child poverty but on poverty and inequality in the round. There is nothing in my amendments that will, in the medium term, limit the functions of the commission to child poverty. However, we, of course, have to start there because we are dealing with a child poverty bill, and it is important that the amendments—what is essential—that the amendments fall within the scope of the bill. That is why the functions conferred on this commission in amendment 20 are functions relating to the delivery plans and the progress reports and the like of the bill. I could also just say that there are two amendments in this group that are not in my name that are in, I think, Pauline McNeill's name, amendment 15A and amendment 47, and we would support both of those amendments. Thank you, Mr Tomkins. Pauline McNeill, to move and speak to amendment 15A and other amendments in the group. Those amendments were submitted following the committee's conclusion on poverty and inequality commission, which I fully supported. It felt strongly that there should be an independent check by a commission on the Government's work. I think that there is a debate to be had about the size of the commission, and I was not still to be convinced wholly about whether Adam Tomkins' amendments on the structure of the commission is the right one. I did feel that it looked around at the right size. I think that there was a lobby for a greater number of people, but I felt that that was right. I know that the Government has, since my submission of amendments, come forward with a really comprehensive and good proposal around the poverty and inequality commission that would go wider. It gives the committee a bit of a dilemma, because the committee, by a full consensus, thought that the proposals that they stood were weak without an independent check on which Parliament would be paramount. It certainly gives the committee a bit of a dilemma, and I would like to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on that. I am very conscious that this is stage 2, and I never think that everything has to be perfect. That is what the process is for. I would feel at this stage not to put something on the face of the bill in relation to some statutory body of some kind that had a check-in balance over the child poverty targets would be a mistake. I would think about that over the summer period towards stage 3. The Government also has to think about what might be missing from its own proposals, as they stand, because the appointments would be made by ministers, not by the Parliament. Please do not misconstrw that I am suggesting in any fashion that the appointments that you have made already are not good ones. I think that the appointment of Naomi Eisenstadt was a superb appointment and it has been a massive contribution to the debate on poverty, and I have cited her quotations on many occasions. That is my concern. Simply for the committee at this stage, it is simply to leave everything for the Government when it has come quite late. I do not want to say that I do not welcome what has happened, but I do think that element of it is missing. At the end of the day, the committee has asked to come up with proposals to scrutinise child poverty in the bill. That is our job. I would like to hear on the Government's proposals what of that could reassure the committee that there would be an independent appraisal of the child poverty targets. I am moving in at 15A. I have a couple of members who wish to come in at the moment, and I can come back to cab second if that is okay. Ben Macpherson, do you want to come in? I agree with the sentiment that we want to provide as much of a robust framework of scrutiny as we can. I appreciate that Adam Tomkins' proposals specifically are an ambition to try to take forward that criteria and that set of aspirations. However, it makes reference to 1-2-2 in the committee stage 1 report. That recommendation in the report states that there was an aspiration at the committee at that point for there to be some statutory oversight. However, times have moved on since then. Specifically, we have been informed more of what the Scottish Government's proposal for a poverty and inequality commission would encompass. The difference that has taken place is that the recommendation in stage 1 was for a statutory body to potentially be created. We now have a position where we can have a commission that is now more encompassing and more wide-ranging and provide proper scrutiny at a parliamentary level. The proposals in front of us are quite different now that we have more knowledge of what the Government is proposing. My view, and I will speak on that more fully in terms of my amendments, is that Parliament should be the main scrutinising place for this act if it is passed by the will of Parliament. I have tried to strengthen that through the amendments that I have brought forward. Unfortunately, Parliament cannot be put on a statutory footing because it can't put an obligation on the cabinet secretary of peer for committee and other measures that I will speak on later on my amendments. We should be mindful that organisations such as Oxfam that take a more holistic view to tackling poverty per se, rather than specifically child poverty, are in favour of keeping the poverty and inequality commission broad and wide-ranging. We have a different proposition in front of us than we did at stage 1. We can thoroughly analyse and thoroughly provide robust scrutiny over the process of the legislation and its implementation and everything that it encompasses going forward as a Parliament. That is our role and our job. We can also, as the Government has put forward, have a wide-ranging commission that will tackle poverty in the main. That is a more appealing proposition. For that reason, I am not minded to support Adam Tongsy's amendment 15 or Pauline McNeill's amendment 15A. George Asden, do you want to come in, Alison? Thank you, convener. I agree with much of what Ben has already said. Part of the problem that I have is the fact that it does get in the way that we are doing it here. We also have a situation in which we could limit it to the child poverty bill and not have that cross-section. I know that Adam Tongsy said that we could possibly bring something back at a later date and do it then. I think that we are overcomplicating a situation in which we could get a poverty inequality commission that can do something and make that difference cross-portfolio and push something forward. One of the other issues that I have is that I believe that parliamentary scrutiny would be the way that you have already got the reports that will be coming in year after year, but one of the other issues that I have particularly with it is the fact that the very idea of a poverty inequality commission being designed by a member of the Conservative Party. In my area, in various areas like it, there have been decades of issues from the Conservative Party and Conservative rule that has actually caused some of the poverty inequalities in our constituencies. I find that quite difficult for myself and it would be difficult for me to be on that side as well, because we are talking about the architects of austerity. Even if you believe that the Conservative parties are like some kind of washing-pouser, a new, re-improved brand, even if you believe that that was true and we did not even think about the decades-long devastation that they have caused, you would still have to look at the here and now and what their actions have been doing down in Westminster with their Government, where they have literally been attacked on the disabled, attacking all the groups that we are talking about, and inequalities have become more under the Tory. I have great difficulty with the idea of a Conservative trying to define a poverty and inequalities commission, so in those two reasons alone and on the fact that we are actually just limiting the possibilities of this poverty and inequality commission, I could not support any of this. Thank you very much, Ms Anderson. Alison Johnstone and Richard Leonard want to come in as well. Thank you, convener. I am going to start by noting the fact that the Children's Commissioner, the Scottish Children's Commissioner in his response to our stage 1 report, said—and he was right—that the Social Security Committee called for the establishment of an independent commission on a statutory footing. That is indeed what the stage 1 report says, and there was not a dissenting voice from this committee. I am not convinced that a great deal has changed it. Nothing has happened to change that. We have a duty when looking at a child poverty bill to make sure that there is in place a statutory independent body to ensure that the changes that we want to see with regard to child poverty do happen. We are reinstating the targets that Westminster removed. I think that that is the right thing to do and I wholeheartedly support that. I think that it is an omission that we have not taken steps to put in place a statutory commission, and the committee has agreed that that should happen. I know that the Scottish Government, in its response to the stage 1 report, has said, well, Westminster just got rid of the statutory commission. I think that that is a mistake. But how much easier would it be to get rid of a non-statutory commission? I do not think that that is helpful and I think that it does not send a great message. I think that children's organisations are supportive of statutory scrutiny. While we applaud the intentions of this Government and I have no doubt that they are sincere, we may not always have this Government. We may have other Governments with different views and having a statutory commission is something that we have to consider very seriously. I understand George Adam's concerns. I do not support the idea of putting attainment into the bill. I think that attainment suffers as a result of poverty and I have no doubt that that is tied in great measure to Conservative welfare reform, but I am not going to conflate the two issues here. I think that we as a committee have a duty to ensure that the legislation is scrutinised independently by a statutory body. Thank you, Alison Dredd. Richard Lennon. Just to add to Alison Johnson's remarks, first of all, anyone listening to George Adam's contribution might be confused because there was unanimous support by this committee for the establishment of a statutory body. Secondly, the alternative to amendments 15 to 15A that have been suggested are on a non-statutory basis. The poverty and inequality commission, which has been floated as an idea, is a non-statutory body. It is described as an independent chair, but that independent chair will be appointed according to governmental patronage. Whoever the Government is, that is not a reflection of the present Government. It is just the principle of whether that appointment is independent or an appointment of government or indeed an appointment of Parliament. The role is largely a ministerial advisory role. It will have some scrutinising role as well, but on the whole it sounds like quite a reactive rather than a proactive body, which is non-statutory. For that reason, I am not persuaded that that represents a step forward compared to the stage 1 recommendation that the committee made. I think that I have to agree that I do not see what has changed since the committee unanimously formed the view that this was the way forward. As far as the proposal set out, I agree with what has just been said. The issue is not about matters that have happened elsewhere on other fields, but it is specifically about ensuring that the bill is seen through to its proper conclusion. The form of statutory commission proposed will, in my view, do that. Yes, thank you very much, convener. I appreciate the comments and consideration given by individual committee members as well as committee collectively as a whole. I am glad that the five-page position paper that we published at the beginning of the week that members have found that helpful if I could just say to Pauline McNeill—I am not going to read out all five pages—that clearly says that the commission will be independent. It will have an independent chair who will determine the work programme of the commission and it will be the independent chair who appoints the commissioners. The role of that independent commission will be to provide free and frank advice to ministers on how best to reduce poverty and inequality. As Richard Leonard highlighted, it would be the Government that would appoint that chair, but the committee and others in Parliament would scrutinise that in their normal fashion. I do not know how we get out of the circle that somebody has to appoint the first person, but it is important to recognise that the independent chair would then go on to make the other appointments. I can just make a very general remark. The legislation is not just replacing legislation or targets that were removed by the UK Government. We are actually in stating a more ambitious bill. The targets that we have reflected on at stage 1 are more ambitious in terms of more stretching targets around persistent poverty and are after housing costs. In general, we are, as a result of the bill, subject to far more scrutiny. Under the previous UK legislation, we would make a contribution to a UK-wide report. In that bill, we are being scrutinised rightly and unchallenged every step and turn of the processes that we will have to go through with that bill. I want to stress, convener, that I understand why those amendments have been proposed. I will lay out the reasons why I cannot support them and I hope that my reasoning will be clear. However, given the tone and tenor of the debate, we are probably reaching a bit more of a shared understanding and I think that there is ground opening up that we all seem to be collectively occupying. Some of my reasons for not supporting amendments proposed, I already outlined in stage 1 report. Members will know that we need to set up a commission quickly to provide advice for the first crucial delivery plan. As we have seen from previous experiences at a UK level, just because a commission is statutory does not necessarily mean that it has a secure future. The key point for me is about remit. I want to be clear about that point. I want the commission to have a wide remit on poverty and inequality. I have listened carefully to the arguments in particular that were made by Labour members in the stage 1 debate. Labour members suggested, passionately, that a focus on all ages poverty is needed. Reflecting on those contributions, I have some sympathy with the points that Labour members have made. I have also listened closely to Oxfam, who set out a compelling case for a body with a wide remit, focusing on income and wealth and equality. Oxfam, as members will know, published a report in April. I have been very much persuaded by much of that Oxfam report. That is why the wider remit on all ages poverty and economic inequality is reflected in the proposals that are circulated to the committee on Monday. I am delighted that Oxfam has offered broad support for our commission model. I suspect that the members here, who are picking that up, are also supportive of the idea that a poverty and inequality commission should have that wider remit. However, my real concern is that if the committee chooses to go down the road of a statutory commission under Mr Tonkin's specific amendments, it would be a poverty and inequality commission in name only. I think that he acknowledges in some regards in his remarks that the sole functions of a statutory commission could have, if delivered via this bill, are those conferred by statute. It would not be possible to amend the bill further to give the commission functions that do not relate to child poverty. That means that the commission will not be able to carry out functions relating to poverty or inequality matters more generally. New legislation would be needed to do that. There is no bill at present suitable for this purpose or likely to be in the foreseeable future. If, on the other hand, the commission is set up under my proposals, once it has done the work on the first delivery plan, it could turn its attention to economic inequality. Obviously, the commission will set its own work plan. Or it could be looking at the automation of benefits. Or it could be looking at extra costs faced by disabled people and lone parents. It could be looking at educational inequalities. I am, of course, very happy to discuss the future work programme with committee members. I am confident that the independent chair would want to engage with the committee on its future work programme, but that will require on committee's decision about which model of commission to support. I suppose that, in short, the commission is specified by Mr Tomkins. In my view, it would just be a missed opportunity to do work that, I am sure, members would find extremely valuable. I also want to mention the value for money, convener, and I know that Mr Tomkins verbalised his intentions, his very well intentions of not racking up the costs in terms of a commission. His amendments set out that the commission has a role in delivery plans, amendment 20, role in progress reports, amendment 47 and has an unlimited ability to draw on Scottish Government staff and resources, amendment 30 and up to five permanent members, stated in amendment 30, and that the commission can also set an unspecified number of committees as it sees fit with salary costs for unspecified numbers of committee members. Again, that is his amendment 30. It struck me that Mr Tomkins' amendments are quite similar to the Scottish Fiscal Commission's legislative structure, which was set out in the Scottish Fiscal Commission Act 2016, with the same membership rules. The recurring costs of the fiscal commission are estimated at around £850,000 per year from 2017 onwards. Similarly, the Scottish Land Commission, established under the Land Reform Act 2016, has six members, rather than Mr Tomkins proposed five. The act's financial memorandum set out an annual cost for the Land Commission at £1.3 million. My real concern is that we would end up with an expensive commission, despite people's very best of intentions, but with a commission whose focus would then be strictly limited to this bill. In the model that I am proposing, the Scottish Government would be able to cover a range of core costs, and the remit would be much wider in making the proposition, in my view, better value for money. I am concerned that what is proposed is an expensive statutory commission that would have actually a lot of downtime. It would have just two delivery plans to advise on over the period to 2030, because, of course, the statutory commission would not be set on time to advise on the first one. That makes me think that it would not potentially be an attractive offer for high-quality candidates who might otherwise be commissioners. I absolutely appreciate why some people are arguing for a statutory body. I am concerned that voting for Mr Tomkins' amendments would not deliver that wider commission, the better value commission that Oxfam and our partners, and I think that most of us here want to see and are trying to get to that position. I strongly believe in the model of commission that is reflected in my proposals. I appreciate the views in the position of committee, but I have to say that as a Government we have a manifestal commitment to set up a poverty and inequality commission, and we will do so to make sure that we get the very best of advice for the first delivery plan. Whether the commission is able, after that plan, to look at the wider issues that I have outlined, such as economic and equality, automation, benefits and disability costs, while depending entirely on the decisions that committee now makes. For the reasons that I have set out, if I can say with respect that I cannot support amendments 15, 15A, 30, 20 and 47, I would ask members instead to engage with me on the commission proposals that I have extended to see how we could take those proposals forward. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Adam Tomkins, to wind up. Thank you, convener. I think that there has been a very good and useful debate on the whole. I am afraid that I have not heard anything from any member that affects or changes the core recommendation that the committee made only a few weeks ago and made unanimously that the committee believes that the establishment of a commission on a statutory footing is required. I believed that a statutory commission was required when I agreed to that paragraph of our report a few weeks ago. I have listened very carefully to all of the remarks that have been made. Nothing has been said to dilute or put any doubt on the validity and importance of that conclusion. Whether the commission is statutory or not is not simply a question of form. It is a question of who gets to decide what the remit of the commission is, who might serve on the commission and what the commission's functions are. Should those questions be questions that the Parliament decides or should those questions be matters that the Government privately decides, perhaps in consultation with Parliament, perhaps not? My very strong view is that those are matters that should be for Parliament and not for Government. Not Parliament working against Government, Parliament working with Government, but Parliament nonetheless. That is why it is important that the commission is on a statutory footing and not a non-statutory footing. This morning—this is the final thing that I will say on this convener—I received a completely unsolicited email from Bruce Adamson, the Children and Young People's Commissioner for Scotland, the office that Alison Johnston referred to a few moments ago, in which he articulated his support for those amendments. I asked him whether it was a matter that I could share with the committee or whether it was a private communication, and he obviously told me that it was something that I could share with the committee, so I do so. Those amendments do nothing more than give effect to the committee's unanimous recommendation in paragraph 122 of its report, and they are amendments that are supported by Scotland's Children and Young People's Commissioner. Thank you, Mr Tomkins. Will you meet the member to wind up the press of his lawyer amendment? Yes. I am still concerned that there is not anything that the cabinet secretary has said that the wider commission will do to reassure me on the independent scrutiny of the child poverty targets. I totally support what the cabinet secretary is saying about the wider work that is needed, but the difficulty that I have is that my job here today, being a member of this committee, is to look at the bill that was before us and to look at the report that we compiled. If I am going to depart from the position that I took towards the Government position, I would need to be satisfied that what the committee agreed that there should be independent statutory scrutiny, there would need to be something in what the cabinet secretary has given the committee, which is a Government-appointed, albeit that the commissioners will appoint other commissioners. I remember, is there the right to think about this over the summer? I am not saying that this is my final view on the matter, and I think that the cabinet secretary will appreciate that we have only seen the vision in the past few days. I am sure that you have been in this position where you are trying to get your amendments in, discuss with colleagues, discuss with organisations that have an interest, and that work was done. What came through, even from the organisations that lobbied us, including the Oxfam, is asked for a statutory independent commission. I would certainly like longer to think about this than on the basis of that. For the purposes of stage 2, I am going to press my amendment. The question is that amendment 15A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There is going to be a vote. The question is that amendment 15A be agreed to. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. Total votes 5 are 4. Four against, no abstentions, and amendment 15A be agreed to. Adam Tomkins, to press or withdraw, amendment 15. Are we agreed that amendment 15 be agreed to? We will go to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 15, please raise your hands. The cards have a difficult scene around the corner. Those against, please raise your hands. Total votes 4 are 5. Total votes against 4. No abstentions, and amendment 15A be agreed to. I call amendment 30, in the name of Adam Tomkins. Are we ready to debate about amendment 15? Are we agreed that amendment 15A be agreed to? The question is that amendment 30A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There is going to be a vote. Those in favour of amendment 30, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. Any abstentions to amendment 30? Total votes 4 are 5. Total votes against 4. No abstentions, and amendment 30 is agreed to. The znaczy is foods. I call amendment 16, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group from amendment 17. Cabinet secretary, move amendment 16. I thank you community leader. Okay, thank you community leader. Those amendments are a direct response to the committee stage one recommendations that delivery plans should coincide with the start of parliamentary terms. Amendment 16 to 17 will move the end date of the first delivery plan and start date of the second delivery plan until after the day of the next Scottish elections. They will allow in a newly formed administration to publish a delivery plan that reflects their priorities for the parliamentary session ac yn dweud dweud that they are not bound by the plans of a previous Government. The end date of the second plan, 31 March 2026, already falls after a Scottish election year. The approach will also allow time for reflection to learn from the actions of the previous session and to allow the newly formed administration to draft a delivery plan in line with the manifesto on which they are elected and their priorities for that parliamentary session. The changes outlined in these amendments will mean that the periods covered by delivery plans are spread more evenly, two four-year plans followed by a five-year plan. As Barnados Scotland is saving the response to our consultation on the bill, extending the period covered by the proposed delivery plans will also provide a more realistic timeframe into which new policies can be developed, implemented and their impact assessed. Convener amending the periods covered by the delivery plans is a sensible and practical step that responds to the clear recommendations of stakeholders and the committee. I move amendment 16. Thank you. Members wish to come in. Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to wind up, or is that your statement? Nothing further to add. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Okay. Call amendment 17. The name of the Cabinet Secretary has already debated. Amendment 16. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I now call amendment 31 in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with other amendments in the groupings. Pauline McNeill to move amendment 31 and speak to all amendments in the group. Okay. So this group is about the delivery plans, and I'm speaking to amendment 31. So it seems that the delivery plans are the very heart of the bill. Obviously sets out how the Government will go about reducing child poverty, telling what policy measures that they will take, and presumably before we get to that stage ministers will take necessary advice, make their own judgment on that, and they'll present Parliament with a plan as to how they intend to go about it. Amendment 31 is intended to consider whether or not there should be some kind of assessment ministry or proposals to reduce child poverty so that we can see how the Government arrived at the particular proposals and decisions. I guess it's also to give a bit of transparency. Perhaps the Government thinks that that's already provided for in all the dimensions of the bill, but I did want to debate whether or not there was something else in the bill. I suppose that I wanted to see whether it would be clear to the Parliament when we see the delivery plan, if they were to make some policy suggestions, how they arrived at that and so that there's transparency on it. I mean, that's not to negate the fact that parties will put in the delivery plans, I guess, manifest their commitments if they believe in them in terms of reducing child poverty, which is perfectly fair. However, I think that there should be some transparency around how the Government arrived at the decisions to put in the delivery plan and the amendment 31 tries to address that. I move amendment 31. Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary, you speak to amendment 18, another amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. My amendments in this group are aimed at setting out a list of touchstone issues that we will consider when developing our delivery plans. That is in response to evidence from stakeholders during stage 1 and in response to the committee's recommendation. The bill, as introduced, did not include a list of areas that delivery plans would be expected to cover. This was a departure from the approach taken in the Child Poverty 2010 act. The rationale for this departure was that the Scottish Government has committed to taking advice from a wide range of partners in developing delivery plans, which could inform their content better than a list. In particular, we are keen that our poverty and inequality commission will play a key role in advising us on the plans. However, as set out in response to the committee's stage 1 report, the Scottish Government recognises that the balance of opinion heard from key partners during stage 1 precedence is in favour of more detail being set out in the bill. In light of that, I am bringing forward amendment 18, which sets out a number of key areas where ministers must consider the scope to take action when preparing delivery plans, including the provision of financial support to parents, the provision of information advice and assistance on social security matters and on income maximisation and other key issues that we know are related to poverty, such as education, housing, health, childcare and employment. Of course, I would not want to suggest that this is an exhaustive list, but I believe that it sets out clearly the key issues that the committee would expect me to consider as a minimum when preparing a delivery plan. My amendment 22 provides that, in the context of this section, parent has an extended meaning to also refer to anyone who lives with and has care of a child. I will now turn to the amendments lodged by committee members in this group, some of which are minded to support. Ruth Maguire looks to add in financial support as an area that should be included when we are considering the availability of information, advice and guidance. I can see the merit in this. I am also happy to include the words affordability in relation to housing and childcare. I appreciate that affordability is key here. Therefore, support amendments 18b, 18c and 18d are in the name of Ruth Maguire. Similarly, I am supportive of Pauline McNeill's amendment 31, which seeks to strengthen the requirements on Scottish ministers in relation to the delivery plan by requiring ministers to explain how the measures that they propose in each plan are expected to contribute to the targets. As I made clear in our earlier discussion about interim targets, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that policies are grounded in the evidence and I would be content to make this more explicit in the bill as proposed in amendment 31. I will now return to the remaining amendments in the group, which I am afraid I cannot support and I will just outline briefly my reasoning. Amendment 5, in the name of Adam Tomkins, requires ministers to set out their plans to reduce the poverty-related attainment gap. Once again, I remind Mr Tomkins of the existing legislative duties on Scottish ministers in relation to attainment in terms of the socio-economic duty in reducing the attainment gap, but also the requirement that ministers have in and around the national improvement framework and their annual reporting requirements. I would also point out that my amendment 18 includes education as a touched on issue for the delivery plans and, as Mr Tomkins is aware, our child poverty measurement framework, which I have already committed to including in the delivery plan, contains measures relating to educational attainment. We have already discussed this morning Mr Tomkins' views on the need for a target related to what he calls workless households. As you know, I disagree with that view and I do not think that a focus on workless households is helpful or appropriate and that it completely ignores the fact that in-work poverty is a growing issue. His amendment 6 requires delivery plans to set out measures related to worklessness. As I said in the earlier discussion on targets, I do not agree with his workless household measure and therefore do not support including it in the delivery plans. Mr McNeill has brought forward an interesting proposal with amendments 8 and 18A related to the automation payment of benefits. I have spoken in detail with Mr McNeill about this and my understanding is that her proposal is based on a pilot that is running in Glasgow where school uniform grants can be set out automatically to families without them having to apply for it on the basis of other data held by the local authority about their entitlement. I am absolutely supportive of that idea. I would be very happy to discuss with Mr McNeill how we can take this forward to see whether the good practice from Glasgow can be rolled out elsewhere. I would also be willing to take this proposal to our local reference group and report back to committee on the outcome of that discussion. However, I am unfortunately not able to support Mr McNeill's specific amendment 8, as I do not believe that the word in here matches the intention. I would be willing to support, in principle, amendment 18A on the basis that Mr McNeill and I can discuss further in advance of stage 3 to ensure that it achieves what she intends. Amendment 30A, in the name of Pauline McNeill, requires Scottish ministers to set out measures that they will take in relation to single-parent households. I am reluctant to accept an amendment of this type. The measures that I have that I will set out in the delivery plans will be aimed at supporting all low-income families, and I do not think that it is appropriate to single out particular groups in this way. Richard Leonard's amendment 39 requires a plan to set out steps to be taken in relation to setting the amount of revenue support grant that is paid to local authorities for directing resources at targets. We have heard time and time again from stakeholders that this bill needs to remain focused and that we must make it personal over complicated. With that in mind, I am sure that Mr Leonard will agree that a provision on local government funding arrangements is not an appropriate addition. Much of Alison Johnstone's amendment 37 is similar to my amendment 18. It includes issues around income maximisation, housing, childcare and employment, and I welcome those common areas of focus, along with Pauling McNeill's amendment 32 and Ruth Maguire's amendment 18e. It attempts to require the Scottish Government to set out in a delivery plan how we plan to use social security powers. In my view, the planning and reporting process that is set out in the bill will be a tool to galvanise action across Government and will certainly be looking at how our social security plans can contribute to meeting targets. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to require consideration of specific social security measures as part of the delivery plans. The purpose of including a list of touchstone issues is to set out a broad framework for the delivery plans. It is not to force Scottish ministers into taking particular measures such as the topping up of child benefit, which I have already expressed in my view that it is just not sufficiently targeted. However, in the spirit of co-co-operation, I would be willing, on this occasion, to support Ruth Maguire's amendment 18e, subject to further refinement at stage 3 to ensure that it works as intended. I hope that committee members will agree that, along with amendments 18a, b, c and d, in the name of Ms Maguire and Pauling McNeill, that those represent a reasonable compromise that we can all agree on. As Cabinet Secretary for Equalities and the Government, I am absolutely committed to equalities. I strongly empathise with the intent behind Jackie Baillie's Equalities amendment, both 19 in this group and others in subsequent groups. However, as the committee will know, the Scottish Government and the wider public sector is already bound public sector equality duty set out in the equality act 2010. That act makes sure that consultation and consideration of different protected characteristics is built into public sector ways of working. The public sector in Scotland is also bound by the Scottish specific equality duties introduced in May 2012. Every new policy or programme requires an equality impact assessment, or EQIA, and there are strict rules about how those EQIAs must be drawn up and put into the public domain. What more ministers and the public sector can be held to account by the regulator of the equality act, that is the equality and human rights commission. With all of this in mind, I can reassure Jackie Baillie today that our delivery plans will be developed alongside an EQIA, which we will publish, and we would expect local plans to similarly be supported by EQIAs. Our progress reports will have specific sections on each of the protected characteristics. Witnesses during stage 1 stress that this is a simple framework bill and should not be over complicated. It is hard not to see these amendments as an unnecessary complication when the public sector is already bound by the framework of equality duties that I have described. Specifically, convener, it is not clear what Jackie Baillie's amendments would require ministers and local organisations to do, as the reference to persons having protected characteristics lacks focus on the circumstances where every person has more than one protected characteristic being age and gender at the least. I will, however, acknowledge that the landscape of duties is changing. We recently introduced child rights and wellbeing impact assessments to meet our duties under children and young people's Scotland Act 2014. We are shortly to consult and commence on the socioeconomic duty, which will have its own impact assessment strand. Both of those offers the opportunity to strengthen our equality practice still further, and I would be willing to meet Ms Baillie to discuss those developments if that would help to reassure her on those points. I would also reiterate the points that I made earlier about our measurement framework. We will be revising this in time for the delivery plan. I repeat my offer to take suggestions from any member of the committee about how that could be strengthened to best reflect some of the important issues raised in those amendments. Finally, convener, I urge members to support my amendments 18 and 22 and to support other amendments 31, 18A to E, and I urge members to resist amendments 5, 6, 8, 19, 32, 37, 38 and 39. Thank you very much for a very comprehensive reply. Ruth Maguire, to speak to amendment 18B and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. I am seeking to amend the cabinet secretary's amendments to strengthen what delivery plans should have while keeping a broad brush approach to what should be included in the plan. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is looking at advice and assistance in social security and maximisation, but I wanted that to go further and include financial support. Financial support is mentioned by her in ensuring that its provision will be considered in the delivery plan as it should, but I also want to know that people have the advice and assistance on how to get that financial support too, whether that be a social security benefit, a passported benefit such as a school uniform grant or free school meal, or any other support that is available to help low-income families, whether that is provided by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the local authority or even a local charity. Like Alison Johnston, I think that it is not just the availability of childcare and housing that is important but affordability too. We can have a wide availability of childcare, but if it is unaffordable, it is effectively inaccessible and a barrier to those on low incomes. That is why I also welcome the increase in free childcare hours being made available by the Scottish Government. My arguments on including affordability in terms of housing are the same. We can consider the availability of housing and find that there is plenty of available mansions. That does little to help a low-income family. It is affordability that matters. Again, like Alison Johnston, I want to know that the delivery plan has considered the use of new social security powers, both those that we know are coming to us and any new social security powers that may be devolved in the future, which could be considered as tools in tackling child poverty. I do not think that it is necessary to be so prescriptive as to what particular powers they should be, as Alison is seeking. I believe that my amendments are a good compromise between the amendments of the Cabinet Secretary and Alison Johnston. I hope that the committee and indeed the Cabinet Secretary will support them. Thank you very much. Adam Tomkins speaks to amendment 5 in any other amendments in the group. I think that section 7 of the act, which is the provision in the act that deals with delivery plans, is one of the most important sections in the act. I think that the committee very strongly took the view during the course of our stage 1 inquiry that the act was going to stand off all really on the success of the delivery plans, and the provision in section 7 on delivery plans was weak and rather skeletal as the bill was introduced. I very warmly welcome the Cabinet Secretary's amendment 18 to specify a broad range of issues, including education and employment. That delivery plans must take into account, and we will be supporting that amendment. I will not press amendments 5 and 6, given the inclusion of education and employment within the Cabinet Secretary's amendment 18, but I will reserve the right to revisit the question at stage 3 to see whether we think that there are any forms of words that could strengthen section 17, if indeed it is amended today, in accordance with the Cabinet Secretary's amendment 18. Thank you very much, Mr Tomkins. I welcome Jackie Baill's MSP. Thank you very much for putting in the amendment and coming along today, obviously. Jackie Baill speaks to amendment 19 in other amendments in the group. I thank you, convener, for allowing me to attend the committee. The purpose of amendment 19 is to include measures in the delivery plan that take account of poverty in relation to other relevant protected characteristics. I think that we all know that when equality is not embedded in policy from the very start, it becomes an add-on, it becomes an afterthought, so I think that it is critically important that it is on the face of the bill. It is important for us all to remember that poverty does affect different equality groups in slightly different ways. If you want to achieve tackling child poverty, as I know you do, then we absolutely have to take that into account when developing policies and actions. Let me give you an example of this, because the Government's own child poverty measurement framework tells us that employment rate for parents is something like 81 per cent, but we know that that is significantly lower for parents from a BME background. Actions to improve the employment rate will need a targeted approach, and if our policies do not reflect the barriers that are faced by BME people, for example, or even families where there is a disabled person, then we will not succeed and inequality will continue. I suspect that there is agreement on this point. The issue of difference is the mechanism by which we achieve it. I understand the cabinet secretary's view that my amendment is flawed and not correctly worded. I am, of course, happy to adjust this, and we will bring it back at stage 3 very tightly focused, so there is no excuse for not supporting it. Let me take on the more serious argument. The notion that this amendment and others I propose later are not necessary because we have equality impact assessments does need to be challenged. Let me set out why. Equality impact assessments are no duty to involve or consult. If an equality impact assessment is poor, I find no evidence of any further action having been taken, either in the courts or by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. No public body has been taken to court. No equality impact assessment has been challenged. Indeed, some have not submitted them, and I do not think that they have been pulled to task for that. Let me give you two examples from the Government. There is an equality impact assessment on this child poverty bill. It is thin. There is very little specific detail about the protected characteristics. The equality impact assessment on the mental health strategy has no mention of race or ethnicity at all, and yet we know that there is a differential impact on BME communities in relation to mental health. That has a knock-on consequence for policy development. The Scottish Government's own Child Poverty in Scotland publication does not mention ethnicity alongside characteristics that may make child poverty more likely. We all agree that ethnicity does have an impact on the level of child poverty policy. Race tends to get missed off the agenda. The First Minister's independent adviser in her report on shifting the curve said that BME groups are often the most disadvantaged and have additional problems to face in escaping poverty. I recognise the cabinet secretary's commitment. I welcome her empathy, but I feel that she should take action. That is not an unnecessary complication, because if you understand the interaction between race, disability and child poverty, you absolutely need that on the face of the bill if you are going to achieve the ambitious targets that you set out for yourself. I am always happy to meet the cabinet secretary, but let me say to her that I have not been persuaded by what she has told me. I think that this is sufficiently important for all of us that they should be on the face of the bill. On that basis, I move the amendment in my name. Alison Johnstone to speak to amendment 37 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. With the withdrawal of Adam Tomkins' amendments 5 and 6, I am able to support all the amendments in this group. I think that Jim McCormack and others emphasised the importance of content of the delivery plans in this bill. At stage 1, committee agreed unanimously that the plans should cover at least the five areas recommended by the End Child Poverty Coalition, and my amendment gives effect to that. The reason why the amendment spends more time laying out the social security recommendations is that this bill is about defining poverty in terms of income, and we know that social security can do so much to help to boost the incomes of the poorest families. The dramatic falls in child poverty that we saw in the 2000s owed more to the way the benefits system was improved, such as through child tax credits than to any other factors. Of course, setting targets in legislation is welcome and important, but urgent action to back up these targets is essential. There is good evidence to suggest, for example, that a £5 top-up to child benefit would make immediate inroads into child poverty. Research by the University of York, as we have heard, suggests that it could help 30,000 children to escape relative child poverty. All members of this committee will have received a briefing yesterday from a group of organisations, including Child Poverty Action Group Scotland, the Poverty Alliance, Children in Scotland, the Scottish Women's Convention, the Confortee Institute and Justice and Peace Scotland, all calling for this amendment and Pauline McNeill's amendment 32 to be passed, all citing the huge inroads at the £5 top-up and uses of social security could make. That is not to say that some of the other areas that delivery plans might cover couldn't also help to reduce child poverty. My point is simply that we know that the use of some of these social security powers would have large and relatively speedy impacts on child poverty, and that justifies, including, how the delivery plans should address social security in more detail than some of the other areas recommended by the End Child Poverty Coalition and in more detail than the Cabinet Secretary's amendment does. I accept that the Cabinet Secretary has lodged a similar amendment and I support it, in particular the extra provisions for the delivery plans that include measures relating to the improvement of physical and mental health, but I do think that it needs to go further than what measures ministers are taking to provide financial support, which is quite broad. It should address the social security powers devolved by the 2016 Scotland Act specifically, as we can see from the social security bill lodged yesterday. The current Scottish Government is trying, it's starting to set up what looks like might be quite a radical new system, and I don't see why the Cabinet Secretary would want to shout loudly and proudly about that in the delivery plans. Before I finish, convener, I'd like to make clear, I think that this is very important, that in no way does this amendment require, Ms Constance used the word, force, in no way does this amendment require the Scottish Government to exercise child benefit top-up powers or any other social security powers. All it does is to require the Scottish Government to indicate in each delivery plan whether it intends to use these powers. If it decided not to, then it would be free not to do so. This is not at all prescriptive, and I wholeheartedly support Ruth Maguire's amendments, because if childcare, for example, isn't affordable, it's simply not available to those who need it. Just briefly, I'd also like to highlight that the amendment specifically addresses the issue of helping parents and carers access work that pays the Scottish living wage, and I hope that that is something that the Scottish Government, with its fair work agenda, could support. Thank you very much, Ms Johnson. Richard Leonard will speak to amendment 39 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. Can I move amendment 39, which is in my name? It's designed to try to make sure that the greater level of resources go to the areas of greatest need. It's clear from the bill that local authorities in particular will have a critical role to play in delivering the achievement of the targets that are set in the bill, and it's my firm view that more account needs to be given of deprivation of child poverty in the revenue support grant process. The very modest amendment is a gentle ask of ministers to consider supporting those areas to have higher levels of child poverty through the local government settlement. It's designed to help us meet the targets that are being set by modifying the funding arrangement. It's clear that people in poverty are more reliant on local authority services, whether it's social work, education, for example, free school meals, the school clothing grants, for example. I'm bound to say that I don't wish to prejudice the agreement earlier on between the cabinet secretary and Pauline McNeill to take forward her amendment 18A on the automaticity of benefits, but if that is to be taken forward, there will be greater pressure again on those local authority areas that have the highest rates of child poverty. It's clear that some local authorities, if I can take North Lanarkshire, for example, have a considerable way to go to achieve the target, whereas neighbouring East Dunbartonshire, for example, has less far to travel to meet the targets. Finally, the Scottish Government already takes some account of deprivation in the allocation of some funding, and I'm thinking here of the attainment challenge funding, but if we are to have a much wider-ranging approach to tackling poverty, we need more funding that is targeted to deprived areas and communities. I move amendment 39. Thank you to the learners. George Asimons again. Thank you, convener. I would just like to say a lot of some of the issues that came up. Delivery plans, first and foremost, I agree with everyone else. They are the heart and soul of this bill. They are what's going to make it actually work. It's in the title. The whole idea is that the cab sex amendment 18 covers many of the issues that came up during stage 1 and all the evidence that we took. That brings us on quite a bit. I personally support Pauline McNeill's 31 and 18A, because that brings a wee bit more detail to everything as well. I know that that's been backed by others. All the amendments by my colleague Ruth Maguire. As I said, I really believe that we need to get this part correct. We need to get it right. I don't feel that I can support the other ones at this stage, but on the whole, I think that it's still something that we can discuss on stage 3. We can look at where we go from there. As I said, I can't emphasise enough how I believe that getting the delivery plans right is going to make all the difference in this actual bill. Thank you very much, Mr Adam. Pauline McNeill, to wind up and to press or withdraw. First, I welcome what the cabinet secretary said about accepting amendment 31, which simply is for the Government to explain why they're taking particular measures in the delivery plan. That's really helpful. On 18A, I'm particularly pleased that the Government is behind the idea that the automation of benefits should certainly be encouraged. I know a lot more work needs to be done on this, and I know that Jeane Freeman is very keen on the whole idea of it. I'm delighted to be pressing on 18A and not to move amendment 8, which doesn't really do what I wanted it to do in the first place. On amendment 32, I will support amendment 37, which is Alison Johnstone's amendment, because Labour supports it. We believe that evidence suggests that the top-up of child benefit can make a dramatic difference to taking children out of poverty. However, I wanted to make sure that Alison Johnstone points out that it's not to force the Government's hand in any sense, but that it can set out the reasons why it supports it or whether it's not going to do it. I also wanted to make sure that that was wide enough, given the powers on top-up benefits that are coming to the Scottish Government, that they could widen the scope of that to all benefits that they might consider. As you know, the last Labour Government, through the child tax benefits and working tax benefits, made a considerable difference to child poverty. At least that would be a consideration for future Governments. We think that 32 widens that further. On amendment 38, I take on board the cabinet secretary's points about not setting out specific categories of groups. I wasn't very careful to that. However, I still have a strong view that, although amendment 38 is worded, a person who is not a member of a couple and one of more children to whom that person is responsible is tackling the issue of single parents, which is a gender issue that we also know because of the vast majority of them. The reason that I will press at this stage on amendment 38 is that we think 2030 is a long way off. It is a long way off, but in policy terms, it is really short. I am really keen that the delivery plan does set out measures of what the Government will do in all sorts of areas that we have just discussed. However, I think that it is an area of policy that should be addressed in the delivery plan. At this stage, I would like to press for that reason, and I think that that covers all the amendments. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. On amendment 18, the name of the cabinet secretary is already debated with amendment 31. Cabinet secretary to move formally. It moved. Amendement 18A and the name of the parliament that we already debated with amendment 31. Polleam anyway new? Mov. Yep. On questions that amendement 18A be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. On amendment 18B and the name of the test broadly, the matter that we already debated with amendment 31. Moved? Moved. Questions that are amatedd on amendment 18B, be agreed to or are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. amendment 18C? amendment 18A, amendment 18D, isд iddo. amendment 18B a r hunchwyer amendment 18E isd though amendment 18C isd iddo amendment 18C rithau arno a'i gynhymhau breakset hynny mae'n ownersxx y bwlówa, drws nag ydw'i'r cyfeileb yn y stfridd a'i gynhymhae rithwng. Rithw me'r cyfeiling, ma' roi yn en garantiaethTEathe i yflirian dooch i rhoi flesfer Casgfyrfa,xawer ond y flwyr? 5, gritnamwyr ar Dwiun Avordd Rydym. Aru ffawr yn Iannau o gwleidydd? No. 4 Ar alun hyfforddiant Polly McNeil cadwg wy estimwyr? Mewn digy, rollsy, laatwnau hawl agrolo y gwithgafol ar Bwrthg foldias yn amser i dwfoddefnydd y besiadadçekygawr o Gwithgrifwm. not move'' not move but I signal my intention to bring it back at stage 3. Thank you very much. Call of amendment 32 on the name of Paulamate Neil or ready debated on the main number 31, Paulamate Neil to move or not move. The question is amendment 32. The question is amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, so there will be a vote. The question is amendment 32 be agreed to. Those in favour please raise your hands. Those against please raise your hands.poprwgau, i fis arisingaeth. Be'i ddechrau gyda ddelch yn y cysylltit am ddigon blynedd ykgunydd It will be, particularly with regard to pubbwyrtuchiau hung蒲od. Rafer, angoedd, mae adnod i sueddech chi am gwyfyr.�ch gyda'i helydd? supported? Ieffent, Ieffent, Ieffent, Ieffent, Ieffent��dingwyd. estate. estate. estate. estate. Wellington, the Middle East, the Pershing aproximam 해주 pan po queue.hertz. estate. Xiao Carthams, mwy y famr mwy dri, hefnutd dod yn heb i'r håll. han. sbwr, cael y bcyllfa, høil, ac teul y ffordd. led dropol. Inside of a situation! I was amazed that the first woman didn't search for diapers in wandspring and bin judgment they had hours in order to pee and clean. Of the authorities. That's why I was shocked to see how the mother was這麼 surprised, but what I was The question is amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against, please raise your hand. Thank you. Total votes 4 or 5. Total against 4. No abstentions. The amendment is agreed to. Call of amendment 20. In the name of Adam Tomkins. Already debated. Adam Tomkins to move or not move. Amendment 20. The question is agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour, amendment 20. Please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hand. Thank you. Votes 4 or 5. Votes against 4. No abstentions. The amendment is agreed to. Thank you. Call of amendment 40. In the name of Ben Macpherson. Groups of amendments 41, 41, 33 and 42. Ben Macpherson to move amendment 40. And speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. As stated earlier when we debated about the proposed commission, my hopes going through the amendment process here were to establish as much parliamentary scrutiny on the bill if the will of Parliament as possible and that is what these amendments are intended to do. As a member of Parliament I believe it is MSPs who should be scrutinising and holding the Government to the count principally more so than the statutory commission. Obviously, we've already had the debate on the amendments around the statutory commission principle. However, I would still like to press these amendments in order to give Parliament an even greater say than is currently drafted in scrutinising the bill if the will of Parliament. I looked to, as stated earlier, to try and create obligation for the cabinet secretary to appear before this committee. However, that was not doable because of the fact that the statute cannot dictate the work programme of a committee. However, the inclusion of 40, which is an obligation if agreed would be an obligation for the cabinet secretary to make a relevant Scottish minister rather to make a statement. Four A already creates an obligation for the Scottish minister to lay the plan before the Scottish Parliament. However, the inclusion of making a statement would also create an extra opportunity, and making a statement, as far as I am aware, from the drafting team at the Parliament, could include either a statement in the chamber or a statement at committee. That would again enhance the scrutinising element of the committee. In pressing section 41, that would include creating an obligation for enduring the preparation of the delivery plan that the Scottish ministers would have to consult the Scottish Parliament. Of course, under law and statute, the Scottish Parliament is encompassing the chamber and committees. The intention behind 40 and 41 is to create greater scrutiny, and I hope that the committee and the cabinet secretary will support those amendments. Thank you very much, Ms McPherson. Jackie Baillie, to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 21 would require Scottish ministers to consult with groups with relevant protected characteristics. Very similar to the arguments that I made before, we know that BMEs, disabled people, are more likely to experience poverty, and I believe that any consultation on delivery plans would be inadequate without their full inclusion. If you want to get it right, it is a basic principle. The bill requires Scottish ministers to consult with local authorities and persons organisations representing working with children and parents. There is not a requirement to engage with equality groups who are more likely to be facing poverty, including BME families. Of course, the cabinet secretary will be very familiar with the race equality framework for Scotland, because it commits the Scottish Government to increasing participation of representation of minority ethnic individuals in governance and influence in decision making at local and national level. If you believe in it, let us put this in the bill. Thank you. Alison Johnstone, to speak to amendment 33, and to any other member. Thank you, convener. Amendment 33 requires the Scottish Government to consult people with direct experience of poverty. Although the bill requires consultation of groups representing poor families who clearly have very considerable experience in the challenges that we face and how we can make inroads into poverty, there are insights that only people with direct experience of poverty can give. I think that this is entirely consistent with the Scottish Government's approach in establishing the new social security system. For example, with 2,000 people with direct experience of the current benefits system currently being consulted, I think that this is the right thing to do, and this bill will benefit from a similar approach. Thank you very much, Ms Johnstone. To speak to amendment 42, any other members in the group? Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 42 is designed for ministers to leave before the Parliament a draft of the delivery plan that they propose to prepare. The Scottish ministers must in the plan preparing leave before the Scottish Parliament in accordance with subsection 48, any kind of any comments on the proposed plan expressed by the Parliament within that period, and in calculating any period of 40 days for the purposes of this section. It is really just to prove whether there should be a process for there to be commentary by the Parliament within a certain period of time on what the Government proposes to do in the plan. It is not designed for the Parliament for approval or disproval, but it is designed to allow the Parliament to be able to comment on the Government's plan so that it can take account of it in its final deliberations. I wonder if Ben Macpherson will be able to address in his winding up on the debate in this group whether there are any precedents in the Scottish statute book for statutory requirements on ministers to make statements to Parliament or, indeed, to consult the Scottish Parliament in the drafting of a report. I am all in favour of effective and robust parliamentary scrutiny of this and other issues, but I wonder whether this is a novelty or whether it is something that is already there in other domains in the statute book. Let me begin by responding to Alison Johnstone's amendment 33, which adds people with lived experience to poverty to the list of those that we will be required to consult on delivery plans and a wholeheartedly accept and support this amendment. I echo the views of the poverty alliance that those with lived experience of poverty are experts and should be treated as such. As a Government, we have a strong record in meaningfully engaging with those with lived experience of poverty. Members may recall the fairer Scotland conversations and how that has seen 7,000 people take part in over 200 public events and local discussions across the country with individuals passionately talking about what mattered to them most. Those conversations were extremely valuable and directly informed our Fairer Scotland action plan, which was published last October. In that action plan, we committed to establishing three further organisations based on the exemplary work of the Poverty Truth Commission. That commitment will ensure that people with experience of living in poverty can speak out, tackle stigma and push for change to public services. We have already made progress with that and will shortly be making an announcement on the first of those new organisations. I have already set out my concerns in relation to Jackie Baillie's amendments relating to equality considerations in previous groups, so I will not repeat them in full here, other than to say that I know that she notes my concerns about her draft and perhaps if I could be a little bit more specific with phrases such as one or more protected, characteristic, that won't have the effect to pay special attention or to target specific groups. It will in effect apply to everyone as we all have a gender and we all have age. My concern is about the fact that her amendments won't have the impact that she so desires. Let me turn now to amendments 40, 41 and 42 in the name of Ben Macpherson and Pauline McNeill, who seeks to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the delivery plans. Let me begin by saying that I am absolutely committed to being open and transparent and I fully expect that when I lay the delivery plans in annual progress reports before Parliament, Parliament led by this committee will perform its usual robust and detailed scrutiny. However, very nature of delivery plans means that we will require a number of difficult and sensitive decisions to be made about Government priorities and spending. I am more than happy once those decisions have been made to debate them fully with Parliament and, indeed, I fully expect Parliament to challenge and scrutinise the proposals. However, I do not think that a full parliamentary consultation as suggested by Ms McNeill's amendment 42 is appropriate, and I am also concerned about timing in particular the fact that this proposal would require a full 40-day period excluding any recess dates to be set aside for consultation. I have set the Scottish Government an extremely tight deadline for the first delivery plan, and I have done so and I have done that on purpose. I hope that we can all agree that it is important to move as quickly as possible on this crucial issue in terms of making progress with our first delivery plan. However, convener, I do very much appreciate that members want to see some further detail in the bill around parliamentary involvement and therefore willing to support Ben Macpherson's amendments 48 and 41. Those require ministers to consult with Parliament in developing the plan and to make a statement upon publishing the plan. I would like to reserve the right to consider whether there is a need to refine drafting further at stage 3 to ensure that the intentions behind the amendment are clear. However, in principle, I would be very happy to be invited to a future committee session to discuss the delivery plan, and I would be pleased to reflect on any written report that comes out of committee's considerations. It is a shame that Ben Macpherson cannot confer a duty on the committee itself through his amendments, but I do want you, as committee, to be involved in the development of the delivery plan. For the reasons that are set out above, convener, I support the amendment 33 in the name of Alison Johnstone 48 and 41 in the name of Ben Macpherson, by opposing amendments 21 and 42. Thank you. Ben Macpherson, if you wish to wind up, please withdraw. Thank you, convener, and I'll just be as succinct as possible. To reiterate, my overriding intention behind the two proposals and amendments that I put forward was to enhance and promote as much consultation and as much opportunity to scrutinise as possible. Therefore, the proposed amendment at 41 to create an obligation when preparing the delivery plan for consultation with the Scottish Parliament was an intention that, in terms of drafting purposes, reflects also 7.4, which requires the plan to be laid before the Parliament. To answer that, there is a consistency on that measure. In terms of making a statement, as I specified earlier, my ambition was that there would be an obligation for the minister to appear before committee. That was not possible, as was advised by the bill's team. However, I am aware that the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 includes duties on ministers to make a statement to Parliament after lodging reports, etc. Therefore, there is some precedent there, and that is why I would like to press both of the amendments in my name. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 4 to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 41, in the name of Ben Macpherson. Already debated. Move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Do you? Call amendment 21, in the name of Jackie Baill. Already debated. Jackie Baill, move or not move? I am not moved and I will bring it back at stage 3. Thank you very much. Call amendment 33, in the name of Alison Johnstone. Already debated. Alison Johnstone, move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. 30. Sorry 33. Yes. Be agreed to. I am jumping it over there. Call amendment 22, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Already debated. Cabinet Secretary, move formally. It moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 42, in the name of Pauli McNeill. Already debated. Pauli McNeill, move or not move? Not moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 43, in the name of Pauli McNeill. Groups amendment 48. Pauli McNeill, to move amendment 43 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much. This group deals with the reporting year on the delivery plan. 43 is designed to ensure that instead of the current wording that is put around reasonably practical, to ensure that there is a deadline on the Government presenting that report of no later than the end of three months. I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary would have to say about that. I am just trying to make sure that the Government, if there is, cannot repeatedly put it off. I am not really sure what the term reasonably practical means. On amendment 34, it was just for completion on Jackie Baillie's amendment to ensure that if they were— right, okay, I will allow you on that. On amendment 44, right. It is very confusing. It was only 43. It is only 43. It is written to sorry. End of. Sorry. You move amendment 43. I move. Thank you. Time, unfortunately, has run away with us. We will not get finished with group 2 today. Unfortunately, so we will have to come back. So this grouping will be the last one that we will be able to do today, just to let you know, and maybe some succinct answers, whatever it may be. So Ben Macpherson to speak to amendment 48 and other amendments in the group. Very succinctly, convener. As previously with section 7, the proposed amendment 48 seeks to create an obligation for the relevant minister to make a statement in a similar manner. As articulated before, the statement could be to full Parliament or to committee, and it is around trying to increase scrutiny and give this committee as much of a role as possible in the scrutinising of the progress reports. I move the amendment in my mind. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary. Benard, I very much appreciate the rationale behind both these amendments. Pauline McNeill's amendment 43 clarifies that annual progress reports must be published within three months of the end of the reporting year. It would, of course, be my intention to publish them as soon as possible, and I am therefore content to have this additional detail set out in the bill. However, the final progress report, the report for the year 2030-31, setting out whether the targets for that year have been met, will not be able to be published until the statistics relevant to that year are available. I will therefore support the amendment today with a view to refining the draft and in time for stage 3 to make it clear that the final report will be prepared as soon as reasonably practical after the end of the reporting year. Ben Macpherson's suggestion that we make a statement upon laying the annual progress report is also welcome as a set out in our discussions of the amendment relating to delivery plans, I fully expect Parliament to carry robust and detailed scrutiny of all of our work under this legislation and I can see no difficulty in therefore giving a statement to Parliament if such a requirement is considered by committee today to be appropriate. While I agree with the policy behind the amendment, if the amendment is agreed today, I would propose to adjust the drafting of the amendment at stage 3 to make it clear that the statement is to be made to the Parliament and it is to relate to the progress report, so I therefore support amendments 43 and 48. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Pauline McEwen, to wind up, presser. Obviously, I'm happy with that and I'm going to press. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We're not going to finish today and I wouldn't like to start another group, unfortunately, because we may be halfway through it, so I feel that Ben Macpherson's amendment is within the other group, so therefore we won't come to a vote on that. Sorry. Sorry, convener. I entirely accept what you're saying about moving business. Unfortunately, I have an amendment in the very last group. I understand your meeting Monday. I am on other committee business at that time, so I wonder whether I could formally—or even next Thursday, because I chair another committee—if I could formally withdraw 27, because the minister objects to it on the same basis that it's too widely drafted and I will bring it back at stage 3. Thank you very much, Jackie. We're not going to be throwing it on Monday, but we'll be throwing it on Thursday, but you have already said that you can't do that. I can check with the clerks if that's—we can do that about formally withdrawing it, or someone else from the committee at the day that a member of the committee can withdraw it on your behalf. That's all right. Thank you very much for being so understanding. Thank you, cabinet secretary. No, it's another group. We need to do it in martial order. Yes, unfortunately, it's in martial order. If we start the other group, we may not finish till about 25. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, and I formally close the meeting. Thank you.