 Rhaid i ddweud, everyone. I'll give you a few minutes to settle in. I just welcome you all to the 14th meeting of the Social Security Committee for 2017. You can remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones if it does interfere with the recording system. I know that some people might be feeling a bit delicate this morning, so I'll do my best. I'm not looking at anyone or picking anyone in particular. Apologies have been received from Mark Griffin. Richard Leonard is in attendance as a substitute, thank you Richard. Our first item today is continued consideration of the child poverty bill, stage 2. Last week's meeting we concluded by agreeing amendment 43 and we will continue from that point this morning. I welcome the cabinet secretary and the company officials to the meeting and we now move on to stage 2 proceedings. First of all, I will call amendment 34 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Groups of amendments 44, 45 and 46, Pauline McNeill to move amendment 34 and speak to all other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Good morning. In moving amendment 34, amendment 34 describes the effects of those measures towards persons who have one or more protected characteristics in terms of the quality act 2010. This relates to a previous amendment that was moved by Jackie Baillie. I heard what the minister had to say on that and I presume that the minister will ask me the same as she asked of Jackie Baillie in which case I would be happy to withdraw that if the committee are so inclined but for the purposes of the procedure I have to move amendment 34. Amendment 44 is to include in the annual report progress reports meeting child poverty targets in respect of children living in households that include a person with a long-term illness or disability. Again, it relates to some of the issues that I've raised previously in the debate about making sure that there is a special mention of progress towards those with a disability. Amendment 45 is in section 8 to describe the minister's progress towards meeting the child poverty targets for those with single parent households that relates to a previous amendment that was already moved. Finally, amendment 46. It occurred to me that, if ministers, when preparing the plan for reducing child poverty may want to rectify that plan and it would make sense to perhaps set out what they intend to do if that arose to rectify any measures to get back on track. I hope that you are all feeling bright and breezy. Amendment 34, 44 and 45 set out that annual progress reports must describe the effect of the measures that are being taken for particular groups. On amendment 34, which relates to protected characteristics, Ms McNeill's correct, I will refer committee to the points that I made during last week's committee session in relation to Ms Baillie's amendments. The reference to persons having protected characteristics is worded in a problematic way because every person has more than one protected characteristic age and gender at least, and as Ms McNeill highlighted, Ms Baillie withdrew her amendments for that reason as effectively referring to everyone as opposed to the intent, which was to have a focus on people with protected characteristics. I also have similar concerns in relation to amendment 44, principally around drafting and definitions. Amendment 44 refers to children living in a household that includes a person who has a long-term illness or disability. As members of the Social Security Committee will be aware from other pieces of work, it is important that we use the right language and are absolutely clear about the parameters of the groups that we are trying to reach. While I think that Ms McNeill is absolutely right and correct to highlight the specific issues that are facing those with long-term disability, I would ask her that, like amendment 34, that she withdraw the amendment with a view to discussing further with myself and officials over the summer as the meaning of some of the terms in that amendment are just not clear and, for example, what would constitute a long-term illness or disability. In terms of amendment 45, which refers to measures taken in relation to single-parent households, I agree that this is a very important issue and I am very supportive of the principle. I do note that the drafting differs slightly from amendment 38, which also refers to single-parent households and was voted through last week in reference to delivery plans. I reserve the right to look at this further at the drafting of this amendment in advance of stage 3, although I am very content to support amendment 45 today. Amendment 46 would require the Scottish ministers to set out in a progress report what they propose to do in an event that sufficient progress towards the targets has not been made. Again, I am supportive of this idea. The progress report will be a key tool that will allow us to assess how ministers are doing and to evaluate ministers' policies and programmes on the basis of the evidence. While I am content to support this amendment in principle, I stress that some of the interventions that ministers take to meet the targets are long-term ones and we will not see immediate results. In addition, I may reflect on the drafting of amendment 4 stage 3, but this will not affect my acceptance of the policy intention behind this amendment today. I support amendments 45 and 46 and oppose amendments 34 and 44 only for the issues that have outlined around drafting and definitions. I thank the minister for her response and, in view of that, I seek to withdraw amendment 34. I will not be seeking to press amendment 44, but I will press on amendment 45 and 46 and welcome the minister's support for those amendments. Is that an agreement with the committee that amendment 34 be withdrawn? Yes. Thank you. Am amendment 44, amendment 45, amendment 46 by agreed. amendment 47, the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 15. Pauline McNeill, move or not move? Amendment 47, the name of amendment 47, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Call of amendment 48, the name of amendment 1, which has already been debated with amendment 43. Amendment 1, the name of amendment 48, the name of amendment 43, the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 9. I am happy to formally move the consequential amendment. I am happy to formally move the consequential amendment. Is that amendment 24, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Call of amendment 25, the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 9. Is that amendment 25, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Call of amendment 49, the name of Alison Johnstone, a group of its own. Alison Johnstone, to move and speak to amendment 49. The stage 1 report made a recommendation unanimously supported by this committee that, because the policy actions required by this bill will have resource implications, budget plans should make direct links with child poverty delivery plans and progress reports. Amendment 49 was drafted to give effect to the intention behind that recommendation. I am very pleased to see that the child poverty action group in Scotland is recommending members to support it. We know from past experience that it is obvious that budget decisions can have a big impact on child poverty. It is recognised that some of the tax and spending decisions of new labour in the 2000s led to historically and internationally unprecedented falls in child poverty. What amendment 49 does is ask the Scottish Government to explain how the annual Scottish budgets will impact upon progress made towards the bill's target. I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the evidence that we have heard previously on the issue of how the child poverty targets and the budget process are linked. Dr Jim McCormack told us on 27 March that the more we can drive resource allocation decisions that are based on evidence from what has and hasn't worked, the more the delivery plan becomes a living, breathing, practical and useful plan rather than something that sits to the side of what the Government is doing. I support being explicit about the Government having to make the link with its annual budget process in particular. Several other witnesses, including Naomi Eisenstadt, also told us about the importance of the budget process for the child poverty targets and the need for a link between the two. I suggest that the way that this can be achieved is to require the Scottish Government to produce projections of how its tax and spending plans will impact on child poverty. That is a way of entrenching the aim of reducing child poverty against any future Government's intentions to reduce efforts to meet the targets. Any such Government intending to reduce their budgetary commitments would certainly have to think twice about that if the projections showed a projected slowdown and progress towards meeting the targets or indeed a projected increase. Adam Tomkins, you wanted to come in on this particular one? Yes, thank you. As well as serving on this committee, I am also the deputy convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee. I am absolutely not speaking on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee, but I think that the committee here this morning should be aware of the fact that there has been a budget process review group that I think is about to report imminently. Its interim report was published, I think, three months ago. I obviously cannot say anything about what will be in the report of the budget process review group, but I just wonder whether the wording of this amendment will be compatible with what the budget process review group recommends in terms of what I think are likely to be quite significant changes to budget process. I have a completely open mind about this convener, but I just wonder whether it would be better to revisit this issue at stage 3 once we have all had the opportunity to read and digest the recommendations of the budget process review group and indeed report back if we want to to the finance committee about our views as a social security committee on the budget process review group's recommendations. I am sorry to throw that slight spanner in the works, but it might just be that this is better examined at stage 3 than at stage 2 given what is about to happen in terms of the publication of recommendations about budget process. Thank you, Mr Thomson, for that update. Ben Macpherson, do you want to come in? Thank you, convener. I do very much appreciate the national and the purpose of the intent behind this amendment. Members want to understand the effect and impact of government spending on making progress towards the targets and rightly so. However, I do want to begin by setting out what is already in place to deliver the spirit of that amendment in relation to the Scottish budget process and I will pick up some of the issues that were raised by Mr Thomkins. The equality budget statement published alongside the draft budget every year contains an assessment of the impacts of spending choices on low-income households with children. We are also, as members will be aware, considering how we expand this because the social economic duty, which I am going to be consulting on shortly, will enable us to take important steps forward. In addition, we have equality impact assessments. They are already a statutory requirement for new policies and proposals. They include a focus on age, so issues affecting children should be brought out within those. As many members will be aware, we are also required to conduct child rights and wellbeing impact assessments on relevant matters to setting out whether policies, measures and legislation protect and promote the wellbeing of children and young people. I want you to highlight that, because there are existing assessments and frameworks already in place around the draft budget. In my view, the child poverty issues are already reflected in the issues that I have highlighted in a proportionate and sensible way. However, as others have done, as I have heard from Mr Thomkins, I would also like to point members to the on-going work of the parliamentary budget review group. The budget review group is in the process of a fundamental review of the Scottish Parliament's budget process following the devolution of Further Powers in the Scotland Act 2012 and the Scotland Act 2016. I understand, like others, that the group is due in the very near future to report its findings imminently, both to ministers and, importantly, to the finance committee. I therefore respectfully suggest that it would be preemptive to introduce legislative requirements relating to the budget process at this stage, before we have seen the outcome of a very detailed piece of work. The budget review group was set up to bring forward proposals for a revised budget process for consideration, as I said, by the finance committee and the Scottish Government ministers. As I have already highlighted, an interim report was published for consultation in March. Obviously, as part of the process, there was an opportunity for people to be making suggested changes to the budget process as a whole there. My contention would be that that would be preferable, as opposed to amendments on the bill. Convener, at this time, it would be unhelpful for the committee to vote through amendments that affect the budget process at this time, when the review group has put significant amounts of time and effort into providing ministers on the finance committee with a very detailed and thorough review based on evidence. I would hope that committee members would be supportive in the recommendation that we do not pass this amendment today, before giving due consideration to that report. Convener, I recommend that members oppose amendment 49. I think that it is an important point that has been raised. I think that it is important that we look at budget proofing and all the issues that go forward in legislation in the Parliament, and I think that the points that have been raised by Mr Tomkins and obviously the cabinet secretary are very important points at the moment. Do you want to wind up Alison Johnstone? Yes, sure. I would like to address some of the points that are made by colleagues. I think that amendment 49 does not require the Scottish Government to make projections about impacts on child poverty that are in any way experimental or require significant additional resourcing or capacity. I think that it is important that this Parliament strives always to improve the quality and availability of data that we have on poverty that is available to the Government to inform policymaking. It is really important that we do all that we can to project the impact of tax and spending proposals on poverty. I think that that is quite a common exercise. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, for example, regularly produces such projections. Adam Tomkins said that you are speaking about the budget review process and you have said that you cannot say anything about what will be in the review. I am here today at stage 2 of this bill, with none of this information available to me. I think that it is really important that we make the link between this bill and the budget process. Colleagues suggest that a similar aim could be achieved through a replacement for equality budget statements, which will be proposed by the budget process review group tomorrow. It may be the case, but it may not. Where we are sitting today, we do not know. Personally, I am perfectly willing to look at what is proposed and see if that would meet the intentions of the amendment, but until I see detailed proposals, I do wish to press ahead with the amendment. If we are going to put back into law income targets for child poverty reduction and legally require that the Scottish Government report on how it is striving to meet them, then it is really no stretch at all to say that there should be a requirement for the Government to explain how its budget, which will inevitably have an effect on incomes, will impact progress towards those targets. Of course, we have stage 3 to make any adjustments that may or may not be required. I would like to move on to amendment 49. Thank you, Alison Johnston. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a vote. All those in favour of amendment 49, please show. All those against. Any abstentions. Total votes 4, 3. Total votes against 4. Total abstentions 2. The amendment is not been passed. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to move amendments 50, 51, 52 and 54. The intention of those amendments is to ensure that the widest possible engagement with community planning partners is included when developing local child poverty action reports. It is clear that the intent of the bill is to secure as much national but also local input into the attainment of the targets set down in the bill. Therefore, local child poverty action reports are an essential part of the process. The bodies that are involved in community planning partnerships are wider than, of course, simply local government and health boards. I think that that is all the more reason why they should be included as bodies who have to make a contribution towards the report. Just this morning, we have two press articles that seem to highlight the need for a wider, rather than narrower approach. The number of children in Scotland without a permanent home has reached a six-year high, with more than 6,000 youngsters recorded as living in temporary accommodation, a 13 per cent rise. Another report from Edinburgh University, which says that Scottish school leavers from poorer families are significantly more likely to be unemployed. That is why I think that it is absolutely essential that we include bodies such as Scottish Enterprise, Hyal's Isles Enterprise, Further Education Colleges, Transport Partnerships and so on in the process of developing local action plans. I note that the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill speaks itself in paragraph 23 that the Scottish Government will work with local authorities and health boards to produce guidance on how the reporting should operate and would expect community planning partnerships to be a useful vehicle by which to co-ordinate this work. I also note that the committee received evidence on the subject as well, where the Aberdeenshire community planning partnership suggested that CPPs should be added to the face of the bill, describing the current provision as an, I quote, a missed opportunity to ensure reporting of the fullest possible range of actors at a local level. I therefore move amendment 23. Ben Macpherson, you want to come in? Thank you, convener. While I share Richard Leonard's overarching principle to encourage local engagement in general terms, I have concerns about those amendments for several reasons. First of all, I am not absolutely clear what the amendments would achieve, although I acknowledge the introductory remarks that were made a few moments ago. I am concerned that by doing amendment 23, we would override a wide variety of bodies' obligations for which they have no immediate role in tackling child poverty and that they have not been consulted on having the duty placed on them. For those reasons, I am not able to support those amendments. Thank you very much, convener. Let me once again state that I very much understand why Mr Leonard is proposing those amendments and I absolutely understand what he is seeking to achieve with amendments 50, 51, 52 and 54. It was apparent in the stage 1 discussions that there was some appetite for local reporting duty to be placed on community planning partnerships. Indeed, at the start of the process, as a minister, I would have instinctively been what I would have wanted to have done, but it was very clear to me in terms of the advice that I received from officials that we could not place duties as such directly on community planning partnerships, because they are not legal entities in their own right and they do not actually employ people. In terms of the points that Mr Leonard makes about not letting organisations such as their enterprise agencies and other organisations not letting them off the hook and having to make a contribution to endeavours, particularly around employment in relation to child poverty, it is absolutely crucial. I want to reassure members that I have considered those matters carefully, but I do not agree that we should mandate additional partner organisations to prepare local reports as proposed by Mr Leonard's amendments and, essentially, for three reasons. First, in terms of leadership, I agree with the spirit of the amendments that local authorities and health boards will want to engage with local partners in the development of their annual reports. However, the duty as it stands gives it a clear leadership role locally to health boards and to local authorities. In my view, that is absolutely right. Those are the key strategic players and they should take on that leadership role on child poverty. That is why they are already essential to the reference group that I have set out and they have a role to develop guidance. Second, on a more pragmatic level, some of the bodies included in the list that Mr Leonard suggests have at best a tangential role in tackling child poverty. I accept entirely the very obvious role of Skills Development Scotland, further education colleges and enterprise agencies, but the list as proposed is extensive. It includes bodies such as Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish National Heritage, and I am just not convinced that those bodies are sufficiently relevant to issues of child poverty to merit annual reporting. I should also say that, as far as I am aware, those additional bodies have not been consulted on a potential duty, and I would have some concerns about that. Our approach to duties under the bill has to be both proportionate and relevant, and that is why I think that it is appropriate that we limit annual reporting duties to those who have a very clear day-to-day role in dealing with children and families. Third, on a point of principle, the Community Empowerment Act that set up community planning partnerships did so precisely to put power in the hands of communities themselves. Community planning partnerships are required to set out their own priorities for improvement, agreed locally in a collaborative way with the participation of their communities. They are required to agree those priorities based on an evidence-based understanding of local needs, circumstances and opportunities, and they are required to be accountable to their communities and report publicly to their communities on the improvements that they have made. It would seem to me to be contrary to the general principles of the Community Empowerment Act, which has been established specifically to place local people and communities at the heart of what we do. If the Parliament were to turn around and to destruct CPPs, what to do would indeed seem contrary to those principles. I mentioned the reference group that is developing guidance on local reporting duty. That group has met once already and has two further meetings scheduled over the summer. It has made good progress thus far. I want to reassure Mr Leonard and others that I will ask the group to consider what more can be done to make sure that the guidance at a local level delivers the kind of partnership working that he has in mind. I appreciate that he was struck by the evidence that was heard at stage 1 about the importance of community planning partnerships. I understand the arguments that I need to ensure that certain bodies are involved in tackling child poverty at a local level. In terms of a compromise, that could be placing a requirement on local authorities and health boards when preparing their annual reports to consult with community planning partners that they consider appropriate to determine what measures have been taken by those partners during the year in relation to meeting child poverty targets. That could be something that is brought forward at stage 3. Annual reports could then include a description of the measures taken by those community planning partners. That would encourage local authorities and health boards to bring in appropriate partners and would avoid placing unnecessary requirements on bodies that have less relevance on the day-to-day issues of tackling child poverty. For those reasons, I recommend that members oppose amendments 50, 50, 501, 52 and 54. I appreciate the final passage of the cabinet secretary's response, which I think is helpful. It may be that by the time we get to stage 3, something robust may be in place. I am a bit like Alison Johnstone on the previous amendment. As we sit here this morning, I do not see sufficient evidence that all the public agencies out there are going to be brought in with full force to meet the aims of this piece of legislation. I hear what the cabinet secretary says about not wishing to tell local bodies. We are telling local government what to do through this legislation. Why should it not be similarly acceptable to tell central government agencies, such as Scottish Enterprise, what they should be doing? The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency was mentioned that there is a big environmental justice movement, which says that if you look at the location of incinerators, landfills, chemical plants and even the future fracking-licensed areas, they are all by and large in areas where poorer people live. I do not think that SEPA is exempt from considering poverty and child poverty in its deliberations. If there are bodies such as SNH that have absolutely no locus on child poverty—and I am not persuaded that they have no locus whatsoever—it is possible that I am supposed to look at exemptions for particular bodies. However, if there are to be exemptions, I do not think that further education colleges, Scottish Enterprise, Highland Isles Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, for example, should be exempt from playing a much more active part in the compilation of those reports so that they are accountable. They currently have an existing duty to act with a view to reducing socioeconomic inequalities. Those bodies have also got a public sector equality duty placed upon them, for example, so I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask them to make a more formal contribution, which will be achieved by this amendment, to the goal that we share of reducing substantially child poverty in Scotland. For that reason, I wish to press my amendment. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We will go to vote. All those in favour of amendment 50, please show. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour, please show. Those against, abstentions. Total votes 4, 3. Total votes against 4. Total abstentions 2. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 2, in the name of Adam Tomkins, group with amendments 26, 53 and 55. Adam Tomkins, move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This amendment is designed to ensure that local child poverty action reports are prospective as well as retrospective. I'm not quite sure I said that right. I think that amendment 26, in the name of the cabinet secretary, seeks to do the same thing, and I think also that it seeks to do the same thing as my amendment in more elegant terms than mine. If, as I hope she will, the cabinet secretary moves and presses amendment 26, I will withdraw amendment 2. However, I think that it is important that the section 10 requirement on local authorities is one that requires their reports not merely to state what they have done in order to try and tackle child poverty but what they propose to do and to continue to do in order to tackle child poverty. That is the force of my amendment 2. I think that, if I have understood it correctly, the cabinet secretary's amendment 26. Thank you, Mr Tomkins. Cabinet Secretary, to speak to amendment 26 and other amendments in the group. The committee stage 1 report highlighted a range of evidence that placing forward-looking strategic duty in local partners would help partners to plan how they would go about reducing child poverty. That, in the view of several expert witnesses, would strengthen the duty in making it more effective in meeting its aims. I have been persuaded on that matter and, for that reason, I am putting forward a Government amendment to the bill to place an additional requirement on local authorities and NHS boards to set out actions that they plan to take going forward. I appreciate Mr Tomkins's comments and his support for the Government amendment. I thought that it might be useful that, if I still put in record some of the concerns around Mr Tomkins's amendment just so that the committee is fully informed of our thinking. My thinking was that I was not convinced that the forward look, as proposed by Mr Tomkins, should only focus specifically on the reporting year ahead as detailed in his amendment. His amendment would pose some practical challenges just because of an inevitable delay in reporting. For example, the report of activity covering the period April 2018, March 2019, would not be published until after that period had ended. It may, for example, not be published until June 2019, and the forward look should, in terms of Mr Tomkins' amendment, relate to the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. However, by the time the report is published in June, two months of the following year would already have passed, and it would therefore not make accurate—it would not be accurate to describe measures that were intended to be taken in April and May 2019. I thank you for bearing with me, convener, on all of that. Amendment 26, which I am proposing, will strengthen the duty on local reporting, but it does not restrict local partners to reporting on actions only within the next reporting year, and it does not create a reporting gap. For those reasons, I move amendment 26, and I appreciate Mr Tomkins' support for amendment 26 and intended withdrawal of amendment 2. On amendment 53, I appreciate absolutely by Alison Johnstone's wishes to include reference to measures relating to income maximisation for pregnant women and families on the face of the bill. However, the member has already received a commitment in writing from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport that we will be rolling out the healthier, wealthier children programme across Scotland. As I said earlier, I do not think that it is sensible to overload the bill with reference to taking of measures in relation to specific matters that restrict the flexibility of local areas that they have to develop proposals as they see fit. I think that that is a key point. Local areas will know best what works for them in terms of supporting their diverse communities. That is why the reference group that I have set up includes representation from across the country and will certainly be working with them to look at how best to disseminate good practice and share examples of positive projects such as healthier, wealthier children. Indeed, we are looking to build on that programme through our programme of financial health checks, which I expect to be announcing to the first delivery plan. I can certainly offer to meet the member to discuss that further. For those reasons, I do not support amendment 53. Amendment 55 seeks to require local authorities and health boards to set out measures that they are taking in relation to persons who are seeking or have been recognised as having refugee, humanitarian or other internationally protected status. I very much agree with Ms McNeill that we must consider very carefully the link between poverty and refugees, asylum seekers and others with or seeking other humanitarian protection. I thank her for raising this important issue, because it has not been raised in the context of the bill. Although members will undoubtedly be aware of the very recent inquiry by the Scottish Parliament's Equality and Human Rights Committee, which gave, in my view, a much-needed focus to the issues of destitution, asylum and insecure immigration status in Scotland. The committee made a number of recommendations—best part of 30 recommendations—which the Scottish Government is now in the process of carefully considering them all. I am due to respond to the committee in July. While my response to the committee debate that we had a month or so ago, while I stress that we cannot ignore the cause of the destitution, which is essentially how the asylum system operates, particularly in connection with things such as how it interacts with the welfare benefit entitlement, and there are issues that are currently reserved to the UK Government. While I am clear about the challenges posed by reserved matters, I gave a commitment in Parliament and to the committee that the Scottish Government will recognise the opportunities that we have with devolved powers that could make a real difference to people's lives. We all agree that refugees should feel welcome, safe and able to participate in society, and that is why, as a Government, we developed the first new Scots integration strategy in 2013, which encouraged innovative approaches and new ways to offer support and to do more to involve refugees. As I set out in a speech at the launch of the Scottish Refugee Festival last week, we want to build on that progress and continue the distinctive new Scots approach from day one of arrival. The delivery plan that I will be preparing under this bill will be a cross-Government plan. I will, of course, ensure that the delivery plan is aligned with the principles of other work, such as the new Scots programme. The duty in the bill, as introduced, requires local authorities and health boards to set out any measures that are taken in their area for the purpose of meeting child poverty targets. I therefore expect that, where a local authority or health board considers appropriate, they would report on the measures that they have taken in relation to families that Pauline McNeill refers to. Of course, Ms McNeill and others will be well aware of the great work undertaken by Glasgow City Council in terms of its support for refugees and asylum seekers. Again, I would be very happy to raise the issue with our local reference group and to discuss with them whether that might feature in the guidance that we are developing in collaboration with them. So, convener, for the reasons set out, I hope that Ms McNeill will not press amendment 55, given that our commitments are now on the record for the purposes of the bill. The bill is about defining poverty in laws relating to income and setting targets for boosting the incomes of poorer families. One important way of achieving that is helping people to claim the benefits that they are entitled to. We know that there are a lot of benefits that go unclaimed because the benefits system is simply too complex for many people to navigate, so many families do not claim everything that they could. We heard from John Dickey of the child poverty action group in evidence in the Glasgow session that many families find themselves relying on child benefit, a benefit that is easy to access and universally available, not entirely now, but a survey by Turn to Us found that 48 per cent of low-income families aren't claiming the welfare benefits and tax credits that they could be entitled to. That results in around £15 billion worth of benefits across the UK going unclaimed, so that has a real impact on people's ability to have any quality of life. The cabinet secretary recognises that when families get the advice and support that they need to claim, they can gain significant amounts of additional income, which can have a huge impact on reducing poverty. I am delighted that the Government is going to roll out healthier welfare children because we know that some families have gained up to £3,000 a year from the project. That is simply about making people aware of their entitlements and enabling them to claim them. Across the country, we know that some fantastic work is already taking place. We have projects here in Lothian that are making a real difference, too. Great work has been done by local authorities and health boards. The amendment seeks to facilitate that work being shared. The cabinet secretary spoke about disseminating information and sharing that best practice. For the avoidance of any doubt, I would like to make clear that the amendment does not require local authorities or health boards to do anything that they are not doing already. It certainly does not reduce flexibility. It is absolutely not trying to set their local priorities for them. It is just trying to ensure that we all understand what great work is going on and making sure that we can act on that. All that this asks is that anything that they are doing related to income maximisation, the detail in their local child poverty action report, the challenges—this is an intractable problem. Governments have been trying to solve child poverty for decades and far longer than that. We have not succeeded yet, so I think that my amendment simply seeks to help this Government or any future Government to get closer to addressing child poverty. Pauline McNeill spoke to amendment 55 in any other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. I thank the cabinet secretary for her comprehensive response to amendment 55. That was an amendment that was suggested by the Scottish Refugee Council. It is my feeling that there had been no discussion in stage 1 about the needs of asylum seekers or anyone to protect international status in the bill. As already noted, it is just a requirement to describe any measures that are taken for the purposes of contributing to meeting the child poverty targets. There is no specific requirement. I would certainly want to make sure that it is a consideration. It is a complex matter. I appreciate that it is a reserved matter, but there are asylum seekers with children living in severe poverty. I would not like to think that I am sure that there are no local authorities or any form of government who would not ignore that fact, but I think that it would be a remiss of the committee if it was not mentioned. I would also like the committee to note that it does not necessarily mean that there is a prescription for any financial measures. It could relate to services for asylum seekers. In Glasgow, who the cabinet secretary has already mentioned, has done excellent work, as many local authorities have, but in terms of shelter accommodation for homeless people, there is a shelter for asylum seekers but not for women. I am not really certain whether that would include children or not. There are issues that do not relate to finances but to shelter and services that need to be addressed. On that basis, for the time being, I was quite content for that to be a probing amendment to get that on the record. Perhaps there could be some further discussion to ensure that when looking at plans around the country of what government and local authorities plan to do to reduce chip poverty targets, that issue is not forgotten about. I would also like to speak to amendment 53, in the name of Alison Johnson. As the cabinet secretary previously said to the committee in relation to some of my amendments, there are automated benefits, which I wholly welcome about the importance of that, particularly to single parents and other groups. For me, income maximisation is also a key concept that is related to automated benefits, because it recognises that there may be a variety of reasons that people have not applied for all the benefits in which they are entitled to. Alison Johnson has outlined some figures in relation to unclinked benefits, which is quite worrying. I do not know what Alison Johnson is going to press in a moment, so I will be happy to support her. I would certainly like to be reassured that the Scottish Government is alive to the concept of income maximisation. To be fair, I know that we will probably return to that in relation to the social security bill and that it will not just be a matter that we can discuss in relation to the bill. Thank you, convener. Adam Tompkins, to wind up. Nothing further to add, convener, other than to say that we will support, as I have already said, amendment 26 in the name of the cabinet secretary, and if they are pressed or moved, we will support amendments 53 and 55 as well. You wish to withdraw amendment 2. I will withdraw amendment 2. Is that agree with amendment 2? We withdraw. Thank you. Call amendment 52, in the name of Richard Leonard, already debated with amendment 50. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We will go to your vote. The amendment is not agreed. All those in favour of amendment 52, please. All those against. Abstentions. Thank you. Ports 4, 3. Ports against 4. Total abstentions 2. The amendment is not agreed to. Thank you. Call amendment 26, in the name of the cabinet secretary, who is already debated with amendment 2. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 53, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 2. Alison Johnstone, to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There will be a vote. All those in agreement, please, show. All those against. Total votes 4 or 5. Total votes against 4. No abstentions. The amendment is agreed to. Thank you. Call amendment 55, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 2. Pauline McNeill, move or not move. Not moved. Thank you very much. Call amendment 54, in the name of Richard Leonard, already debated with amendment 50. Richard Leonard, to move or not move. Move. Call amendment 54, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 50. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. There will be a vote. All those in favour of amendment 54, please, show. All those against. Abstentions. Thank you. Total votes 4 or 3. Total votes against 4. Total abstentions 2. The amendment is not agreed. Thank you. The question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 28, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 9. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Happy to move the consequential amendment. Questions at amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Call amendment 29, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 9. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Moved. Thank you. Cwesiant amser 29, ai rwy'n i'w ddiweddol. Cwesiant eich wybod 11, ai rwy'n i'w ddiweddol. Cwesiant eich wybod 12, 13, ai rwy'n i'w diweddol. Cwesiant eich wybod 11, ai rwy'n i'w diweddol. Aeth dwi'n ei wneud i'w ddych chi'n ei gwybodaeth o'r peth. Rwy'n i'w ddig lead ynghylch i'w ddweudio, aeth ffysgol hynny'n ddig lead. a we will now move into private session. Thank you very much.