 A'r eich rai gyfnodd. Bench yn ddigonol. Rwy'n werth na'n tredu i'r ddalodau y First Minister. Rai gyfnodd y First Minister a'r Brexit-secretary. Rai gyfnodd y First Minister a'r Brexit-secretary. Rai gyfnodd… Yesterday is the key… Mr Carlot. I'm going to suspend proceedings for a few moments. Proceedings are suspended. Fe nofie dddwn i, boblwyddyn gyda ichi ddinnaisraeth mewn cwysylltu iawn i ddim yn gweithio i ddim yn i. Fe mwyaf o gychwyn i ddim yn ei gweld yr cymdeithas iawn? Dwi arwineb am ddim yn ei ddim yn ei ddim, ma'r cymdeithas iawn i ddim. Ond mae ei roedd, a students-streifen wedi amser i ddiweddwn i gyllideb sydd eich ffyrdd ymyl am rhanau hefyd, maen nhw i'n gweithio i ddim yn ei wneud yr oedd yn ei ddim yn ei ddim yn ei ddim Hyダ wentpartyll? Hyresfrei? Congrats. It isn't, isn't it? Isn't it-isn't it the case that what Scotland saw yet again yesterday is that, when push come to shove for the SNP, it's not about finding a solution to Brexit, it's about pursuing their independent suppression? As Jackson Carlaw rightly says, and indeed belatedly recognises, for two long years, when stopping Brexit didn't seem possible, the SNP argued for single-market customs union membership compromise. That was ignored by the Tories and indeed by everybody else. That option, which I think is the minimum that you would need to protect Scotland's interests, wasn't actually on the ballot paper last night. That said, over the next few days, we will continue to work across Parliament for a compromise of that nature if that proves to be the only alternative to a hard Brexit. Let me also say this, Presiding Officer. This whole process, thanks to the Tories, is now such a mess that stopping Brexit altogether must be our top priority. Moreover, that is now possible. Actually, the highest number of votes cast in the House of Commons last night was for the people's vote option. The principles that have guided everything that we have done in this are the protection of Scotland's interests. I wonder if Jackson Carlaw can tell us what principles have guided the Scottish Tories, because it seems to me that the only principle that they have been abiding by is doing whatever their London bosses have told them to do. Jackson Carlaw. There was no principle in the way that the SNP voted last night, and what I saw in contrast was that the Prime Minister prepared to set aside her own premiership to secure a deal. A deal that, contrary to everything that the SNP says, will be good for Scotland and will be good for the UK. By contrast, here is the First Minister's record. She angrily demands that the Prime Minister go. She angrily commands that when the Prime Minister does go, she angrily then declares that the Prime Minister's decision to go, you guessed it, makes the case for independence. Four outrage, grievance, her own one single-minded obsession. Aren't Scots right to detect just a little bit of a pattern here, First Minister? Most extinctly pleased, First Minister. Again, you have to laugh that Jackson Carlaw is coming here today and raising the position of the Prime Minister. It is traditional in politics. It is traditional for leaders to say to colleagues, if you don't back me on an issue of such importance, I might have to resign. Not in the Tories, though. Theresa May's position is if you don't back me, I'll stay. Theresa May must be the only leader in living memory who has tried to fall in her own sword and has managed to miss. Utterly ridiculous. The SNP, in contrast to the Tories, will continue to stand up for Scotland's interests. That's what we have done since day 1 after the Brexit referendum. The way to stand up—not just for Scotland's interests, but the way to stand up for the interests of the entire UK right now—is to recognise that the Brexit process is a complete and utter mess and put that issue back to the people. So, belatedly, can Jackson Carlaw find it within himself to actually stand up for Scotland instead of being the last man standing up for Theresa May? Presiding Officer, Nicola Sturgeon does not stand up for the Scottish interests. She stands up for the nationalist interests. On Monday, the Prime Minister said that she was skeptical that yesterday's troll through the alternatives would produce an outcome. She was right. For the avoidance of doubt, no deal was rejected, a second referendum was rejected again, revoking article 50 was rejected. Yesterday when it came to the crunch, the First Minister whipped her MPs against supporting her own policy of a customs union and single market membership, and that was defeated, too. Does not the result of those votes demonstrate that Alex Neil and Jim Sillers are right? The best way forward to secure an orderly withdrawal is to support the Prime Minister's deal. As I say, the compromise position that the SNP put forward when it looked as if Remain was not an option, which is not the case now incidentally, was not on the ballot paper last night. It has never been our position to accept just a customs union. That would not be sufficient to protect Scotland's interests, but I disagree with Jackson Carlaw in his characterisation of what happened last night. If you look at two of the options, yes, a customs union alone but also a second referendum, both of those options got more votes in the House of Commons last night than the Prime Minister's deal has managed on either of the occasions that it has been brought forward and defeated. That gives the House of Commons something to move forward with into next week. No, I do not think that the thing to do now is to vote for a bad deal that would take Scotland out of the EU, out of the single market and out of the customs union. The right thing to do now is to put this issue back to the people. I will say again, if Jackson Carlaw was interested in standing up for Scotland, or indeed the interests of the UK, that is the option that he would be arguing for, too. The argument for many against the Prime Minister's deal is that there was support for an alternative. The votes in the House of Commons last night demonstrated that there is not. It is clear that there is a deal, one that secures an orderly way forward, one supported by Jean-Claude Juncker, supported by Donald Tusk, supported by 27 of our other EU partners, backed by the business community here in Scotland, by the whisky industry, by our fishermen. That is the Prime Minister's deal. Surely, after all the confusion with every other alternative being rejected yesterday, the national interest is served by supporting that compromise. Surely, it is time to back the deal and get on with it. The Prime Minister's deal may or may not be backed by all the people that Jackson Carlaw has just listed there. The problem is that the Prime Minister's deal is not backed by his own party, and that is why she cannot get it through. Even if every single SNP MP was to have backed the Prime Minister's deal, it would still have gone down to massive defeat. It is time that the Prime Minister and her sole remaining defender, Jackson Carlaw, or sole remaining defenders of Scottish Tories, accepted that that deal is dead. It is now time to move on to another option. The option that got most votes last night in the House of Commons was the people's votes. That is the right thing to do. Again, what we see today is Jackson Carlaw failing to stand up for Scotland's interests and simply standing up for Theresa May and his London bosses. Presiding Officer, the Prime Minister's answer to Common's gridlock and Brexit meltdown is to offer to resign again. However, although MPs cannot make a decision, too many people in the real world have no choice but to make heart-breaking decisions as a result of a decade of Tory austerity. Decisions such as paying the bills or feeding their children and the result of over half a million food parcels were handed out in Scotland over the past 18 months. Does the First Minister agree with me that Brexit is not the only reason why Theresa May must go? Yes, I do. I look back a few years to 2014 and I reflect on the fact that, if Labour hadn't teamed up with the Tories to stop Scotland becoming independent, we would not have had a Tory Prime Minister for the past few years. The First Minister was teaming up with some interesting people at the weekend, I noticed. That is constitutional politics. The First Minister and I may differ on some things, but we share some frustrations about the Brexit process, not least in how it is detracting from all those other issues that really matter to people, such as jobs, schools and hospitals, such as child poverty. In October last year, the First Minister told me that she would not support Labour's plan to increase child benefit by £5 a week because her Government estimated that it would lift only 20,000 children out of poverty. New figures for child poverty were published by the Scottish Government this morning. So, can the First Minister tell the chamber how many more children in Scotland are now living in poverty? If we look at the figures this morning, child poverty has increased, and I think that that is deeply regrettable. We know why it is increasing because of the welfare cuts and the austerity being imposed by Tory Governments. Child poverty and poverty generally in Scotland is too high, although it is important to note that it is lower in Scotland than it is in either England or Labour-run Wales. Nevertheless, it is because child poverty is too high that we are firstly taking steps to mitigate the impact of Tory welfare cuts. It is why we are taking steps to invest in reducing child poverty. Of course, it is why we are committed to the introduction of an income supplement, but one that lifts more children out of poverty. I am making sure that we target that resource to those who most need it. When we publish the way forward on that by June this year, I hope that we will get Scottish Labour support for it. Richard Leonard This morning's figures show that 10,000 more children in Scotland are living in poverty. That means that almost a quarter of a million children in Scotland are living in poverty today. No wonder Dr Mary McLeod from the Antipoverty Project, a menu for change, says that the Scottish Government must, and I quote her, give people living on cups of tea and thin air more to sustain them and they must do it now. Or that the child poverty action group says that, and I quote them, the Scottish Government's timetable for a new income supplement fails to reflect the extraordinary increase in child poverty that the country faces. Children in poverty really cannot wait until 2022. So, First Minister, can you tell us why are you making these children wait? The First Minister We are doing the work to make sure that we have a policy that can be delivered, a policy that can be paid for and a policy that lifts the maximum number of children out of poverty. This is a week in which Labour's most recent policy announcement on bus travel has been exposed as completely unworked through. It is not fair to promise people things that they cannot deliver, and we will not do that. We will take forward plans that can be delivered. In terms of our action now to tackle poverty, we are investing £125 million a year to mitigate the worst impacts of Tory policy. We heard what the UN rapporteur in poverty had to say, when he said that the Scottish Government, devolved administrations in general, are mitigating the worst impacts of austerity, despite experience and significant reductions in block grant funding and limits on their ability to raise revenue, but mitigation comes at a price and is not sustainable. What we will continue to do is take real action. What we will also continue to do is demand that the powers that the Tories are now using to impose those policies in Scotland are actually brought to this Parliament. The sooner Richard Leonard supports in that, the better. We have some constituency supplementaries, the first from Gordon Lindhurst. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware of recent national statistics data showing that Edinburgh has the worst pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland, and that has steadily worsened since the SNP came to power. The First Minister asked to be judged on her record on education, so what assurances can she give that more will be done to reverse this trend and meet the individual needs of pupils in Edinburgh, who are being let down by her Government? Well, pupil-teacher ratios across the country are broadly stable. We also see teacher numbers overall increasing over the past few years. I think that we have got the highest number of teachers overall now than has been the case since 2010. The highest number of primary school teachers since 1980 was when I was still at primary school. We also see attainment in our schools increasing, and we are seeing the attainment gap close. That is good progress, and it is progress that we are determined to continue. I have written to the Home Secretary and the Scottish Government Minister for Migration seeking urgent intervention to prevent six of my constituents, the Sabita family, from being imminently deported from Dumfries to Tunisia. The family, four of whom are under 16, are being deported simply on the basis that they cannot afford to pay the almost £7,000 fee for the Home Office to process their application. The family are now reporting to the police every week until their deportation and are unable to work, study or make money for themselves. Can I therefore ask the First Minister, in the absence of any fast action from the local Tory MP, what advice she is able to offer me to support my constituents and whether there is any action that the Scottish Government can take to help my constituents to remain in Scotland? I thank Emma Harper for raising the case. What she has just outlined is an illustration of Tory-run Britain. It is absolutely shocking and appalling, and the Tory sitting over there should be ashamed of it. I am hugely sympathetic to all those—we are talking about many people here—who have real difficulties navigating the complex and the increasingly restrictive UK immigration rules. The Scottish Government welcomes and we hugely value people from all over the world to choose to build their lives here. Scotland is stronger because of our multiculturalism and non-UK citizens are an essential part, not just of our present but also of our future. The UK Government's immigration system is not fit for purpose. We want to see a less restrictive, more humane system that meets our needs and provides a welcoming environment for new Scots and their families. The migration minister will make representations to the Home Office and respond to Ms Harper as soon as possible. Edward Mountain, to be followed by Gillian Martin. The First Minister will know that, from Monday, air traffic controllers working for Hyal are starting their work to rule, which will have severe results as far as disruption is concerned. On 26 April, proposed strike action will close seven airports for 24 hours. Given the importance of air travel to businesses, families in the Highlands and Islands, can she confirm what contingency plans the Scottish Government has in place to help? I am extremely disappointed about the planned strike action. Highlands and Islands airports are covered by our public sector pay policy. Hyal has implemented a pay rise for all staff, which is an improvement on previous years and has also significantly increased its contribution to the pension scheme in order to maintain its benefit for employees. I understand that the issue is going to ACAS, and I hope that we will see an early resolution of it so that the travelling public does not suffer any unnecessary disruption. Gillian Martin, to be followed by Mark McDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week, the instant neighbour charity published some startling figures on a stark increase in people in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire receiving emergency food parcels from food banks, with 12 independent food banks distributing over 27,000 parcels in the last 18 months. Will the First Minister give her assessment on why we are seeing such an increase and what could be done to stop the rise in food bank use in an area where everyone should be thriving? The latest data showing the number of food banks and the number of emergency food parcels shows that those numbers have been far too high. The Scottish Government promotes an approach to tackling food insecurity that has dignity at its heart. We support fair share, for example, to help to build better community resilience. As I have just said in response to Richard Leonard, we are doing everything that we can to mitigate the impact of the welfare cuts and the austerity being imposed in Scotland that are the driving factors behind the increase in food bank use. As a to Gillian Martin's question, that is the reason that the Scottish Government continues to do everything that we can to mitigate it, but the sooner we can tackle those issues at source, the better by taking those decisions here in our own Parliament. Mark McDonald. I previously raised the issue of Stony Woodmill in my constituency entering administration. Since then, a phenomenal collective effort involving workforce management unions and local and national agencies has sought to present a clear message that the mill has a positive future. It is reported today that a preferred bidder has been identified, and while there is still some distance to travel, does the First Minister agree that this is a strong testament to that united approach, which will hopefully secure a bright future for the business and its 482 strong workforce? First Minister. Yes, I do agree with that. We have had some positive news this week, as Mark McDonald has just outlined, although I think that he is absolutely right to also be cautious that there is a long way to go. However, I do think that the positive news that we have had about the preferred bidder is firstly testament to the skills and the dedication of the workforce, but also testament to that joint collective effort, which will very much continue now to make sure that Stony Woodmill does have a very positive future. Question 3, Alison Johnstone. Thank you. It is clear that the First Minister shares my grave concern that the Scottish Government and Resolution Foundation analysis confirms that the number of children living in poverty in Scotland is steadily rising. It is clear that she shares my anger and frustration, too, that the worrying rise—in the words of the senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation— is almost entirely driven by UK-wide decisions. While we continue to call for an end to the mean-spirited punitive welfare policies of the UK Government, it is clear that the Scottish Government must do all that it can to raise the living standards of our poorest families. Is the First Minister really saying that low-income families in Scotland will have to wait until 2022 before the Scottish Government introduces a desperately needed income supplement? I agree with Alison Johnstone's sentiments. As we have said, we will set out an update on this work by June this year, and that will be available for Parliament as a whole to scrutinise and to debate. That will be published alongside our analysis of policy and delivery options. Those are important aspects. Delivery option, as well as how we pay for this policy, is a vital part of making sure that it can be delivered properly. In terms of what drives some of our work behind this, there are two principles in particular—firstly, reaching the greatest number of children in poverty and topping up incomes sufficiently to lift those households out of poverty. In terms of the Give Me Five campaign—which I have a lot of sympathy for the organisations behind that—what we see is that £7 out of every £10 of that would be spent on families not living in poverty. If we are going to do this, which we are committed to doing, we must make sure that the money gets to those most in need. Alison Johnstone, I thank the First Minister for her response. Living up to the targets that this Parliament unanimously supported in the child poverty act must be a priority, so we have to use every single tool that we have at our disposal. The resolution foundation's report on child poverty says, and I am quoting, it is possible that replacing the current regressive system of council tax, as cross-party talks are set to discuss, could help to reduce child poverty if done right. Will the First Minister commit to ensuring that our local and national tax systems are significantly more progressive, allowing us to raise the money that we need to fight child poverty in Scotland? We are already raising extra revenue through a more progressive system of income tax, which I think is something that the Greens welcome, even if it is not something every party across this chamber welcomes. As Alison Johnstone has already referred to, we have committed to cross-party talks on reform of the council tax. I hope that all parties will agree to take part in that, and, certainly, putting the progressive principle at the heart of that should be a priority and an objective for all of us. The First Minister is welcoming the excellent announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday that our armed forces men and women serving in Scotland on a tour of duty will now receive financial recompense from the UK Government in the tax year 2019-20 as a result of the increase in tax rates imposed by this SNP Government last year. I was just wondering which welcome announcement of the Prime Minister he was going to ask me to welcome there. On this one, it is interesting, isn't it, that the Tories talk about those in our armed forces? Because of our progressive system of income tax, those paid more highly pay a little bit more tax in Scotland. What we do not hear the Tories talking about are the estimated 37,000 MOD personnel in England, the lower paid people who are now paying more tax than their counterparts in Scotland do. Now, interestingly, I have not heard any suggestion that the Tories are going to compensate them for the fact that they are paying more tax in England than they would be if they were based here in Scotland. Nor do I hear the Tories saying that they are going to compensate MOD personnel in England for the free prescriptions that their counterparts in Scotland get or their access to free education if they are ordinarily resident in Scotland that people in England do not get. MOD personnel, just as every public sector worker in Scotland gets a far better deal than their counterparts in England, and that is something that the Tories should be reflecting long and hard on. Yesterday, Theresa May offered up her own resignation as an attempt to win support for her deal, and even that does not seem to have been enough. Does the First Minister think that it is high time that the Prime Minister accepted that her deal is finished and article 50 should be revoked to put a stop to this chaos? First Minister. It seems to me that, apart from Theresa May, the only people who do not see that her deal is completely dead are the Scottish Conservatives. It is time to move on to better options. I have made my view clear on a people's vote, but, interestingly, the House of Commons last night had the option to emphatically rule out no deal by saying that, in that scenario, she would choose to revoke article 50 instead. Joanna Cherry from the SNP put that amendment down last night. Interestingly, I think that perhaps—I need to double check this—with one exception, all of the Scottish Tories voted in a way that would suggest that they would prefer no deal Brexit to revoking article 50. I think that that is inexplicable when we see the damage that no deal would do to Scotland. Another example of the Tories being way, way, way out of sync with Scotland's national interests. Murdo Fraser. Last week, Perth College UHI announced the closure of its learning centres in Kinross, Creeff and Blair Gowrie. Does the First Minister share my concern that the short-sighted decision will do serious damage to rural education opportunities in Perth and Kinross? What role does she think the real terms cut in funding of 3.2 per cent to the budget of UHI played in that decision? First Minister. Of course, we have in our budget overall increased funding to colleges and to universities. Interestingly, Murdo Fraser and his colleagues voted against that budget, but in terms of the particular issue that he raises, I share his concerns and I know that local members have been raising those concerns and will continue to do so. Has the First Minister noted that the vote of an individual democratic unionist is worth over £100 million, but the opinion of this Parliament is worth nothing and, similarly, the card of Parliament? How does the First Minister respond to that? I do not think that it will be lost on many people across Scotland. A handful of DUP MPs right now appear to have more say over Scotland's future than the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland does. That is absolutely disgraceful. I do not think that it should be lost on the Scottish Tories. The DUP appeared to be able to get all of that money out of the Prime Minister. There are more Scottish Tories than there are DUP MPs, so why are they not managing to get anything for Scotland? Because the Scottish Tories never managed to do anything for Scotland ever. To ask the First Minister what progress has been made with the implementation of Frank's law. I am absolutely delighted to confirm that the extension of free personal care to those under 65 assessed as requiring it will begin on Monday, with £30 million of new investment being delivered in our budget for 2019-20. We have been working with COSLA local authorities and stakeholders to ensure that that will be successfully implemented. I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I welcome the expansion and step change in the provision in personal care with the benefit not only to those in the south of Scotland who require care about people across all of Scotland. When free personal care was first introduced in the UK, the UK Government clawed back monies that were being spent on attendance allowance. With the extension of free personal care, has the UK Government given any commitment not to consequently cut the disability benefits for people who do receive free personal care? No, there has been no such commitment from the UK Government unfortunately. When we were bringing forward the necessary steps to put the extension in place, we did call on the UK Government not to cut the disability benefits, but unfortunately they rejected those calls. Our actions in extension will ensure that no one is left out of pocket by the UK Government withdrawing the care elements of DLA or PIP. The Tories really need to explain why having rightly backed calls to extend free personal care, that they not only voted against it in our budget in this Parliament, but they are also going to cut DLA or PIP payments from Westminster. That is something else that seems to me utterly inexplicable. Miles Briggs Thank you, Presiding Officer. Two years ago, I was honoured to bring forward Frank Slore Bill to Parliament alongside Amanda Cappell. It is therefore welcome that we are seeing the progress made today. One key area that Alzheimer's Scotland has highlighted in their recent report, which the Government has not responded to, is around equality of access to healthcare for people with advanced dementia. Can I ask the Scottish Government, in the First Minister, now that this will be asked by councils to deliver what steps will ministers take to guarantee that we do not see a postcode lottery developer across Scotland? The First Minister We will continue to work with councils and, of course, we will continue to liaise with organisations like Alzheimer's Scotland to make sure that people who are assessed as needing personal care get that. I hope that all members will play their part in that. Can I just take the opportunity to commend all those who have campaigned for this policy, in particular Amanda Cappell, who is due to a great amount of credit and gratitude from all of us for all of her efforts? No doubt, we will continue to debate issues such as the one that was raised by Emma Harper. Let's for a moment, perhaps, on a note of consensus, pause to reflect on the fact that the introduction of free personal care for the over-65s was one of the proudest achievements of this Parliament in its early years. As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of this Parliament, it is really appropriate and something that all of us across the Parliament should be proud of, that we are extending this policy now to the under-65s as well. As a Parliament elsewhere in these islands obsesses with Brexit, all of us should be proud that our Parliament is getting on with the socially progressive change that our country wants to see. Liam Kerr To us, the First Minister, whether the Scottish Government will make it mandatory for local authorities to adopt care and risk management practices, in light of reports that some councils are not monitoring children and young people who display harmful behaviour? The First Minister Care and risk management, CARM, is a multi-agency framework designed to assist with the early identification, assessment and management of children aged 12 to 18 who display harmful behaviours while ensuring that their needs are met and that links are made to child protection procedures. It was produced by the Scottish Government in partnership with a wide range of expert practitioners. It is considered to be best practice and should be undertaken by local authorities. However, the decision to adopt CARM is ultimately for each local authority, but we recommend that they do so. Liam Kerr I thank the First Minister for that answer. Last week's Sunday Times reported that the Scottish Government's policy to help social workers and police protect the public from those displaying harmful behaviour was not being followed in Argyll and Bute, where Alicia McPhail was horrifically murdered. Apparently, 15 other councils are not monitoring children at risk of causing harm. I asked whether the First Minister would make it mandatory to follow the policy. I am not sure that I heard that answer, so just to be sure, will the First Minister commit to mandating that councils follow the policy? In the meantime, can the First Minister name which local authorities do not follow the policy? Will she write to those councils and urge them to adopt it? The First Minister I will first take the opportunity of expressing my sincere condolences, and I am sure that the condolences of everybody across the chamber to the family of Alicia McPhail. None of us can even begin to imagine what her family is going through, but I know that my thoughts are with them, and I am sure that the thoughts of all of us are with them at what will be a difficult time and what I am sure will continue to be a horrendously difficult time for them. This is an important issue, so let me just take a few moments to set out the position. It is important to say that it is not quite correct to say that councils are not monitoring children and young people displaying harmful behaviour. In fact, that is not correct at all. While many councils use the specific carm guidance, others will use individual protocols to achieve the same objectives. For example, Argyll and Bute Council has confirmed that, while they are not using the carm guidance specifically, it uses protocols that are similar to the carm guidance. Those protocols apply the same approach and reflect child protection guidance. Obviously, Argyll and Bute Council has undertaken an initial case review into the tragic incident and is considering whether a significant case review is required when and if that is carried out. There may well be lessons to learn from that, and if one of those is around carm guidance, that is something that we will reflect on. The last point that I would make is that standards for youth justice are currently being developed between the Scottish Government and key partners for publication in June this year. Those standards will outline the minimum expectations for all services that are delivering youth justice and will include a standard on care and risk management. As part of that, there is a consideration of updating the carm guidance. There is on-going work here. However, Argyll and Bute Council are not using those specific guidance, so they will be using similar protocols. It is important that that assurance is given to the chamber and to the wider public. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will consider bringing forward the introduction of an income supplement in light of two recent reports predicting an increase in child poverty. Yes, we will. Those reports, as we have reflected on previously today, show us the devastating impact of the UK Government's welfare cuts. They have taken the avoidable and conscious decisions to drive families in Scotland and across the UK into poverty. We have committed to setting out options for the income supplement prior to the summer recess, and we look forward to working with members across the chamber to design and implement an income supplement that can help the maximum number of children and families who need it most. Elaine Smith Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am glad that the First Minister agrees that those are shocking reports, and we need to push for urgency. Up to date, under the SNP's watching field by Tory austerity, child poverty in Scotland continues to rise, and the resolution report predicts a rise of up to 29 per cent by 2023. That should be a cause of shame for every elected member in the chamber. If I heard correctly—I hope that I did—I think that the First Minister has finally listened to Labour's call for the income supplement to be brought forward. We cannot wait until 2022 at the earliest, because, as Dr Mary Ann McLeod says, promises to help people in three years' time are of little comfort to parents whose cupboards are empty right now. Given that tackling poverty just cannot wait, will the First Minister also listen to Scottish Labour, children's charities, faith groups and academics, and immediately implement a £5 supplement to child benefit, which was left tens of thousands of children out of poverty right now, or will she continue to just talk about it and take action, while families are struggling below the breadline? You know jam tomorrow is no use when families do not even have bread today. This is a serious issue. I am on record, not just today but on many occasions, saying that poverty rates generally and child poverty rates in particular in Scotland are too high. In Scotland, the child poverty rate is far too high, but it is worth noting that, in the UK as a whole, it is 26 per cent and in Wales it is 26 per cent as well. The member's assertion that this is somehow down to the SNP simply does not bear scrutiny. What does mark the SNP Government out, I have to say, is our determination to take action to tackle child poverty. The only part of the UK now with statutory targets is the mitigation that we are doing to protect against Tory welfare cuts and the work that we are doing to look at how we have an income supplement that raises the maximum number of children out of poverty. The reality is that, whether Labour members want to accept this or not, the reality is that we need a delivery mechanism in place for that. We need to have the budgeting to make sure that we can do that. We cannot simply promise something that we do not know how it can be delivered or how it can be paid for. We are doing the hard work now to make it possible, not just in rhetoric but in reality. We will bring forward the update before June of this year, and Parliament as a whole can then debate the best way forward. I think that that is the right way to go. I think that that is the way that is in the best interest longer term of children across Scotland. I agree with the First Minister that we should ensure that any money that is given should be targeted to those in need and not given as a universal benefit to many people who do not need it. The introduction of an income supplement would experience the economic shock factors and the volatility of the economy. Does the First Minister believe that that is a factor that needs to be considered in the introduction of an income supplement? How would the Scottish Government manage that? I am not—forgive me, I am genuinely not sure that I entirely understand that question, but I am happy to reflect on it and reply later on. Of course, when we bring forward the update with suggested ways forward in June, all of those issues can be properly discussed and debated. I would say to Michelle Ballantyne in all sincerity that we would not be having this discussion right now if it was not for the policies of her party at Westminster, in posing welfare cuts and austerity on children and families across Scotland. Perhaps, if she wanted to reflect on that before she next stands up in this chamber to talk about child poverty, we would all be a lot better off. That concludes the First Minister's questions. We will move on shortly to members' business in the name of Rhoda Grant on condemnation of misogyny, racism, harassment and sexism. However, we will have a short suspension, while members' ministers and members of the gallery wish to change seats. A short suspension.