 The final item of business is members business debate on motion 17505 in the name of Keith Brown on the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights report. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Keith Brown to open the debate for around seven minutes. A great misery has been inflicted unnecessarily, especially on the working poor, on single mothers struggling against mighty odds, on people with disabilities who are already marginalised and on millions of children being locked into a cycle of poverty from which most will have great difficulty escaping. This is the reflection of the UN special rapporteur, Professor Alston, on the Conservative Party's appalling record in government. The report that we debate today explores the destitution, Tory austerity and universal credit that has imposed on communities across Scotland and the UK. It is unconscionable that, in a country that boasts the world's fifth-largest economy and huge amounts of wealth, 14 million people—some one-fifth of the population—live in poverty, over 1.5 million people live in destitution. That has been welcomed by the ministers responsible as an almost unmitigated success. It is, in fact, completely immoral that the UK Government is presided over the systematic emiseration of such a large part of its own population—disproportionately women, children, people with disabilities, older persons and ethnic minority groups. In September, I hosted a summit in Alloa to assess the impact of universal credit on my constituency of clump manager in Dumblane. From the evidence presented, it was clear that the Tory's flagship policy is a system not fit for purpose. Our unnecessary five-week payment delay that sends people into spiralling debt, a cruel and inhumane sanction system that pushes people to the brink and a toxic legacy of rising food bank use. The latest figures from clump manager councils show that 85 per cent of universal credit claimant council tenants are in arrears, totaling £550,000, despite doing all that is required of them. They still end up being 68 weeks in rent arrears before the DWP makes any payments. Sterling councils figures show the level of rent arrears among tenants claiming universal credit has increased from £13,000 in June 2017 when the system was rolled out to over £191,000 by April 2019. Those unacceptable figures are representative of a fundamentally flawed system that traps people in avoidable debt. In light of that, what has not been surprising is the UK Government's contemptible attempts to discredit Professor Alston and his report. Amber Rudd has accused him of showing wholly inappropriate political bias, while Philip Hammond rejected flat-out the findings as a nonsense. That stubborn denial to accept any kind of responsibility is matched only by that shown on opposition benches in this chamber. It should completely shame all Conservative politicians that the Government has now accepted the findings in Professor Alston's report as factually accurate, except that Tory policies have been directly linked to an increased use of food banks and an increase in the levels of homelessness and to have forced destitute women into sex work. Or perhaps it is a lack of shame that has led Tory politicians to stand up in this chamber time and time again. The Tory social security spokeswoman is defending the two child cap, the rape clause and the bedroom tax. In fact, even denying that the bedroom tax exists at all, discrediting the links between draconian sanctions and food bank use, and others writing glowing puff pieces on the unmitigated disaster that is universal credit. Senior Tory MPs have spent the weeks roundly criticising their own record in government, and it is not too late for their MSP colleagues to rediscover their shame and accept the harm that these policies have caused. Professor Alston is right to highlight the ideological fanaticism that the Conservative Government has shown in implementing austerity economic policies and pushing through with the deeply flawed universal credit. For what we have seen disguised as an unavoidable fiscal programme, it is a radical social re-engineering and the undermining of the social contract as we know it. For years, we have seen the welfare state, the foundation of the social contract, attacked. Strivers pitted against skyvers, while values such as freedom and individual responsibility are distorted to eliminate any responsibility on the part of the state to ensure the welfare of its citizens. What it enables is the creation of an environment in which the vulnerable are viewed as undeserving of assistance. It also enables the creation of a welfare system that denies the most deserving of their entitlements. It pushes disabled people into unsuitable work, and in which, as Professor Alston notes, British compassion for those who are suffering is replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited and often callous approach. This radical transformation of the relationship between state and individual is an attack on our rights as citizens, and for what freedom is there in being trapped in poverty as a child, as a single parent or someone with a disability. What freedom is there in being part of a social security system that appears designed to keep you trapped in that poverty? I am glad that this negative view of freedom, this entrenchment of poverty, is rejected by the SNP Government, which recognises that it is the Government's role to play a positive role in empowering and enhancing citizens' freedoms and recognising that we as citizens have the right to expect a social security system that provides just that, and the responsibility to make a fair contribution to society through a progressive taxation system that many political thinkers have said is a hallmark of a democratic society. Taxation is not a burden, it is an investment in our future, in health, education and infrastructure, and it is an investment that it can make empowers our citizens, strengthening their ability to take responsibility for their lives and liberating them often from ill health, or from poor educational prospects, or a lack of opportunities, and it enhances their freedom. The difference between the SNP Government and the Tory Government could not be more stark, with Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt having presided themselves over a decade of austerity cuts and sanctions, now offering huge tax cuts to the wealthy. The Scottish Government, for its part, spends £125 million a year mitigating that Tory austerity, rightly recognised by Professor Olson's report as unsustainable. For it is outrageous that a devolved administration must take action to protect its citizens from UK Government policies, money that could be better spent supporting the work of Social Security Scotland, a social security system built on the principles of dignity and respect that rejects a punitive sanctions system that has no other role than forcing millions into poverty. Using new social security powers of Scottish Government has already delivered transformative new entitlements supporting 77,000 young carers, 7,000 new families and low-income households, making more payments in the first two months than the DWP benefit that it replaced made in a year. It will shortly take on further responsibility to provide disability entitlements and winter and heating assistance. Today, we have heard from the cabinet secretary about the Scottish child payment. I would be interested to know when she replies whether she has received any assurances when the Tory spokespeople that she has spoken to as to whether they intend to continue with those benefits, the mitigation of the worst of the Tory Government if they were ever to get into power. The Scottish Government has also strengthened the social contract between the Scottish people and their Government and all paid for by progressive taxation. I wonder if any Tory members will stand up today and commit to those entitlements. Professor Olson described as compelling the plans of the Scottish Government to incorporate the convention on the rights of the child into Scots law and the recommendations made by the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership. That is the kind of action that Governments should take, improving the lives of their citizens and not impoverishing them. Adam Smith, one of Scotland's greatest philosophers, once observed that the true measure of a nation's wealth is not the size of the king's treasury or the holdings of the affluent flu but rather the conditions of the labouring poor. Politicians across the UK would do well to remember that. It is our responsibility as representatives of the people to challenge inequality, to fight poverty and want and to build a society that is fair, just and prosperous. It could not be clear that the UK Government is manifestly failing in this regard and the Scottish Parliament must have the powers to create a fair and equal Scotland. The bedroom tax, the two-child cap and the rape clause have no place in a civilised society, no place in a society that treats all its people with respect and dignity, and it should have no place in an independent Scotland. We have a moral responsibility to oppose those measures and the SNP will continue to do so. Before we go to the open date, it would be right to recognise that, while this debate focuses on the UN report, those findings have been consistently raised by other organisations across Scotland and the UK for many years. The UK Government must end its stubborn denial and listen to those voices. It must implement the UN report's recommendations and it must evolve all social security powers to this Scottish Parliament. I look forward to what I am sure will be a considerd and thoughtful set of contributions from the members today. We move to the open debate and speeches of around four minutes, please, although there is a little bit of time in hand. I call Michelle Ballantyne to be followed by Bob Doris. While there are many valid points in Dr Alston's report, I feel that there is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity to have a rational reason debate on the issues affecting the most vulnerable in the UK and a missed opportunity to depoliticise what has already been a heavily partisan conversation. There is a common misconception surrounding UN special rapporteurs, namely that they are representatives of the United Nations. As Dr Alston himself has said, he is not a UN official, he merely presents his independent findings to the UN. Bearing that in mind, we should be careful not to conflate Dr Alston's report with the opinions of the UN. I feel that it is also important to note that the UN has struggled with their relationship with rapporteurs and do not always agree with their findings. Philip Alston himself has recently come into conflict with the UN, as we saw from Bankie Moon's reaction to his work in Sri Lanka. Perhaps one of the greatest challenges, as with any piece of work, is ensuring its validity. Many of you in this chamber will have undertaken graduate and postgraduate work, and one of the first recommendations that you receive when you embark on research is that your sources should be peer reviewed. Sadly, the piece of work that we are discussing here today did not enjoy such academic scrutiny. For example, by referring to the UK's budget surplus or by Dr Alston's fundamental misunderstanding of the devolution settlement, the rapporteur does not help his cause. Neither has his hyperbolic language aided his case, and I believe that the Secretary of State will be formally complaining to the UN to make that point. While it has been confirmed that the statistics contained within the report are valid, what has not been accounted for is that many of those publications are simply out of date, relying on figures and anecdotal evidence before 2017. I find it strange— Excuse me, Ms Ballantyne. Mr Arthur, would you stop shouting from your seat please? I find it strange that Dr Alston claims that poverty is rising in the UK when we can see from the social metrics figures that the rapporteur relies on that poverty levels have remained on roughly an even keel since 2001. While Dr Alston is right to highlight the funding that was cut from universal credit in the 2015 budget, there is no mention of the changes bought in both the 2017 and the 2018 budgets. I have made no secret of the fact that I would like to see funding levels restored to their pre-2015 levels. As I am sure many in this chamber would agree, it is vitally important that we support the most vulnerable claimants to the best of our abilities. That said, I feel that Dr Alston should have accounted for just some of the recent developments that have occurred in welfare reform, the economy and society as well, so I will raise them here. This year, £220 billion will be spent on welfare, and almost £10 billion has been injected into the welfare budget since 2016. I thank the member for taking the intervention and just saying that she spent the bulk of her speech so far in attacking the author of the report, the messenger. Does she accept the findings, though, or the statement from the Conservative Government that she accepts that Professor Alston's report is factually correct? I think that I just did that. You need to listen to what I am saying rather than just working up an intervention. We have had the introduction of the national living wage, giving £2.1 million of the lowest earners a pay rise. We have had an extra £250 million to support the child element of universal credit, and we have raised working allowances by £1,000 last month, meaning that £2.4 million claimants keep more of what they earn. Those are things that have happened that are not mentioned in Dr Alston's report. I have run out of time. I need to finish—sorry, four minutes is not very long. Not only that, this year, the UK had the fewest low-pay workers in 10 years. According to the UN, one of the happiest places to live has record unemployment, and is a top 10 nation for social support. I have to ask the question, how does that square with Dr Alston's report? I am not alone in believing that the UK Government's welfare reform policies are bringing in some positive changes. Bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have concluded that UC will reduce the number of working families in poverty by around £300,000, while IPPR have highlighted that universal credit could be the most cost-effective method of solving child poverty. That is not to say that Governments should not and could not do more. As the Poverty and Inequality Commission have highlighted, Governments need to be better at monitoring outcomes from their policies as well as their impact, and both the UK and Scottish Government could improve their data collection to inform future policymaking. In conclusion, Solving poverty and inequality is a duty of us all to share, and regardless of Dr Alston's report, it is clear that there is still work to be done. Bob Dorr is followed by Elaine Smith. I thank Keith Brown for securing this debate here this evening. If I drawn to the Scottish Palathe's attention once more, the shameful and impalling indictment of the UK Government's persistent and deliberate attack on the poor in our society, which is set out very clearly in the UN special rapporteur's report. Much was made of the UN's relationship with the rapporteurs, but when you launch an independent report or an independent inquiry, it should challenge institutions. That is why you have independent reports, and I commend Professor Alston for his work here in exposing the shame of the UK Government. The rapporteur on extreme poverty in human rights Professor Alston was very clear. He stated that policies of austerity introduced in 2010 continue largely unabated, despite the tragic social consequences. He says that close to 40 per cent of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021. During his summary findings, he finishes off by saying absolutely damningly of the UK Government that a booming economy, high employment and a budget surplus have not reversed austerity. A policy pursued more on an ideological than an economic agenda, making the poor suffer in this country as a political choice by the Conservative Party. That indictment of the UK Government is backed up by this Parliament's social security committee and our recent report on social security and inward poverty. I am privileged to chair that committee, Presiding Officer. We hope to secure Professor Alston's attendance at the social security committee to discuss those matters further. We have already raised concerns unsurprisingly of the minimum five-week wait, often much longer to get universal credit. The 26 per cent increase in the first four local authority areas that saw the roll-out of universal credit, those rent areas really damaging some of the most vulnerable constituents that we all represent, the attack on pension credit for mixed-age households, the application of sanctions, not just to those currently on universal credit, but the extension of sanctions, quite frankly, to the inward poor more generally. If the only part of universal credit that you are going to get is child and working tax credits and no other benefit, then you can still be sanctioned. That is a new thing, it is a damning thing and that is a shameful thing. Closing job centres moving to digital by default, the bedroom tax, the shared room rate, the attack on housing benefit for under 35s and we could go on, our committee has deep and meaningful concerns in all those areas. Hardly surprising that the Scottish Government has estimated that up to 2020, 3.7 billion pounds will have been taken from Scotland's most vulnerable people because of UK political choices. I welcome much of the attempts by the Scottish Government to mitigate much of UK welfare reforms but our committee recognises that that cannot go on forever and there is an end point to that. I am actually not going to list those opportunities to mitigate but a special mention of the announcement this afternoon in relation to the child supplement, the child payment that the cabinet secretary said will be extended to up to 410,000 young people most likely to be living in poverty to address child poverty and lift 30,000 children out of poverty. That is this Parliament taking a different approach in the time that I have left, Presiding Officer. I want to talk about those who fall through the cracks of the good quality welfare provision that we sometimes have with Glasgow City Council, Citizens Advice and others. A friend of mine, Alec O'Cain, who runs her Facebook page and no one seems to hear contacted me the other day as he has done many times in the past, but an individual that would not go to a councillor or an MSP or an advice service, the lady had no food, she had no electricity, there were significant welfare issues because of Alec and no one seems to care. I was put in touch with that lady, we got food provision, we got power put back on and we were hopefully getting those welfare issues addressed but it should not have to be that way. It should not take well intentioned individuals such as Alec and his Facebook page to draw that to the attention of politicians to act. We have to deal with this at source and the source of the suffering is UK Government austerity and I commend Keith Brown for drawing that to the attention of Parliament here this afternoon and I thank my constituent Alec for all he does to help vulnerable people and the constituents that I serve. The last of the open debate contributions is from Elaine Smith. Thank you Presiding Officer and I also thank Keith Brown for securing this debate tonight and highlighting concerns in this chamber about the findings of the UN special rapporteur for extreme poverty and human rights. I would use the term shocking to refer to the situation described in Professor Philip Austin's report however as contents actually come as no shock to many of us who have been warning about the effects of austerity since 2010. The report also reflects the findings of all the anti-poverty organisations in the UK and of numerous academic studies. What has been shocking is the dismissive response to the report from the UK Government in spite of all the evidence presented and a similar approach seems to have been taken by the Scottish Tories in here. Keith Brown's motion notes the special rapporteur's view that the UK Government has been failing to listen and is determinedly in denial regarding poverty in the UK and indeed their response to the report seems to confirm this. The rolling out of universal credit across the countries played a big role in the problems mentioned in the Austin report, as is the dismantling of the social safety net and the rise in in-work poverty. An area of particular concern must be an increase in those turning to what is described by Professor Austin as survival sex, and Keith Brown touched on that in his opening remarks. The very fact that a parliamentary committee at Westminster has deemed it necessary to launch an inquiry called universal credit and survival sex, sex in exchange for meeting survival needs, should shame us all. That has nothing to do with women and, in some cases, men entering the labour market for work. It is about abuse, violence and humiliation. In fact, we should remember that prostitution is on the Scottish Government's spectrum of violence against women and girls. Universal credit has been an absolute disaster with a particularly bad impact on women's lives. Although the Austin report does note the devolved administration's efforts to mitigate some of the worst effects of the austerity agenda, once again, I welcome the specific announcement about the fund for some children, but we could and should be doing more, I believe, with the powers that we have. Keith Brown mentioned the mitigation of the bedroom tax, which the Scottish Government has done, but he also mentioned the two-child cap, which has not been mitigated, and I will continue to put the case that it should be. The report also mentions the provision of the welfare fund by the Scottish Government certainly. Bob Dorris, I thank Elaine for giving way. One of the things that the Social Security Committee found—we pick and choose the things that we mitigate—is that the Social Security Committee has agreed that it is no longer possible to mitigate everything that the UK Government does. Would you accept that point? I absolutely agree that this Parliament and this Government cannot mitigate everything, but I believe that the Government has been very keen to say that this is a despicable policy and that it is something that it has put high on the agenda. Therefore, that is why I continue to put the case that that particular policy ought to be mitigated, but I certainly take his point. The report also mentions the provision of the welfare fund by the Scottish Government for Emergencies and Hardships. Of course, that fund is welcome, but it has not been increased since 2013-14. That means that a real-time cut of £3.5 million. With the Government having no plans to increase that funding between now and 2025, certainly at the moment, that will represent a real-time cut of £7 million by that point. Asst about the underfunding of the welfare fund last week, the First Minister questioned whether the Labour Government in Wales had such a fund. I would like to advise the chamber that it does a discretionary assistance fund, and its latest budget announced an increase to the funding of that fund. I think that Scotland should perhaps follow Welsh Labour in its regard and make provision of funding to the very poorest in society in absolute priority. I hope that I will get a wee bit extra time, but in bringing my remarks to a close, I want to highlight the work of the SSAA, the Armed Forces Charity, who was exhibiting in Parliament this week. I had to chat with them. Some of the project's supporters include working with families with children with disabilities and supporting women and children in need of stepping stone homes as they escape from dangerous or abusive situations. Poverty and deprivation can and affect the families of those in the Armed Forces and those who have left the service. We have got some veteran sleeping rough living in abject poverty and there are veterans nearly evicted from tenancies because universal credit payments have not come through. If I could briefly highlight the case of Walter Richardson, medically discharged from the forces, Walter and his family were facing eviction in Lanarkshire with council tax arrears, and they were quite simply living in poverty. Presiding Officer, far too many of those accounts in the UN report and our newspapers and in our communities in Scotland today in 2019, and it really is unacceptable. The work of SSAA and many charities in public services across Scotland should be commended as they try to hold people's lives together in the face of increased poverty and further austerity, but we do need fundamental change. The UN report is damming about austerity and the rapporteur is equally so about the UK Government's lamentable response, but outrage is not enough. This Government needs to make tackling poverty even more of a priority to turn ambitious words into meaningful action, to do everything with the powers that we have to stop poverty increasing across Scotland. I thank Keith Brown for bringing forward this important and timely debate. As I sat out in my statement of 27 November last year, the Scottish Government was pleased that the special rapporteur was able to spend two days of his UK visit in Scotland, hearing directly from people affected by poverty and meeting Scottish ministers, Parliamentarians, Government officials and representatives of civil society. That lived experience that he got directly from the mouths of people who are directly bearing the brun of Tory austerity. Not anecdote, lived experience, the realities of what is happening in Scotland and across the UK. We welcome the special rapporteur's final report. It is an absolutely devastating analysis of the UK Government's austerity measures, describing the policies pursued since 2010 as retrogressive and in clear violation of the country's human rights obligations and clearly shows that there must be a change in direction. In Scotland alone, we previously estimated that £3.7 billion would be cut from annual social security spending by 2020-21, due to the UK Government's welfare reforms. To put that £3.7 billion into context, that figure is the equivalent to three times our annual police budget or the entire annual budget of NHS Glasgow and Lothian. Yet the UK Government refused to fix the problems caused by the welfare cuts that have been articulated today, or to coin a phrase, as we have heard in the past during similar debates, they refused to test and learn. It means that the continued assault on welfare and continued benefit cuts make it feel like we in the Scottish Government are fighting this poverty with one hand tied behind our back. Michelle Ballantyne said that today's debate and Professor Alston's report was a missed opportunity to talk rationally about poverty. I think that it is quite the contrary. Professor Alston's work shawnt an independent spotlight on the politically motivated and ideologically driven attack on the most vulnerable. The special rapporteur notes that the devolved administration is spending considerable resources to protect people from the worst impacts, but that those efforts are simply not sustainable. How can it be sustainable when what is being brought out of the social security spending is the equivalent of NHS budgets for Glasgow and Lothian? In 2019 and 2020, we will continue to invest more than £125 million to mitigate the worst impacts that those changes bring and to protect those on low incomes. The Quality and Human Rights Commission welcomed positive policies such as our mitigation of the bedroom tax. As a result, we have shielded the most vulnerable. The reductions in household incomes in Scotland due to the impact of tax, social security and public spending decisions is lower than in England and Wales, but ultimately there is still a reduction. We cannot shield people entirely and the money that we spend is money that we would much rather invest in lifting families out of poverty. I fully support the Government mitigating the bedroom tax, but would you not agree that, given the despicable nature of the rape clause, the two-child cap policy, that that should be considered for mitigation as a special case? I want to get out of the fact that it is not sustainable to be mitigating everything. It is £3.7 billion that is coming out of social security spending. We are already spending £125 to mitigate the worst impacts of welfare reform. I published figures today about the totality of spending to help and support low-income families of more than £500 million. I do not want to always be mitigating the acts of another Government. I would much rather have the powers here to deal with the problem head on. That is the real disappointment that I have from Labour. While we have to wait and have our fingers crossed for some time in the future, maybe perhaps having a Labour Government to try and do some of that, I'd far rather have the powers here. In this Parliament, for us to deal and tackle these issues, head on and support the people who live in this country. I know that that does not seem to be where some are, but we will continue to do what we can with the powers that we have and continue to support and protect the people who live in this country to the best of our ability. The Scottish Government agrees with Professor Alston's assessment that the UK Government must reverse the many policies that it has pursued that are increasing poverty and inequality, such as that benefit freeze and the two child cap. His criticisms of universal credit reflect the numerous representations made to the UK Government by Scottish ministers. The UK Government must take heed of this report and make the changes necessary to provide support to people and to actively take action to tackle poverty and inequality in the UK. Indeed, what changes have been made do not go far enough. They do not address the long wait for a first payment under universal credit, the two child cap and its important rape clause. They do not reinstate the original work allowance that is proposed for universal credit. Professor Alston described the recent changes that were made as a window dressing to prevent political fallout, and I do not think that many of us in this chamber could possibly disagree. As Elaine Smith and Bob Doris have also made clear, it is quite incredible that the amount of disregard that Professor Alston's report has generated from the UK Government when, in fact, they should be utterly shamed by the misery that their callous cuts have caused. In Scotland, we regard confronting poverty as an urgent human right concern and one that requires priority action across ministerial portfolios and on the part of all state institutions. While child poverty and in-work poverty levels are currently lower in Scotland and in the UK, it is simply unacceptable that people are doing all that society asks of them, they should never get out of the bit and to continue to have to live in poverty. That is why we are not, as I said earlier today and in previous debates, sitting back and letting welfare reforms hit the poorest hardest. We are taking action. In his report, as well as noting that the Scottish Government is investing considerable resources to protect people living in poverty, the special rapporteur referred to Scotland's own ambitious plans for poverty reduction. Those plans are underpinned by our four official measures of child poverty, as set out in the Poverty Act 2017, which are expressed as targets towards the eradication of child poverty. Earlier today, in the chamber, I allowed the significant action that we are taking towards genuine reductions in child poverty, including the introduction of the new Scottish child payment. By the end of 2022, the payment will be introduced for all eligible children under 16. We estimate that around 410,000 children will be eligible for the payment, and it has the potential to lift 30,000 children out of relative poverty and reduce the relative poverty rate by 3 per cent. By the end of this parliamentary term, nearly two years ahead of our original commitment, we will introduce the new £10 per child per week, which will be paid monthly to all eligible families and children under six. That payment will help to prevent poverty for families just above the poverty threshold, but on insecure incomes. That is a substantial investment in families most in need. We also agree with the rapporteur's conception of poverty as a multi-dimensional phenomenon that impacts on the full enjoyment of human rights. In Scotland, the Government sees tackling poverty as part of its co-ordinated work to realise a vision of Scotland where every member of society is able to live with human dignity and enjoy their rights in full. We are committed to protecting human rights, advancing equality and tackling poverty. The special rapporteur notes her commitment to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law in the current parliamentary term. As Keith Brown said, in his report, Professor Alston also described the recommendations that were made by the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership as compelling. In her response to the recommendations, the First Minister endorsed the overall vision of a new human rights framework for Scotland to be delivered by a new act of the Scottish Parliament. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Security will co-chair the national task force that has been established to take that work forward. In conclusion, the special rapporteur is clear that the UK Government has been failing to listen and is determinedly in denial in regard to poverty in the UK, but the same cannot be said of us in the Scottish Government. We are determined to tackle generations of deep-seated poverty and will be ambitious, bold and radical in our approach. We will seek to pursue policies that are designed to respond to the needs of the people of Scotland. As I said earlier, today is really the tale of two Governments. We have the Child Poverty Action Group publishing report today about the devastating impact of the two-child limit that has been stemmed from a decision from the UK Government. On the other hand, we have the decisions and the actions that we are taking here in Scotland, the new Scottish child payment which will lift 30,000 children out of poverty, a glimpse of what is possible with the powers that we have, but ultimately what we want in those benches is to not just show what is possible with some of the powers that we might have, we want another Scotland, we want to create another Scotland, another Scotland that is fairer, equal and uses the powers at our disposal but does not have to mitigate the actions of another Government. That concludes the debate and this meeting is closed.