 The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the child poverty Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments that members should have to hand, the bill is amended at stage 2, that is Scottish Parliament Bill 6A, the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. If everyone could settle down please, we move to group 1, poverty and inequality commission. I call amendment 4 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 28 to 39. We would ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 4 and speak to all the amendments in the group. I am delighted to be able to bring this important bill to the chamber for its stage 3 debate. The bill has had cross-party support for its principles throughout this process and the robust scrutiny of Parliament has led to a number of amendments to strengthen the bill. That is why I committed at stage 2 to work with members and stakeholders on amendments that they wish to see, the first of those amendments that we come to now. It was clear that people wanted to find a workable solution to ensure that the poverty and inequality commission that this Government established had a statutory footing but also crucially retained our vision of being wide in scope. I am pleased to be able to confirm today to Parliament that, following a number of very helpful discussions with stakeholders, including Douglas Hamilton, the current chair of the commission, Oxfam Scotland, Poverty Alliance and the Child Poverty Action Group, and members of this Parliament have identified a pragmatic and workable solution. My amendments in this group give effect to that solution and strengthen and tidy up provisions related to the commission where necessary. Amendment 38 lists the Poverty and Inequality Commission in schedule 5 of the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010. That will allow the Scottish Government to bring forward a public services reform order, ensuring that the functions of the commission established in the bill are wider in scope and reflect the clear wishes of the committee and stakeholders. I am pleased to inform the chamber that a draft PSR order has been laid in Parliament today, setting out more detail for consultation. Amendment 29 will mean that the provisions that are established in the statutory commission come into force on 1 July 2019. That effectively means that the statutory commission will come into operation seamlessly from when the current non-statuary poverty and inequality commission finishes. That ensures that the current commission is able to proceed on the basis set out in the position paper that I published earlier this year and will ensure that ministers receive the commission's advice on the first delivery plan and on the matters to be included in the first progress report. It also ensures that there will be no break as the commission moves on to a statutory footing. Amendment 28 states that, before the provisions that establish the statutory commission come into force, the references in the bill requiring ministers to consult the statutory commission in relation to the first delivery plan and the first progress report are to be read as references requiring ministers to consult the non-statuary commission. The remaining amendments in this group are changes of a more technical nature. Amendments 30, 32, 33 and 35 are drafting amendments replacing incorrect references to sub-paragraphs with reference to paragraphs. Amendment 31 responds directly to a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. The report recommended that the delegated power conferred by paragraph 3, 2 c of the schedule, which is a power allowing the Scottish ministers by regulations to add to the list of people in relation to which the commission has rights of access to information and assistance or explanation. That is subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I am happy to confirm, Presiding Officer, that we propose to make that change today from negative to affirmative procedure. Amendment 34 clarifies that re-appointments to the commission are subject to the same parliamentary approval mechanisms as appointments. Amendment 36 clarifies that the remuneration and expenses mentioned in the schedule are to be paid by Scottish ministers. Amendment 37 is a tidying amendment also confirming that, as well as regulating its own procedures, the commission may also regulate the procedures of any committees it establishes. Amendment 39 is a technical amendment adding to the long title of the bill to reflect the fact that the bill now contains provisions establishing a poverty and inequality commission. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to propose those amendments to members today. I hope that members can support them to allow us to move forward together on the basis that I have set out. Thank you and I move amendment 4. Adam Tomkins I am glad that the cabinet secretary recognised in her remarks a few moments ago that all the amendments that we supported, pressed and made at stage 2 of the bill were amendments that were designed to strengthen the bill. It is important that there is a statutory poverty and inequality commission. While I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has already appointed an ad hoc commission that is appointed by and directly accountable to her, it is important that this Parliament says that we want a statutory poverty and inequality commission that is accountable to us as MSPs and not merely to the minister of the day. I welcome the cabinet secretary's constructive approach to this issue at stage 3, and I thank her for it. The Scottish Conservatives will be supporting all of the amendments in this group. Paul Pauli McLeol We will be supporting all the Government amendments today, and I think that it is a big achievement that the Parliament, hopefully tonight, will be supporting an independent statutory poverty and inequality commission. As Adam Tomkins said, I think that those of us at stage 2 who felt that it was important that the commission was statutory. Primarily because we need a commission that also goes beyond the terms of this Parliament and ensures that there are scrutiny over child poverty targets at whichever Government is in power. Free and frank expert advice to ministers is essentially important to meet those targets by 2030. A commission that has its own work programme working with the Children's Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission is absolutely vital. I would like to welcome the appointment of Douglas Hamilton, chair of the current commission, and all the other appointments. I would also like to, in conclusion, thank Alison Johnstone, Adam Tomkins and Richard Leonard who stood firm at stage 2 to ensure that we got something at this stage, which was statutory and independent. I would also like to thank the constructive way in which the Scottish Government has worked through this, and to be honest, in the summer I wondered whether we would ever get here. A clever mechanism in the legislation using the Public Services Reform Act has brought us to a place that everybody would like to be, and to mention the important work of the third sector on bringing us here to this important part of stage 3. Sandra White I echo my colleagues and the cabinet secretary. The way that the committee and the Government have conducted themselves over the issue has been exemplar. It shows how much work we all work together and what can be provided from committees. It is also important to realise that the new commission, the Poverty and Equality Commission, will have far-reaching powers. It is not just singularly looking at the poverty of the child. Poverty is at the moment. It will be much bigger than that and have a bigger remit. For that, I am very grateful. I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up. I very much appreciate the comments and support from members across the chamber. As a Government, we were always committed to an independent poverty and inequality commission. It was a key manifesto commitment. It was action 3 in our fairer Scotland action plan, and we delivered the Poverty and Equality Commission on 3 July, as announced by the First Minister. We had a very useful and detailed debate about the added value of having a statutory independent commission. We all agreed that, post stage 2, we needed to find a solution to ensure that the Poverty and Equality Commission had that broad base and was not narrowly focused on the remit of the bill. I am pleased to say that we have found a pragmatic and workable solution. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 4 is therefore agreed. We move on to group 2, the delivery plan. I call amendment 40, in the name of Alison Johnson. Amendment 40 is grouped with amendments shown on the groupings. I draw your attention to the preemption information that is also noted on the grouping sheets. Alison Johnson, please, to move amendment 40 and speak to all other amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The anti-poverty measures will need to put in place to stand any hope of achieving the targets that will need to be radical and far-reaching. They will also need to be adequately funded. We know from previous experience, particularly new labour's progress in reducing child poverty, that that does not come cheap. Although they could always have done more, those Governments made significant investment in more generous social security benefits for families, as well as in education, children's health and other areas. As we go forward into the production of the delivery plans, we need to be very clear about what level of investment will be made by Scottish Governments as part of those plans. That is what my amendment 40 does. It requires Scottish Governments to include in those plans an assessment of the financial resources that are required to fund the delivery plan measures. Amendment 42 is designed to ensure that the requirement that Scottish Governments regularly consider topping up child benefit that was inserted at stage 2 remains in the final version of the bill. It is the case that in no way does the amendment force the Scottish Government to exercise the power to top up child benefit. All that does is to require the Government to indicate in each delivery plan whether it intends to use those powers. If it decided not to, it would be free not to do so, but it is an idea that we should consider seriously if we are to make progress towards the targets that the bill sets. There is good evidence to suggest that a £5 top-up to child benefit would make immediate inroads to child poverty. Research by the University of York suggests that it could help 30,000 children to escape relative child poverty. I do not think that any other anti-poverty measure that we have discussed in the course of the bill's passage is likely to achieve such large reductions in poverty so quickly. Organisations including Child Poverty Action Group Scotland, The Poverty Alliance, Children in Scotland, Children First, Scottish Women's Convention, The Children and Young Persons Commissioner Scotland, The Church of Scotland, The Comforty Institute and Justice of Peace Scotland to name just some are all calling for such a policy. A top-up to child benefit could not come a moment too soon. The Child Poverty Action Group projects that by 2020, that benefit will have lost 28 per cent of the value that it had in 2010. We can start to address that by adding on an extra £5. We know that that benefit goes to more of its intended recipients than is the case for almost any other benefit apart from the state pension, with 95 per cent of those who are eligible for child benefit making a successful claim. I accept that the near universality of child benefit means that some of the additional spending would go to relatively well-off families whose children are not in poverty, but there are a range of problems with having a means-tested approach, not least because the take-up for means-tested benefits is lower. I would also add that many food banks report that child benefit is often the only source of income for families that present to them, for whom means-tested benefits and the system that delivers them have failed due to sanctions and administrative errors. The Scottish Government describes social security as an investment and I agree whole-heartedly with that approach. At a cost of around £250 million annually, a £5 top-up would be a significant investment. However, Loughborough University conservatively estimates that child poverty costs us £750 million a year. That is an investment that we cannot afford not to make. It is something that we should regularly consider doing and that is what my amendment does. I move the amendments in my name. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group. I will speak to my own amendments in this group and respond to the amendments of Alison Johnstone, Adam Tomkins and Pauline McNeill. The amendments in this group relate to section 7 and the contents of the child poverty delivery plans that Scottish ministers will be required to develop and publish. As members will be aware, a number of amendments to this section were agreed at stage 2. As there were multiple changes, the result is that section 7 as amended is repetitive and difficult to interpret. I wrote to the Social Security Committee last week, explaining my approach to section 7 and giving a detailed explanation of the amendments that I propose to bring forward. As I explained in that letter, my intention is to streamline the provisions, remove the repetition and duplication and ensure that the ordering is clear. Those amendments ensure that anyone who is reading the legislation can see clearly what they should expect from the Scottish Government in terms of producing a delivery plan. My amendments keep to the spirit of what was wanted from stage 2 and strengthen the bill even further. Amendment 5 introduces the subsection that lists the subject areas that ministers must cover in a delivery plan. That requires ministers to set out measures that they propose to take in relation to all lists of matters. In the main, those are matters already listed in the subsection, but amendment 6 consolidates and relocates the references to social security powers. References to the use of social security powers were the subject of the most duplication in the post stage 2 version of the bill. I have sought to remove that and other duplication via amendments 10 and 11. In seeking to improve the subsection of the bill, I have paid attention to the clear desire from stakeholders and members for an explicit reference to the use of social security powers. The full range of Scotland Act 2016 powers have therefore been explicitly highlighted in amendment 6. The broader reference covers the power to top up specific benefits, including child benefit, child tax credit and universal credit, and therefore makes more sense in terms of future proofing, leaving open the range of options that ministers might consider in future. That leads me, Presiding Officer, to respond to Alison Johnstone's amendment 42 and Pauling McNeill's amendment 43. For the reasons that I have just outlined, I believe that amendment 6 addresses the points that Ms Johnstone and Ms McNeill make, and their amendments, in my view, are therefore unnecessary. However, in the interests of continuing the co-operative cross-party approach that we have had during the bill, the Scottish Government will not oppose those amendments. Amendment 7 replaces the reference to employment that pays the Scottish living wage with a wider reference to the nature and quality of employment. That is employment with remuneration that is sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living. Clearly, the nature and quality of employment is about more than just hourly pay rates, important though those are. As this is living wage week, we will be even more aware of the importance of the living wage. However, by itself, it does not guarantee a decent income. For example, you can of course be in receipt of a living wage, but on a zero hours or part-time contract, so not in receipt of an adequate income. I note that this amendment pre-empts Pauline McNeill's amendment 1, which seeks to specifically highlight single-parent households in the context of employment and skills. My amendment 8 does something similar, requiring the Scottish ministers to set out in a delivery plan. Could you just give me a moment, please, to complete a sentence, just so that we are clear for the record? My amendment 8 does something similar, requiring the Scottish ministers to set out in a delivery plan any measures that they intend to take in relation to single-parent households. I hope that that will satisfy Ms McNeill, so that she does not need to press her amendment. I give her to Mr Finlay. Neil Findlay. Earlier, the minister said that the Government would not oppose the amendment. Does that mean that it will support the amendment? Angela Constance. Forgive me, Presiding Officer. Yes, it does, Presiding Officer. My amendment 9 brings Richard Leonard's text on revenue support grants into the overall list of delivery plan measures that ministers must set out in line with the overall approach of consolidating all of the requirements into one place. I signal my intention to bring forward amendment 12 at stage 2. It clarifies the amendment brought forward by Ben Macpherson that there should be a requirement for Scottish ministers to make a statement to the Parliament in relation to each delivery plan. Amendment 13 is a tidian amendment confirming that the requirement to consult various groups on the development of the delivery plan can be complied with before the act comes into force. That is to reflect the fact that the Scottish Government is already undertaking a programme of consultation on the delivery plan and that there wouldn't be sufficient time to undertake detailed consultation if we wait until after the bill receives royal assent. I hope that members will recognise that those amendments need to be considered together in order for the legislation to be coherent, easy to understand and interpret. As a whole, my amendments are a practical way of achieving what members intended at stage 2 and make section 7 a stronger, clearer piece of legislation. I will now turn to Adam Tomkins's amendments 2 and 3 in relation to educational attainment. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to tackling the attainment gap and would of course expect to be addressing educational attainment as part of the first delivery plan. For that reason, I am content to support Mr Tomkins's amendment 2. However, Presiding Officer, I cannot support his amendment 3. As members are aware, the Scottish Government is currently carrying out a public consultation on the approach to measuring progress on closing the attainment gap. We want to have a clear way of measuring progress and, just as we do now, we want to use several measures to do so. Our consultation proposes an approach that could be used to assess progress in literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing and also seek the views on key milestones for closing the gap between those from the most and least disadvantaged backgrounds. That consultation will close on 20 November, and the Scottish Government plans to use the findings in our approach to measure the gap within the 2018 education improvement plan that will be published in December. To allow for that consultation to be the right and proper approach to measuring the attainment gap rather than through the child poverty bill, I would respectfully urge Mr Tomkins to withdraw the amendment. Finally, Presiding Officer, I can confirm that I will support Alison Johnstone's amendment 40. I will, of course, be carefully considering the allocation of resources for measures set out in the delivery plan, and I am happy to set out in the plan an assessment of what financial resources are required. I call Adam Tomkins to speak to amendment 2 and other amendments in the group. The amendments are all about delivery plans, and delivery plans, as the cabinet secretary said, will be absolutely central to the success of the bill. Section 7, when the bill was introduced, was, I think, it would be fair to describe as skeletal. It did not say anything very much at all about what must be in the delivery plan, and this is one of those elements of the bill that was significantly strengthened at stage 2 with cross-party support that Pauline McNeill referred to earlier on. Section 7 is in much stronger form now than it was when the bill was introduced. We will be supporting all of the Government amendments here in this group on section 7, which, as the cabinet secretary just explained, are designed to tidy up what were, when they were all read together, somewhat repetitive amendments made at stage 2. I think that, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is very important to note the holistic approach to child poverty that these delivery plans will have to take. We know that the targets in section 1 of the bill are narrowly and carefully focused on income alone, but we also all know that we cannot successfully tackle child poverty by thinking about income alone. We also need to think about education, and we also need to think about the employment prospects of families, parents and guardians, and we also need to think about the range of other issues that the cabinet secretary and Alison Johnstone have talked about. That is why we welcome that more broad brush, that more holistic, that more universal approach to an anti-poverty strategy that is now embraced by a much-improved section 7. I very much welcome the fact that the Government is going to support my amendment 2, which is a modest amendment that simply adds to the requirement already in section 7 that delivery plans must address themselves to education, to focus mine specifically on reducing the attainment gap, which the cabinet secretary and the First Minister have spoken about so powerfully during the lifetime of this Parliament. In the light of what the cabinet secretary has said about my amendment 3, which was just designed to try and define attainment gaps, so we did not have the term on the statute book. Without it being defined, I am very happy to withdraw that amendment, Deputy Presiding Officer, and not to press it on this occasion. Although I am sure that, as a Parliament, we will want to revisit exactly what it is that Scottish ministers are doing and are proposing to do to tackle this very important matter of reducing the attainment gap. Finally, in reference to Alison Johnstone's amendment on top-ups, I agree with what the cabinet secretary had to say that this amendment is strictly unnecessary. I think that the Government amendments already require delivery plans to take into account the full range of devolved social security powers that have been provided for in the Scotland Act 2016, but there is no harm in some repetition and there is no harm in drawing ministers' minds specifically to the importance of top-up powers. It was the Scottish Conservatives who brought top-up powers to the Smith commission table, so I am quite personally attached to the idea that we should take top-up powers seriously as an important part of devolved social security. Deputy Presiding Officer, you remember the Smith commission very well, as does the chuckling Deputy First Minister, so I am glad that he is enjoying himself. I think that the reason why we will support this amendment as the Government is supporting it is because one of the things that is sometimes said by the SNP is that only 15 per cent of social security powers have been devolved. It is not true. It is a third of working-age social security that has been devolved in full and, in addition to that, we have the top-up power and, in addition to that, we have the power to create new benefits. A statutory recognition of the particular importance of the top-up power, which is what Alison Johnstone's amendment, calls for it, is one that we can support. I call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. First, I would like to welcome again the spirit and the constructive view that the Government has acknowledged that there is a significant number of amendments at stage 2 that, ideally, they would not have planned for. However, it is fair to say that at stage 3 it is fair that we should try to tidy that up and make sure that we have good legislation. I, of course, have admitted my amendments before I saw all the Government amendments. I would like to just talk through them now. I raised the issue at stage 2. A bit specific mention of the need to have measures addressed in the delivery plan for lone parents, there is evidence that shows that that group, in particular, is worse under welfare reform and in relation to child poverty, and that is already in the bill. For completeness, I had wanted to ensure that, where there were references to employability, there was a special reference to lone parents, I would seek not to move amendment 1, because I think that that is now adequately covered by amendment 7 and the other Government amendments in this group. In relation to amendment 43, I seek not to move that amendment. I think that amendment 6, which makes specific reference to the use of welfare benefits under the Scotland act, is adequately covered. However, I would continue to support the amendment in the name of Alison Johnson in amendment 42. As Adam Tomfkins says, in the delivery plan, it sets out that ministers should say whether they intend to bring forward legislation and exercise those powers in section 24 of the Scotland act, whosoever is responsible for bringing top-up powers to the Scotland act, nonetheless ministers should be expected to say whether they intend to use it. The reason behind it is that I believe that the delivery plan has to mean simply more than measuring child poverty. I believe that ministers and the Government of the day should be setting out quite clearly how they intend to use the resources of the Parliament to reduce child poverty. It is for that reason that we will also be supporting amendment 40 in the name of Alison Johnson, because I think that it would be helpful to have some assessment of the financial resources that would be proposed by the Government to deal with child poverty. I have addressed amendment 6. Amendment 2, in the name of Adam Tomfkins, yes, Adam Tomfkins has been consistent in raising the issue of educational attainment. We do not see the ITI on everything in relation to that, because we believe that income should be the primary focus. However, we will be supporting amendment 2, because there is a special mention of education in the list in the delivery plan, and I think that it is right that it should say that, in particular, closing the attainment gap. The reason that we would not support amendment 7, although we recognise what amendment 3 is in the name of Adam Tomfkins, is because, as members know, there is other work on going in trying to define the meaning of the educational attainment gap and how to close it. I think that we would agree that child benefit is a trusted, stigma-free source of income for the vast majority of families, but for so many households it is an absolute lifeline. Obviously, like colleagues, I am open to discussions about the design and delivery of new benefits, and I am sure that we all agree that lifting family incomes should be an absolute priority. I appreciate the Government's desire to continue the cross-party nature of the work that has brought the bill to this point today, and I warmly welcome its support for my amendments. Amendment 42, in particular, has been campaigned for, supported by and will be warmly welcomed by the organisations that I have already mentioned, but also by individuals and families across Scotland. I welcome the support of the Conservative benches, too. Adam Tomfkins suggested that, in specifically highlighting the benefit, there was no harm, but I believe that specific mention of the benefit will strengthen the Government's amendments and the bill. I press my amendments. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I therefore call amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, who has already debated with amendment 40. I ask the cabinet secretary to formally move that amendment. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary. I take my glasses off, and then I won't get my numbers mixed up. I call amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, who has already debated with amendment 40. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We then move on to group 3, equalities. I call amendment 41, in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments 44, 45, 46 and 47. I would ask Jackie Baillie to move amendment 41 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to move amendment 41, and, as you suggested, speak to all others in the group. Can I at the outset thank the coalition for racial equality and rights for their work on this policy area? I hope to see this approach adopted by Government for future legislation. I also very much welcome the co-operation and partnership working from the cabinet secretary, her special adviser and officials. The cabinet secretary asked me to withdraw my amendments at stage 2, which I was happy to do, to allow for discussion, and I'm delighted that we've reached agreement on all of the stage 3 amendments in this group. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that children with protected characteristics are living in a household where someone has a protected characteristic is recognised as being most at risk of poverty. Let me cite three UN committees in support of these amendments. First, the UN Committee on Rights of the Child. In 2016, they concluded that the rate of child poverty in the UK remained high and disproportionately affected children with disabilities or children living in households where there was a disabled person and children from ethnic minorities too. In the same year, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also noted that poverty was prevalent amongst lone-parent families. This year, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities urged the UK Government to eliminate the higher level of poverty among families with children with disabilities. This is the right thing for us to do. Amendments 41, 45, 46 and 47 embed this approach in the delivery plan, the progress report and the local child poverty reports. We all know that if we do not embed equality in policy from the very start, it becomes an add-on and afterthought. Whilst I always will welcome equality impact assessments, they are not always the answer. Let me demonstrate that briefly. The equality impact assessment on, for example, the mental health strategy has no mention of race or ethnicity, yet we know that there is a differential mental health impact experienced by BME communities. Some equality impact assessments are of variable quality. Some public bodies have not even bothered to submit them. It is important that we have something more robust on the face of the bill. Those amendments build equality in from the very start, ensure that we evaluate progress and insist that local child poverty plans reflect equality too. I think that it takes us from warm words and good intentions and gives them the clear hard edge of requiring action. Amendment 44 is about consultation, making sure that we talk to all those with an interest and contribution to make something that this Parliament has always sought to do. Let me finish with a quote from the First Minister's independent adviser on poverty in her report called Shifting the Curve, when she talks about those with protected characteristics. Those are often the most disadvantaged and have additional barriers to face in escaping poverty. I hope that the chamber does not need any more convincing, because it is essential that we recognise that if we are to effectively tackle child poverty in Scotland. I urge the chamber to support those amendments and I move amendment 41 in my name. I welcome Jackie Baillie's commitment to issues around equalities and poverty. I am pleased that we have been able to work together to develop the amendments that she is proposing. As Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equality, I am keenly aware of my responsibilities in this area. I agree with Jackie Baillie that, if we are to tackle poverty, we must consider the impact that having a protected characteristic can have. As Ms Baillie rightly pointed out when we discussed equalities at stage 2, it is important for us all to remember that poverty can affect different equality groups in different ways. Therefore, we need to take that into account when developing policies and actions. I welcome the additional requirements for Scottish ministers to take the impact of protected characteristics on household income and expenditure into account when developing delivery plans and progress reports and for local partners to do the same. I thank Jackie Baillie once again for her constructive engagement on this issue and I urge members to support amendments 41, 44, 45, 46 and 47. May I ask Jackie Baillie to wind up and press or withdraw her amendment? I do not need to add anything more, Presiding Officer. You will be pleased to hear that I intend to press my amendments. The question is therefore that amendment 41 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated with amendment 40. Adam Tomkins, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 40. Remember that if amendment 7 is agreed to, that pre-empts amendment 1. I would ask the cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We therefore go straight to amendment 8 that has been agreed. I call amendments 8, 9 and 10, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated, and I would invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 8 to 10 on block. May I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 8 to 10? The question is that amendments 8 to 10 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendments 8 to 10 are therefore agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated with amendment 40 and would ask Adam Tomkins to move or not move. I therefore call amendment 11 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 40. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 42 in the name of Alison Johnson, already debated with amendment 40. Alison Johnson to move or not move. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Amendments 42 is agreed. I call amendment 43 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 40. Pauline McNeill, please move or not move. I call amendment 12 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 40. Cabinet secretary, please formally move. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendments 12 is agreed. I call amendment 44 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 41. Jackie Baillie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 40. Cabinet secretary, please move formally. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 14 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Oh, we are on to a new group. I was rattling through there. Group 4, we move to group 4, progress reports. I call amendment 14 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 15 to 23 and 27. I would ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 14 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. All of the amendments in this group are in my name and are technical, consequential or drafting amendments. I will highlight a few of the more significant changes for the record. Amendments 14 and 27 move the definition of parent into the interpretation section. Amendment 15 adjusts the existing provision in the bill requiring progress reports to set out progress in reducing the number of children in single parent households who live in poverty. It ensures that a wider category of persons is captured. For example, the text as amended at stage 2 would not include, as a single parent, a person who is married but separated, but such a person might not be in receipt of any support from their former partner. Amendment 23 is a tiding amendment similar to the one that I made in relation to delivery plans. It clarifies that the requirement introduced by Ben Macpherson for Scottish ministers to make a statement is a requirement for a statement to this Parliament in relation to a progress report. The remainder of the amendments in this group are minor drafting changes. I therefore move amendment 14 and ask members to support all of the amendments in this group. I have had no requests to speak on this. Would you like to wind up, cabinet secretary? No, thank you. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendments therefore agreed. I call amendment 15 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 14. Cabinet secretary, you should move. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 45 in the name of Jackie Baillie. Already debated with amendment 41. Jackie Baillie, please move or not move. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. All in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I would invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 16 to 23 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 16 to 23? The question is that amendment 16 to 23 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Did I hear a no? Can I ask that again for clarity, because I heard something wrong? The question is that amendments 16 to 23 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendments are there for you. We now move to group 5, minor and technical amendments. I call amendment 24 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 25 and 26. I would ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 24 and speak to all amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, again all three of the amendments in this group are in my name and all are minor technical or drafting changes to a subsection and the provision for local child poverty action reports. I move amendment 24 and ask members to support all amendments in the group. You have the opportunity to wind up, cabinet secretary? Tempting, but I will decline. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 25 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 24. Cabinet secretary, please move formally. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 26 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 24. Cabinet secretary, please move formally. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 46 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 41. Jackie Baillie, please move or not move, formally moved. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 27 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 14. Cabinet secretary, please move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is agreed. I call amendment 47 in the name of Jackie Baillie, already debated with amendment 41. Jackie Baillie, please move or not move, formally moved. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 28 to 39, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. I would invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 28 to 39 on block. Moved on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 28 to 39? The question is that amendments 28 to 39 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Sounded to me that there was only one person agreed that there. Are we all agreed? We are there for agreed. That ends consideration of the amendments. The debate will follow this, of course, and I give you a few minutes to change places and get yourself sorted. Thank you. Before we move on to the debate, I am required to say that, as members will be aware at this point in the proceedings, the Presiding Officer required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. Put briefly, that is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. If it does, the motion to pass the bill will require support from a supermajority of members. That is a two-thirds majority of all members, which is 86. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that, in his view, no provision of the Child Poverty Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I move on to the next item of business, which is the debate on motion 8696, in the name of Angela Constance on the Child Poverty Scotland Bill. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Angela Constance to speak to remove the motion. A generous nine minutes, Ms Constance. I am very pleased to be opening this stage 3 debate on the Child Poverty Scotland Bill. The passing of this bill will mark a historic milestone on a road to eradicating child poverty. I want to start by saying that I had a lovely visit this morning to St Catherine's primary school in the south side of the city of Edinburgh. I went there to find out about how their very popular breakfast club is setting children up for the day to enable them to make the most of their learning. They asked me to wear this wristband. Those wristbands are given to children when they perform well. I hope this afternoon that I will live up to the expectations of the children of St Catherine's primary school. As is customary, I would also like to start by thanking everyone who has been involved in developing this important bill. My thanks go to the clerks of the social security committee, I am grateful to the committee convener Sandra White and members who have helped to shape the bill and who have been constructive throughout. The fact that this critical legislation has cross-party support and we have worked collaboratively to strengthen this bill is an achievement that we all share. I am also grateful to the finance committee and the delegated powers and law reform committee for their careful consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank the many stakeholders who have supported the bill from responding to our initial consultation, to giving evidence or engaging directly with me and my officials. I have been grateful for their views and their contributions. Although I will not be able to mention them all, I would like to pay particular tribute to the following. The collision to end-child poverty helped to improve the bill in a number of ways. The Scottish youth Parliament, among others, usedfully represented and powerfully represented the views and interests of our young people. Oxfam Scotland played a valuable role in helping to prepare for the introduction of the poverty and inequality commission. The local reference group, which represents local authorities and health boards, has been developing practical guidance on the local duty. In particular, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the ministerial advisory group on child poverty. The group's expertise and guidance has been invaluable in getting us to this point, and their legacy is a strong foundation for the new poverty and inequality commission. The bill has benefited greatly from the input of the committee, and that has led to a number of changes since introduction. First, the range of subjects to be included in the delivery and local action plans has been usefully extended. Second, parliamentary scrutiny has been strengthened, and ministers now need to make a statement to Parliament when publishing delivery plans and progress reports. Third, a forward-looking aspect to local reports has been agreed, requiring local authorities and health boards to outline the action that they propose to take in future years. Establishing an independent poverty and inequality commission was indeed a manifesto commitment of this Government. It appeared as action number three in the fairer Scotland action plan, and it was delivered in July this year when Douglas Hamilton was appointed as commission chair and Naomi Eisenstadt and Callianne Lyle as deputy chair. That commission has a remit to advise ministers on child poverty, but also crucially on any issue that it sees fit. I have worked hard to find a solution to the problem identified at stage 2 that making the commission a statutory body under this bill would limit its remit, so it would only be able to focus on child poverty. Today, as I said earlier, I have introduced a draft order under the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010 to meet Parliament's aspirations for a statutory commission with a wide remit. The order will mean that the existing commission can move on to a statutory footing from July 2019, ensuring that this independent body can advise ministers on the first delivery plan due in April 2018, and the progress report, which is due in June 2019. For me, it has been vital to protect the commission's wide remit. The commission was set up specifically to provide ministers with independent advice on a wide range of poverty and inequality issues facing our country. Child poverty is an obvious first focus, but the commission will also be able to look at how we should address economic inequality, intergenerational inequality and the high risk of poverty faced by minority ethnic groups among other challenges. That is why I have argued strongly to keep that wide focus, because to make progress on those deep-rooted problems that needs expert and independent advice. The bill signals the importance that we as a Parliament and as a country place on tackling the unacceptable levels of child poverty across Scotland. In 2015-16, one in four children were living in relative poverty after housing costs. The Scottish Government fundamentally disagreed with the UK Government's decision to remove the targets and associated duties from the Child Poverty Act 2010, which led to the introduction of the bill, which reintroduces income targets but with even greater ambition. The UK Government's new approach, focusing on so-called work-less households, ignores the fact that the growing number of families who are in work and at the same time in poverty. Again, in 2015-16, 70 per cent of children in poverty lived in a household where at least one adult was in employment. The continued cuts to welfare spending, which in Scotland will amount to an annual cut of £4 billion by the end of this decade, are indeed making things much worse. Work used to be a way out of poverty, but for too many, that is no longer the case. Rates of pay and the number of hours available just aren't enough to ensure that their children have a bright future. Meeting our ambitious targets to eradicate child poverty by 2030 will indeed be challenging, and it will at times feel as if we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs in the face of those cuts that, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, will see the biggest increase in child poverty since the 1960s, meaning that more than 5 million kids across the UK are growing up in poverty. The Scottish Government is already taking positive action. The programme for government announced £50 million tackling child poverty fund, taking advice from the commission on where funding can have the biggest impacts. We are introducing the best start grant by summer 2019, which will provide cash payments to lower-income families and offer increased financial support in those crucial early years. We will be providing free access to sanitary products in schools, colleges and universities and following a pilot programme in Aberdeen to consider how to support women on low incomes. We will be providing a financial health check guarantee to make sure that families with children on low incomes claim all that they are entitled to. We will support Scotland's credit union sector so more people have access to affordable and ethical alternatives to high-street banking and payday loans. That is on top of our existing programme to deliver 50,000 affordable, warm, affordable homes, help to close the poverty-related attainment gap and take the next steps towards the near doubling of funded early learning and childcare and, of course, introduce a new socioeconomic duty for the public sector. We all know that the 2030 targets are highly ambitious and challenging, but poverty is not inevitable. As we have seen during the passage of the bill, there is a genuine cross-party desire to place those targets in statute and then to take action to meet them. If everyone plays their part, the targets are achievable and we can transform the prospects of generations to come. The bill is the crucial next step. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Child Poverty Scotland Bill will be passed. I call Adam Tomkins to open to the Conservatives six minutes, Mr Tomkins. We very much welcome the all-party agreement that there now is on the Child Poverty Bill. I agree with much of what the cabinet secretary has just had to say. This is an important piece of legislation. The tone in which it has been debated today is a significant and very welcome change of the tone that we had at stage 2. The bill has had a good passage through Parliament. I still think that the stage 1 debate that we had in this chamber a few months ago was the single best debate that I have had the privilege of taking part in in this chamber with notable contributions from Alec Neill and from my friend and colleague Jamie Greene, among many others. This was not a very powerful bill when it was introduced into this Parliament. Everything that we have done—indeed, I think that everything that all of the Opposition parties have done to this bill and with this bill over the course of the last few months—has been done in order to try and make the bill stronger, to try and strengthen it, to try and make it more robust. This bill contains very ambitious targets and it will be difficult to meet them. I think that the amendments that we have made on interim targets, the amendments that we have made on the delivery plan that we spoke about earlier on this afternoon and the amendments that we made in terms of putting the poverty and inequality commission on a statutory basis will all help the Government and, indeed, public authorities throughout Scotland to meet those very ambitious targets as best they can. In particular, I welcome the amendments that we made to section 7 on the delivery plans. On those benches, we do not believe that you can be effective in your anti-poverty strategy if you focus only on income. Of course, you have to focus on income among other things, but we do not believe that the focus should be solely on income. We all on those benches very much welcome the fact that, in the delivery plans, express reference will now have to be made to education, to the attainment gap, to housing, to the availability and affordability of child care, to employment and the employment prospects and the skills training of parents and families, as well as to considerations pertaining to health. All of those features are already there in the Scottish Government's child poverty measurement framework and in the child poverty action plan, and it is important, it seems to me, that they are reflected in the bill, soon to be an act. Two, we wanted to go much further, Presiding Officer. We wanted this bill not merely to measure child poverty but to take direct steps to tackle and reduce it, particularly at source. We wanted it to be a target in addition to the four income-related targets on employment. I noticed that, in some of the briefing that we have been sent for today's debate from the third sector, it said that 30 per cent of children in poverty in Scotland today live in families where no one works. The employment prospects of parents and carers is still a directly relevant and material consideration when you are thinking about child poverty. We also wanted to be a statutory target to take steps to reduce the attainment gap. There is already, of course, a statutory duty to have regard to the attainment gap, but that is plainly not enough. At the moment, the attainment gap is getting worse, not better. Numeracy levels for children from our most deprived communities are getting worse, not better. The attainment gap is growing, not narrowing international PISA results so that shows that Scottish education is going backwards. England and Northern Ireland now outperform Scotland in every category, as does the Republic of Ireland, Estonia, Poland and many other countries. We wanted the child poverty bill to take direct action to require ministers to address that. At least now, the delivery plans have to do that, even if there is not the statutory target that we wanted. The bill is stronger, Deputy Presiding Officer, than it was when it was introduced into this Parliament. As I have already said, I welcome that. On its own, and we should be under no illusions about this, the bill will do nothing to lift even a single child in Scotland out of poverty. All the action now turns to the delivery plans and to the holistic approach that those delivery plans will require ministers to take. I wish Angela Constance and her ministerial team well in seeking to meet those targets. They are ambitious. It is right that they are ambitious, but today, Deputy Presiding Officer, the Scottish Parliament sends to our country a strong and unified message. We are united that those targets should be met. We can make child poverty history in Scotland, so let's get to it. I thank the committee clerks. I give a special thanks to Mark Brock and the legislation team on how they followed all the amendments that all of us wanted to achieve. It is quite remarkable, and I would like to mention it particularly. It has to be recognised that there is some ingenuity in using the Public Services Reform Act to bring us where we are now, which is to make something that started off as only a commission for child poverty into a wider poverty and inequality commission. Whoever's idea that was in my book has to be fully commended for that. The child poverty bill sets out the targets to reduce child poverty, relative poverty, absolute poverty, low income material deprivation and, of course, persistent poverty. As we know, one in four children live in poverty, and we are one of the worst records in Europe. I agree with Adam Tomkins when he says that it is simply more about measuring levels of poverty, but it is using the powers of this Parliament, working with local authorities and taking the relevant measures that can actually make a difference. The Scottish Government for its time and this Parliament will have the full support of the Labour Party to attempt to achieve that. The delivery plan is the main mechanism for setting out Government policy and living in this Parliament to see how Government policy will attempt to actually help to reduce child poverty. Child poverty is a national scandal in 2017 if you live in a first-world economy, which we do. The life chances of hundreds and thousands of children are affected because they live in a very low-income household. I know that we all agree that no child should be robbed of their years in childhood because they are too poor. All of us take our own special interests in trying to make a difference, just too I would like to mention of my own. I did support Adam Tomkins's amendment, which drives to broaden out the educational attainment issue. For me, it is important that all children get the chance to learn a musical instrument. I think that it is very good for children from low-income households. I know that a lot of work has been done on that. It is important that all children have parity when it comes to tutoring support and education in order to close. Some work needs to be done by this Parliament and local authorities to make sure that poorer children get the same access to tutors in school as to children from wealthier families. 70 per cent of children in poverty are in working households. Bright but poor children—that is an awful lot of children—can lag up to two years behind wealthier ones. A toddler in a poor household is two and a half times more likely than a child living in more affluent circumstances to have poorer health, and by the age of five, there can be a gap up to 13 months in their vocabulary. Welfare reforms has deepened the crisis and, sadly, it will get worse as we debated the report yesterday of the austerity generation and that that report could not have come at a more poignant time. I want to highlight a couple of issues in my concluding remarks, Presiding Officer. I am pleased that the achievements of stage 2 of this bill and, together across party, we have made a bill that is absolutely worth supporting here tonight at the end of the stage 3 process. I was keen to highlight the issue of low-income parents and those with a disability, and I am pleased that they are now in the bill and have to be addressed by ministers. This morning, I chaired, along with Alison Johnstone, a round table on the automation of benefits that is in the bill. It is simply a term for exploring what local authorities who can identify that those are already eligible for a benefit such as a housing benefit can be cross-matched and establish their eligibility for other certain benefits. The idea behind it is that many do not come forward, they do not fill in the complex forums, and they are asked to jump through hoops in very complex processes. One story that struck me this morning was that a mum with four children had been claiming housing benefit. She was unaware that she was eligible for the clothing grant, and, through the work that Glasgow financial inclusion team has done, matching the data of her entitlement, she was able to issue her directly a voucher for £280 for her four children. She was quite astonished to receive it, and she phoned up the team to say, I assure you that I am due this because that cannot be right. She said that she cannot imagine the difference that £280 can make. I thank Jeane Freeman for the interest that she has taken in the decision act. I hope that, with the help and support of other members and local authorities in the Parliament, we can look at how we can widen out the scope of that to maximise eligibility and the benefits for people who need it the most. Thank you very much. I have a little time in hand. I say to those in the open debate up to 5 minutes, but not over. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. As a member of the Social Security Committee, I thank everyone who took part in our scrutiny of the bill, including my MSP colleagues on the social security and other committees. The passing of this child poverty bill will make clear the commitment of the Government and of our Parliament to eradicating child poverty. It will provide an overarching national aspiration and focus diverse minds, organisations and approaches on a clear shared goal. For those reasons, I fully support the bill and I thank the Government for introducing it. As we have heard, the bill sets out four ambitious headline statutory income targets supplemented by robust interim targets. Those targets are accompanied by stringent reporting requirements at both national and local level, and all of the above will be underpinned by statutory poverty and inequality commission. In conjunction with the many other measures being taken by the Government, the bill will play a central role in tackling child poverty, galvanising and focusing action on clear income-based targets to be met by April 2030. If Parliament supports the bill this evening, which I hope it will, then we can take rightful pride in the huge step forward that it represents. As we celebrate Scotland's step forward, it is important to also reflect on the fact that the actions of the UK Tory Government are pulling us backwards at the same time. I appreciate that this is not comfortable listening for Scottish Conservative colleagues, but I am afraid that it is the reality of the context in which we are working to tackle child poverty in Scotland. The child poverty action group report published earlier this week, which sets out how cuts to universal credit will push one million more children into poverty by 2020, is merely the latest addition to the damning dossier of evidence of the harm being done by Tory welfare reform. We should also remember that the very reason that we are debating the bill today is because the UK Tory Government took the disgraceful decision to scrap its own child poverty targets. I think that people will come to their own conclusions about how much of a priority tackling child poverty is for the UK Tories. By contrast, in this Parliament, we are doing what we can to mitigate and to be proactive, but there are limitations to what we can achieve with so much resource being invested in mitigating. I agree with much of what the member said in relation to the conduct of the Conservative Party, but does she agree with me that we cannot address child poverty when we cut local government budgets year on year on year? That is part of the front line in the fight against poverty and inequality. Ruth Maguire I thank Neil Findlay for that intervention. I agree that local authorities play a huge role in tackling child poverty. We have heard lots of examples through the committee, and yes, funding has to be appropriate to local authorities. On the resource that we are using to mitigate Tory welfare, it can feel like we are being dragged backwards while we are trying to press forwards or running to stand still. We have to be really clear, by pressing ahead with the roll-out of universal credit, the UK Tory Government is actively choosing to push more children into poverty. Our current starting point is one in four children living in poverty, and that is challenging enough. Under the policies of the Tories, that figure will have increased before this bill even hits the statute book. I welcome wholeheartedly the contribution and support that is made by Tory MSPs for this bill, but they have to know that it is not enough just to support policies to tackle child poverty. You also have to oppose those that increase it. I urge them to stand up for Scotland's children by joining the rest of this Parliament and using whatever influence they might have with their UK colleagues to call for an immediate halt to the roll-out of universal credit. In conclusion, we have a pressing duty to do all that we can to protect and support children growing up in Scotland today. We have also got a duty to future generations of children to ensure that the actions that we take now mean that they are born into a fairer and more prosperous society. We have got a wider duty to send a clear message that child poverty, wherever it exists, is unacceptable, that it contravenes a child's fundamental human rights and that it cannot and must not be tolerated. Today, in passing this bill, we will as a Parliament take a crucial step forward in meeting that duty to our children, giving all children in Scotland an equal chance to succeed and thrive. Thank you very much. I call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Alec Neal, Mr Balfour, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am present a member of the Social Security Committee, but was not involved in this. I want to play credit to all those who have taken the bill and made it a lot better than it started off. It shows the strength of the Parliament that, both at stage 1 and stage 2 and today, we have seen colleagues from across different parties coming together to get the best results for the whole of Scotland. It can give us assurance and hope as we go forward in regard to the Social Security Bill stage 1 and stage 2 in due course that we can have consensus. There is clearly agreement among all parties that any child in poverty today is wrong. I think that what this bill helps us to do and helps us to refocus both the Scottish Government and us as a Parliament is that to tackle this and to meet the ambitious targets of 2030 is that we need to work together. It cannot be done by one commission or one Government or just another of individuals. We need the Scottish Government working together with local authorities. I agree with Neil Findlay's question that he made a few moments ago. We need to see local authorities delivering on this and making sure that they have an important role to play. Will Jeremy Balfour agree that the reserved UK Government also has a role to play, for example by halting the disastrous roll-out of universal credit? I totally agree that the UK Government has a role to play. I do not accept his final remark, but universal credit is the disaster that he is painting it as. Clearly, we, as a party here in Scotland, have made our views very clear and we will continue to make those clear in regard to taking this issue forward here in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Local authorities must also work with the third sector as well. The third sector has a growing role to play in that. Often, local authorities are the ones on the ground delivering local services and other local people in that community. I hope that, collectively, we can see everybody working together in regard to that. I particularly welcome the independence now of the commission. It will be an organisation that cannot just report to the Scottish Government but can report to this Parliament as well. It can be a helpful friend to us and to the Government and can help us to see if we are moving in the right direction and if we are moving at the right speed. My only slight one concern in regard to this so far is that we have spent—I think rightly so—a lot of time focusing ourselves on targets. Clearly, if you aim at nothing, you hit nothing, and we need to have targets. However, targets in themselves do not automatically produce positive outcomes. I think that we need to keep very focused in regard to the outcomes that we are looking to achieve. I agree with my colleague in his opening remarks that one of the key factors is in regard to finance and income and money, but we must also look at other reasons that people are held back in poverty, whether it is in regard to education, housing or other things that we have responsibility for in this Parliament. We must remain focused on tackling those inequalities as well as the income issue. Clearly, as a Scottish Government, we have a limited amount of finances that we can spend on any area. In conclusion, I think that we need to focus our spending in the right direction. If we are generally going to look at things such as child poverty, spending money on things such as baby boxes simply does not produce what we want. I also suggest—I attended some of the same briefings as Alison Johnstone—that I cannot see spending £5 more in regard to general benefit as with particularly appropriate—I am sorry, I do not— The member's closing has got 10 seconds. I do not see it as the right way, as only 25 per cent of people who are in poverty would actually benefit from that, while 75 per cent who are not in poverty would benefit as well. I conclude with that. Thank you very much. I call Alex Neil to be followed by Ian Gray. Mr Neil, please. I begin by congratulating the cabinet secretary and all our Opposition spokespeople counterparts for the very productive and amiable way in which the bill has been handled. Setting targets is important, and the bill is an important platform on which to build our child poverty and effective child poverty strategy. The key challenge for us now is how are we going to make it happen to ensure that we achieve those targets by 2030 and the interim targets between now and then. The first point that I want to make is that I agree with Adam Tomkins that this is not just about cash income into poor families. Assistance in educational attainment, assistance in employment, assistance with housing and a whole range of other areas all form part and parcel of a child poverty strategy. However, the reality is that, given the current situation where we are, if we do not start to inject substantial cash into the pockets of families living in poverty who have children, we will not solve the poverty problem. In other words, I am not saying that cash into their pockets is all the answer, but it is a prerequisite to achieving those targets. I believe that the Government, despite the very difficult financial situation facing it, should look at trying to make a start in this year's budget for next year. I have got two suggestions to make. We, quite rightly, more or less across the chamber, have been very annoyed and angered by the fact that children, the third child of people living in poverty, are no longer entitled to child tax credit. I think that, as a matter of urgency, the Government should look at whether it can plug that gap. It will not cost a lot of money because it only applies to those children living in families who qualify for child tax credit, and it only applies to those children who are third or later in the family, born on or after April 2017. It would let us rectify what is a moral outrage, let alone something that is making child poverty worse. My second suggestion, and there is a big debate to be had about whether we target more through child tax credit increases, topping them up from within this Parliament, or whether we go for universal benefits. The reality of the immediate financial situation facing us is that, if we have a spare £150 million or £300 million to dedicate to child poverty, I would hope that figures of that kind of sum are being talked about and planned for over the next couple of years on an annual basis. For example, according to SPICE, if we talked up every child's tax credit who is receiving child tax credit just under half a million children in Scotland, it would cost £150 million a year to give them an extra five a week on top of the child tax credit that they get today. If we have a spare £300 million, I would rather give those kids £10 a week than apply the increase in child benefit for the simple reason that eradicating child poverty, reducing child poverty, is the number one priority. We do not have the powers to deal with the taxing as the way we would want to of those people who are much better off and who do not need the universal benefit. I am grateful to Mr Neil for taking an intervention. What does Mr Neil say to the finding of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that tackling poverty by increasing the value of benefits without addressing the underlying drivers of poverty has failed—not my words, but the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—that that strategy of tackling poverty has failed to tackle poverty in the United Kingdom? Alex Neil will have to do this briefly. That is precisely the point that I made earlier. You have to tackle both. You have to do all the other things, such as 70 per cent of children in poverty are living in households where someone is in work. The reason they are in poverty is probably because they are not getting the living wage, so you have to tackle that in the same way that 30 per cent is referred to by Mr Tomkins. There has to be an overall strategy. The point that I am making is that if the strategy does not include putting additional cash resources into the families in which children are living in poverty, the overall strategy will fail. That has to be part of the jigsaw, part of the plan, part of the strategy, on top of all the other things that are happening. If we do not tackle that at its root and put a cash injection in, many of our other objectives in reducing health inequalities, educational attainment gap and all the rest of it will not succeed. I therefore hope that the next step will be addressed very quickly and comprehensively. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I started this week doing something that all of us do, which was meeting one of the schools that had come in to visit the Parliament and answering their questions. They asked me a question that they almost always do, which is, why do you want to be an MSP? The answer that I give to that question is for the same reason that every MSP that I have known in all my time in politics from any party. That is because I believe that this country can be better. I think that I know what we have to do in order to do that. In all sincerity, that is what all of us look to do. If that is the case, surely there is no greater improvement that we should and can't seek than the eradication of what Polly McNeill called a scandal, quite rightly, that we still have so many 260,000 children's lives blighted by poverty, their life chances constrained by that scourge. However, I also say to those children, although that is why we are all here, we differ and sometimes differ very significantly on what has to be done to make the improvements that we all want to see. The origins of the legislation today lie in that, because they go back, of course, to the income inequality targets—the target to eradicate child poverty set by a Labour Government way back in 1999 and legislated for in 2010. The changes that came about with the change of administration in the UK Government in 2010 and the repeal of those income inequality targets are a different view of the approach that should be taken to eradicating child poverty. I think that I am writing saying that the Scottish Government disagreed with the repeal of those targets, which led to the legislation before us today, a disagreement in which, in my view, they were absolutely right, notwithstanding, I think, the very creditable approach that has been taken by the Conservatives here in this Parliament. Legislation is borne by an agreement in our purpose but some disagreement in the past and how we take it forward. It is also, I think, very much what this Parliament itself is for when we wish to take a different view and a different approach here in Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Parliament empowers us to do that, and that is what we are doing today in order to protect those vulnerable children. It is the times like this that the Parliament was made for, because we know in the past year that the number of children in Scotland living in poverty has increased by 40,000, so if there is any time to act, that is the right time. Today, we commit ourselves to reverse that trend and to move instead towards a position where child poverty is eradicated. However, the legislative road to hell is paved with good intentions. We can all think of a statutory right to a particular waiting time guarantee, for example, where we have legislated but failed to deliver on the promises that legislation holds. Alex Neil is absolutely right that what is key is our willingness to do what is required in order to move towards and reach those targets. I just finished the other day the most recent biography of Clement Attlee, and there was much in there about the 1945 Labour Government, which is also something that today's work here in this Parliament has a direct link to as they implemented the beverage report, the attempt to defeat beverage's giants, stood in the way of progress, want disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. It is to our shame that, to a degree, those giants still roam our country today. However, that Government legislated the means to actually change that. The legislation that they put through was the family allowance act, the national insurance act, the pensions act and, of course, the NHS. As we commit today to this noble end of eradicating child poverty by 2030, we must do so in ensuring certain knowledge that we will have to take difficult and challenging decisions on areas such as tax, benefits and public services, because the measure of the sincerity of our commitment will be that willingness to will the means in order to achieve this end. Thank you very much. I call Alison Johnstone to follow by Alec Cole-Hamilton, Ms Johnstone, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to begin by thanking those that I didn't previously, the legislative team, the clerks, my MSP colleagues, the small team of my own office. I'd also like to mention, as others have one parent family, Scotland, our own youth Parliament and Oxfam. Today is a really important day for the Scottish Parliament by putting targets for child poverty reduction back into law. We are saying that child poverty in a country as well off as our own is not acceptable and that this Parliament will expend every effort to significantly reduce it as we work to eradicate it. The latest statistics, as we have heard, show just what a huge challenge there is. There has been a 4 per cent rise in relative child poverty in just one year between 2014-15 and 2015-16. That is a rise of 40,000 children—260,000 children. That is more than a quarter of a million children in this country living in poverty. Peter Townsend, who was one of Britain's leading experts on poverty and one of the founders of the child poverty action group, defined relative poverty as having an income so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are in effect excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities, no swimming lessons, no trips to the cinema, no friends round to play after school. Five pounds may not be a lot of money to Jeremy Balfour, but to many families that means that their children can't join in. I will not take lessons on the issue. I will not take an intervention at this point, Mr Balfour, and I won't take lessons from someone, Mr Balfour, who supports the random discrimination of the two-child limit and the abominable rape clause. In setting the challenge of significantly reducing child poverty, we must rise to it urgently. This Parliament and the Scottish Government needs to have the clearest, the boldest strategy on combating the ill effects of so-called welfare reform and boosting the incomes of our poorest families. Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies projected another rise in relative child poverty in Scotland by 2021. It projects that it could reach 29 per cent, 300,000 children affected by then. It says that a third of the rise in relative poverty will be directly as a result of tax and benefit changes, surely shameful. The IFS predicts that the two-child limit on child tax credits alone will lead to a 2 per cent rise in relative child poverty across the UK. In the face of those cuts, we will need to significantly raise the incomes of our poorest families. The Scottish Government's more generous best start grant is a good beginning, and I welcome that, but we need to go further. Investment in income maximisation services, which help folk to access the benefits that they are entitled to, can help families to increase their incomes by thousands of pounds. We have seen evidence of that, and I welcome the Government's accepting my amendment at stage 2. It is important that the bill's delivery plans and local child poverty action reports will refer to this income maximisation. As I mentioned, when I moved the amendment on child benefit top-ups, we are going to have to look at using the powers to top-up benefits and, perhaps, to create new ones. I appreciate that there are very different views across the chamber on how that might be achieved, but it is a good start to have a requirement to consider topping up on the face of the bill in order to start that debate. I thank the chamber for agreeing to my amendment. Although I accept that the Scottish Government is already spending a significant amount of money attempting to mitigate welfare cuts—as someone who supported devolution before I joined the Green Party—I appreciate too how frustrating it can be that we cannot be more proactive and are constantly reacting, but there is still more that can be done and we must do it with the powers that this Parliament will have. Green research has shown that the new benefit cap is removing thousands of pounds a year from the homes of some 11,000 children in Scotland. Improvements have been made to the bill for members and parties across the chamber. The bill is widely recognised to be significantly improved compared to how it began. Adam Tomkins, put a significant effort into placing the poverty and inequality commission on a statutory footing and, to its credit, the Scottish Government has accepted that. As indeed it has accepted a number of Opposition amendments from Greens, from Pauline McNeill and Jackie Baillie of Labour, all of which have made this a more robust bill. Parties have worked together well to improve this, and I hope that we continue that approach with the Social Security Bill. In closing, the targets in the bill represent a major challenge to which we must rise. We should be ashamed that, in this wealthy country, many of our children live well below the average accepted standard. We must break the cycle. Passing the bill is only the beginning. The delivery plans will need to have policies that are more radical, far-reaching and better funded than we have ever had before, and I can pledge that the Greens will play their role in that on-going process. I would like to start by declaring an interest that I have served as the past convener of the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights and having worked in and alongside charities and groups campaigning to end child poverty all of my adult life. I am pleased that so many of them were afforded the opportunity to influence this bill. If I may start by saying that lobbyists do not always have a good name, but I would like to recognise the continuing efforts of some in particular, particularly Peter Kelly and Carl McCormack of the Poverty Alliance, John Dickie and Jenny Duncan of the Child Poverty Alliance and my good friend Chloe Riddle from Children First, all of whom are first-rate champions in this area. It was my privilege to serve alongside them for nearly 15 years, and I am delighted that they were given the chance to impart their expertise throughout the passage of the bill. I think that they have added considerably to it. I am proud to lead for my party on this bill today. I would also like to thank the Scottish Government in particular for its inclusive approach. I think that Parliament works best when the Government opens its doors to people of old parties. I welcome particularly the amendments around the statutory commission on which I know that this Government has moved a considerable distance. I certainly thank it for that. Naturally, the bill commands the support of those benches, and I am heartily glad that that view is shared across this Parliament today. There is now a recognition in this chamber that our efforts to tackle the scourge of child poverty must go far beyond just the financial health of our nation's families. I speak to the range of other povities that are in many ways as pressing as financial poverty, and that may have as profound an impact on life outcomes. That is a poverty of aspiration for children growing up in families that have experienced generations of unemployment and economic inactivity to not seek social mobility for themselves. Poverty of attachment, particularly among the 15,000 children in our care system, will find it difficult to form lasting adult relationships due to childhood trauma and loss. Poverty of health, where poor housing, health inequalities and depression diminish both life outcomes and expectancy. As such, we need, as a Parliament, a whole system's response to child poverty going forward. So, while the introduction of targets that we will pass this afternoon throws our metaphorical cap over the wall, it will be in the delivery of the progress against those targets that we shall all of us be judged. Put simply, Presiding Officer, this bill sets us the destination. It is now up to us to determine the means of travel and to put passage upon it. Delivery plans linked to physical and mental health are a fantastic start. I welcome the introduction of local child poverty action reports, but those need to be bookended by proactive efforts on the parts of our local authorities to plan ahead through community planning and children's services planning processes. I am pleased. I welcome the amendments that seek to boost equalities provision, especially in those areas of child poverty that are particular to protected characteristics. I agree with the need to put those on the face of the bill, because experience shows us that existing impact assessments just do not always cut it despite the good intentions behind them. I am very grateful to Adam Tompkins for his efforts to flush out a statutory definition around educational attainment. I agree that that is entirely necessary, but it would suggest that when that is forthcoming—I look forward to working with the Government to that end—we need to look beyond just the inclusion of Scottish multiple indices and multiple deprivation areas alone, but we must also include things like Scotland's young people who are looked after or who have care experience for whom education outcomes are some of the worst in this country. Experiencing poverty is an adverse childhood experience that can have lifelong effects. We, as such, must link poverty reduction with high-quality trauma recovery and family support, because without doing so we will not stop cycles of intergenerational trauma and we will see our successes in this chamber still having to debate this issue decades from now. Today is an example of this Parliament working at its best. Those people who sent us here would rather have had more days like it, where we chart a course to this common purpose without acrimony but with steely intent. I assure the Government of our support in the passage of this bill tonight. I thank the clerks of the Social Security Committee for all the work that they have carried out and the stakeholders and groups who have taken the time to write and give evidence and, indeed, in part, helped to shape the bill to what has come today at stage 3. Just to let others know who we are on the committee, when the committee first looked at the bill, it was looked at and suggested that the title could possibly be changed to Child Poverty Target Bill, because it seemed to be generated on targets. Further meetings and evidence showed that the bill could and should be much more than just targets, but I also want to say that we, indeed, are very important with the passing of the bill. Scotland will be the only part of the UK with statutory income targets on child poverty. It is important, but we have seen previous speakers mention the fact that poverty comes in many guises such as housing, education and others. That is why we wanted to look at it in a much broader vein. I thank the committee members and the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government for the work that they carried out together to look at that and recognise that it was not just about targets, it is very important that poverty comes in other ways. I want to mention two particular areas that stand out. The working between the committee, the MSP and the Scottish Government, particularly the poverty and inequality commission, came up in stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3. I commend the committee members and the cabinet secretary for the work that was done on that. It was really important that we recognised that we could not have such a small, narrow child poverty. It had to be bigger than that. I thank the cabinet secretary for that. If I could just quote from the letter that the cabinet secretary had sent to the committee, which I think we got about five minutes before the debate started from the clars. Basically, it mentions the fact that the order is practical and pragmatic way of delivering a statutory poverty and inequality commission with a wide-ranging remit. I think that that is really important. It will improve the exercise of public functions, having regard to efficiency, effectiveness and economy by allowing a single statutory body to provide the wide range of independent advice on poverty and inequality that the Parliament and obviously stakeholders clearly support. Others have mentioned the fact of working together. It is with the Parliament working together and the Government working together that we have come to stage 3 at this particular point. It might not have been easy during stage 1 and stage 2, but we got to that point. I congratulate everyone for that. It is really important that child poverty is such an important issue. For us to be able to bring forward a child poverty bill and deliver that is absolutely fantastic. That is what brings me on to my next one, which I think is really important. Other contributors and members have mentioned that delivery plans are really important. We should recognise that the delivery plan is to be published at points during the life of the legislation. The first delivery plan is due in 2018. That is not that far away. We will see how that has went along the road and we will be able to hold the Government to account in regard to that. As a baseline, progress can be measured. It is not something that is pying the sky. It is something that is real. It is something that is real for the people out there, the children who are living in poverty. I must say that I am pleased that we are all working together on this, but there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that with the changes to universal credit and the benefit system, more and more children are living in adverse poverty. You cannot forgive them for that. I know that Ruth Maguire and others, Alison Johnston, have mentioned that. However, if anybody could speak to the Westminster Government, I do not know how that would go just now, perhaps from the other benches there, because universal credit has been proven. It is driving more and more people into poverty. I do not want to cite various issues there or various constituency cases or whatever, but people are dying because they have no money whatsoever, not just to pay their rent, but to feed themselves in heat, not just to themselves, but to their children as well. That is a huge issue. I would be grateful if we would realise that it is not just us being able to make something different for children in poverty, but it is also a Westminster issue. We cannot get away from that. I will finish on that particular point. I think that we all would remember the act of Billy Connolly when he said that they were hiding in their beds and the mum said that someone comes to the door and said, could you pull that doovy over? They said, yes, the doovy is actually old army coats. Some kids are still having to live like that pretending that they have blankets in its old coats covering the bed to heat them up. We cannot do that to our kids in Scotland or anywhere else actually, but at least we can make a start with this. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Mr Greene is the penultimate speaker in the open debate. I am pleased to participate in the debate today. Members may recall that I spoke in our previous debate in this in some detail. It was probably one of the more difficult speeches that I have had to deliver in the Parliament as a subject that had a very striking personal resonance to me. However, the debate is much bigger than me, it is much bigger than any MSP in here today and it is much bigger than any of the words spoken in this debate. I approached today's debate in the same tone as before, and with the same earnest expectation that when Parliament works together on legislation such as this, it produces meaningful output. There is absolutely nothing headline-grabbing in what I have to say today. Child poverty, as indeed poverty more generally, is a serious issue that needs tackling in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the UK. It cannot be disputed by anyone in this chamber that it will require all of our commitment to do so. Moreover, now, as the Scottish Parliament is listed in this bill as a consultee in the creation of the delivery plan and will also review the progress reports, as was laid before us by the minister, there is an increased duty on us to engage in the plan and monitor its relative success or otherwise. The importance of this bill has been summed up, I think, nicely in the words of Alison Todd, chief executive of children first, who said, and I quote, by creating a framework to hold this and future governments to account for their efforts to eradicate child poverty, this bill marks a crucial milestone in achieving that vision, end quote. I couldn't agree more. The issues that I raised in the stage 1 debate centred around the following issues. First of all, tackling poverty through education and closing the attainment gap, the lack of a delivery plan at the time beyond measuring and the setting of targets, and a lack of a more grass-roots research approach into generational poverty and the importance of household worklessness in this issue. At previous stages of the bill's progression, we have been encouraged by the Government's willingness to make amendments. As a result of that, the bill that we are discussing today is far more robust than it was beforehand, and that is to be welcomed. On the plus side, we welcome specifically the addition of interim targets, set out on a statutory footing rather than secondary legislation, and indeed the establishment of an independent statutory commission, which will help us to hold the Government of the day to account. However, my colleague Adam Tomkins mentioned that, on those benches, we would have gone further around employment targets, robust plans and targets to reduce the number of workless households in Scotland. In my view, we would have a long way to reduce poverty in said households. I don't need to go into great detail, but I have first-hand experience of the direct link between unemployment in the home and poverty. It has been and remains my view that employment can be the most impactful step out of poverty. I would voice my concerns around those that the atmosphere of setting targets and I add that concern in the hope that, although targets are indeed meaningful, we do not fall into a mindset that the setting of targets is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I see the success of this bill in being that we take very tangible steps to tackle, reduce and eradicate poverty and that the focus is not simply on meeting targets, but as we review the interim progress reports, let's be honest with ourselves that targets are not met. Why were they not met and what will change? The point that I would like to take away from today's debate is that the focus cannot solely be on income either, albeit an important metric. It does not take into account things such as the quality of housing, parity of healthcare provision, educational attainment and skills and access to the workplace, things that those benches have highlighted. This bill is a prime example of the impact that Holyrood can have when it actively seeks to find consensus and works in a co-operative manner to tackle some of the deep-rooted issues that I think transcend political cycles and partisan disagreements. In my stage 1 debate, I use the following words. I do not think that one party or another holds a magic wand that will eradicate child poverty. Good ideas will come from all sides. I believe that those ideas have led to where we are today, but let us not pat ourselves too readily on the back at decision time this evening. What is said and passed in Holyrood today must be delivered on the streets of Scotland tomorrow. Thank you very much. I call Ben Macpherson, the last speaker in the open debate. It is a great privilege to speak in this stage 3 debate on this very important piece of legislation. I would also like to thank colleagues in the Social Security Committee and all the third sector organisations and other organisations that contributed to all of us making an important piece of legislation before us today and the constructive manner in which the Government engaged with us all and all the clerks who assisted us. I share others' opinions that the process of the bill has shown this Parliament at its best and what can be achieved by working together on what the cabinet secretary rightly said is the road to eradicating child poverty and poverty in itself. For me, as the constituency MSP in Edinburgh and Northern Elyth, there are instances of child poverty in my constituency that would be unacceptable to all as it is unacceptable in any other part of Scotland. For example, this summer, the Spartans Community Football Association raised money to tackle holiday hunger. Nationally, statistics have already been quoted that we have the fact that almost one in four children in Scotland are officially recognised as living in poverty and that, according to the IFS, that is predicted to increase. Just this week, the Trussell Trust also published figures that the use of food banks in Scotland has risen by 20 per cent in the last year. The challenge before us from where we start by passing this legislation is hugely pertinent, upsetting and a challenge for us all. This is frustrating in a position in which such child poverty is so unnecessary. Scotland is an incredibly advanced country, a strong economy, and the UK has the ninth-biggest economy in the world. We must ask ourselves how that can be the case. The complexity that has already taken place in today's debate around the causal factors of child poverty and poverty more widely transcends beyond the powers of this Parliament into reserved matters. I am glad that the Conservatives acknowledge that point and that we need good policy from the other Parliament that governs Scotland and across the spectrum. For example, we heard this week during the living wage week that only one in five Scots earn less than the real living wage. There have been published figures from the Resolution Foundation this year around inequality of wealth and the damage of welfare reform. The problems around the role of universal credit have been clear for all to see. All of that creates a huge challenge. While some are to blame, all are responsible and some are more to blame, all are responsible. The holistic approach that has been taken in this debate and is taken in this bill around the targets, the interim targets, the cross-party effort, the emphasis on the delivery plan and the emphasis on a cross-government approach and a willingness from those benches, I hope, to press the UK Government matters on matters too, gives us all an opportunity to let the start of something happen today. A real clear statement not just in terms of passing a law but a commitment and there seems to be commitment from all sides to really galvanise and focus on addressing the issue of child poverty. I thought that Ian Gray spoke very powerfully about how people, when he goes to speak to school groups, they ask him what is your number one aim for going into politics and it is to help other people, and tackling child poverty could not be a more clear and important aspect of that. I also think that when we speak to young people as politicians in this era, it is clear to me that those young people have been through a decade of austerity, where the idea of overcoming child poverty and tackling poverty per se has perhaps been abstract if not unobtainable. I worry about the normalisation of poverty in our society, particularly with the welfare reform agenda from the Westminster Government and some of the other challenges. I think that what today gives us the ability to do, if we have that cross-party support, is not only to pass a meaningful law in terms of the delivery plans and the robust targets within it and all the other aspects of the legislation, but to start a process of regalvanising ourselves as a nation with hope and determination and optimism that we can tackle child poverty and we can do so meaningfully and we can tackle it robustly. I hope that we take that leadership on today and roll it out across the years ahead and deliver the targets within that piece of legislation. I congratulate the cabinet secretary and her officials, members of the Social Security Committee and the clerks and all the outside organisations who have put in so much to shape the legislation from the bill that was introduced to the one that we have in front of us that we will vote on, like Jeremy Balfour. I come to this child poverty bill late in the day and I like to particularly thank Richard Leonard for taking my place on the Social Security Committee, which allowed me time to spend with my wife and our daughter at a critical time for us, so thank you Richard. We welcome the child poverty bill as an opportunity to create a cross-government strategy that tackles the roots of child poverty. I think that this is the first really meaningful cross-portfolio action that the Government has taken to challenge poverty and it is long overdue in this Parliament. We think that the bill must be followed by bold and effective policy making in some of the ways that Alex Neil mentioned in his contribution and, crucially, that must be followed up by use of the Scottish Parliament's new social security powers. Targets will not in themselves reduce child poverty. The figures around child poverty are stark. They have been quoted by a number of speakers in the debate but I think that it is important to restate that there are 260,000 children living in poverty in Scotland, an increase of 40,000 in just one year. As the cabinet secretary pointed out, 70 per cent of children in poverty are in working families. Pauline McNeill pointed out that children from more deprived backgrounds lag two years behind wealthier ones at school. A toddler in a poor household is two and a half times more likely than a toddler from a more affluent household to suffer from a chronic illness. We have shown in Government, as Alison Johnstone mentioned during the debate on the amendments, that despite the challenges, things can be done differently. The last Labour Government lifted 120,000 kids out of poverty in Scotland. Our approach to this legislation has been consistent through the whole process. As a result, there have been amendments to include the Poverty and Inequality Commission in the bill and that the Government has agreed that the commission should be put on a statutory footing. It is essential that the group tasked with advising and holding the Government to account is independent and that its future is assured. We, along with others, have also put pressure on the Government to use the Parliament's new social security powers through amendments that force the Government to lay out why any delivery plan does or does not include using the powers at their disposal to top up benefits. For example, the Government should have to set out why they are or are not topping up child benefit, knowing that a £5 a week top-up could lift 30,000 children out of poverty. We have asked the Government to consider the unique challenges, including financial challenges, that are faced by single parents, by families that include a disabled person and by families that include someone with a protected characteristic and reflecties in the delivery plan. We have ensured that interim targets appear on the face of the bill and delivery plans are linked directly to bringing down child poverty. Any plan must include an assessment of the contribution that the proposed measures would make to the targets and how that has been arrived at. We have ensured that, when progress towards the targets is not made, that the plans are scrutinised and altered if appropriate. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and passing of the legislation and itself will not lift a single child out of poverty. The proof of the pudding will be in the delivery plans that the Government put in place and the funds that are allocated in the budget to tackle child poverty. We welcome the legislation as the first step towards tackling the scourge of child poverty and look forward to the Government taking bold and radical policy decisions backed up by substantial resources to make a real difference. I apologise for my late entry to the chamber with the early start. I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, because we on the benches have supported the laudable principles of the bill from stage 1. We have sought never to supplant its aspirations but to support and strengthen the prospects of their achievement. The bill is now far stronger than when it was introduced and I commend all parties and the Scottish Government on their efforts to build cross-chamber consensus to buttress the provisions of the bill. As my colleague Adam Tomkins has highlighted, we particularly welcome the Scottish Government's support for the Conservative amendments to section 7. In embedding an obligation within the statute book, whereupon it is incumbent upon ministers to take steps to address the educational attainment gap, we see a real and important improvement to the bill. We know that educational attainment is one of the key contributory drivers of child poverty, and it was apparent to most in the chamber that the Scottish Government's child poverty strategy or indeed any child poverty strategy would not work if it was centred around a myopic focus on income. A wider joined-up approach is vital, and it is for this reason that I find myself hoping that we have not missed an opportunity, because a missed opportunity to confer legal requirements upon ministers to reduce the number of children in Scotland who grow up in work-less households, a missed opportunity to imprint into the statute book a duty for ministers to take steps to mitigate family breakdown, and a missed opportunity to legally compel the Scottish Government to address the manifest impact of alcohol and drug addiction on child poverty. I wondered why the member was so concerned about work-less households when many members have talked about the higher percentage of people who are still in poverty while they are actually in work, but I do not agree that that must be a higher priority. Fundamentally, because 30 per cent of children in poverty are in work-less households, and it is about a continuation of a problem and about aspiration that was referred to by other members. If we in this place are truly serious about tackling child poverty in Scotland, we need to think about those underlying issues as part of a complete and holistic approach to meeting the targets set out in this bill. I do in this respect fear that, at times, we may fall short of the mark. Ian Gray particularly highlighted that the existence of this Scottish Parliament enables us to act in a way that is right for Scotland, and that is the principle on which we have come together to talk about this bill. Alex Neil said that the key to the bill is how we take it forward. I was pleased that he acknowledged that it is not income alone that will take us forward. He made two interesting suggestions, but I will leave that to the cabinet secretary to respond to. Alison Johnson made some very nice statements across the chamber about all the contributions that were made by the members. He highlighted that it is working together that underpins the discussions that have gone through the bill. Alex Cole-Hamilton hit the right note when he talked about the other impacts of poverty. The poverty of attachment is particularly something that I have seen through my professional life, and the poverty of aspiration is something that I can certainly acknowledge needs to be addressed. However, he did highlight the importance of community planning and the need to ensure that, looked after and accommodated children have a voice in this process. Ruth Maguire. Can you understand how offensive the term poverty of aspiration is to people who simply do not have enough money? Michelle Ballantyne. Yes, I can, because I have worked with a lot of children who have been in that position. I have always understood and always tried to ensure that the children that I have worked with know that money is part of the process, but believing in yourself, having the confidence and the belief that you can move forward, is really important. There are a number of ways that can be done. In closing, the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill, notwithstanding some disagreements of process and approach. The bill encapsulates the importance and impact of parliamentary scrutiny. Thanks to effective opposition, not only from the Scottish Conservatives but from other members of the chamber as well, we have seen some significant improvements made throughout the legislative process in terms of interim targets, a statutory commission and the strengthening of section 7. The future trajectory of child poverty in Scotland now depends on delivery plans. Will they amount to a tinkering around the edges or will they be tough, robust and proactive in their approach? I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government opt for the latter. In any case, we must be prepared to be fluid and flexible in our efforts as we go forward, because it is a commitment to tackling the drivers of child poverty and not the setting of targets that ultimately will improve the lives of our most vulnerable and impoverished children. Thank you very much. I call in Andrew Constance to wind up the debate for the Government. Cabinet Secretary, till 5 o'clock are thereabouts, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In approximately 10 minutes' time, we will all stand united as a Parliament, I hope, to unanimously pass the child poverty bill. I know that the UK Government just now don't have their troubles to seek most of which is of their own making, but I hope that it will take stock and note that our Parliament is united in saying that we will not lie down, we will not walk away and we will not give up on the challenge of tackling the rising levels of child poverty in this country and we will take that challenge head on. Mr Tomkins very graciously said to me that he wishes the Government good luck with this bill. Let me reciprocate that the UK Government is not going to be let off the hook while 85 per cent of welfare spend in Scotland is still controlled by the UK Government. I also want to say to Michelle Ballantyne that 30 per cent of poor households may indeed be workless to use your term, but, as we have heard earlier, that actually means that 70 per cent of children in households that are considered poor, that their parents or their carers or their guardians are actually working and they are working for their poverty. That has to be a damning indictment on our current society. The Child Poverty Bill is our collective statement of intent, our statement of intent to tackle both the causes and consequences of child poverty, as well as recognising the central importance of income or indeed the lack of income. It is our statement of intent as a Parliament, not just to tackle but to end child poverty. However, as most members across the chamber have rightly acknowledged, statements of intent are all very well, but it is what you do that counts. On that note, I want to say that neither I nor this Government was under any obligation or indeed a manifesto commitment to introduce this bill, but we choose to do so. The reasons for choosing to introduce this bill have been echoed across the chamber. We fundamentally oppose the UK Government's scrapping of the statutory income targets. I refute the suggestion that this bill was weak on introduction. It was certainly stronger than anything that existed before at a UK level. As Alex Neil rightly pointed out, we now have a stronger platform to go forward. The scale of the challenge that we face is profound. The biggest increase in child poverty since the 1960s, I do not know about anybody else in this chamber, but that certainly keeps me awake at night. The other aspect for supporting this bill, Presiding Officer, is that it is at its heart absolutely the right thing to do. While we could have said, no, we are not reintroducing the targets that successive UK Governments failed to meet, we do not have all the levers, majority of tax and welfare powers remain reserved. However, I chose not to do that, because, like others and Ian Gray touched on this, despite not knowing what the future holds in terms of our economy, in terms of Brexit and the constitutional future for Scotland, I, like others in this chamber, came into politics to make Scotland a fairer place, and I know that I have no monopoly on that. The question that we will ask ourselves today and every day is what can we do today, what can we do now to make a difference? While I will always contend unsurprisingly that our job to meet these ambitious and challenging targets would undoubtedly be easier with more powers, I will acknowledge that, under any constitutional settlement, this job of eradicating child poverty will always be challenging and it will be never easy. However, that does not mean that it is not achievable. The challenge that we will all face in this Parliament is to find ways to do more than just mitigate against austerity and welfare reform and to lift children and their families out of poverty. That is where the delivery plans are absolutely crucial, where they will have the detail, comprehensive detail about comprehensive action, rightly covering our economy, our education, the benefits system, housing and health. We, no doubt, will return to these debates time and time again. Ben Macpherson is absolutely right that what we all have to guard against is the normalisation of poverty, because poverty is fundamentally wrong on every level. I know that, as a Government, we will have difficult and at times decisions that seem impossible. The Tories will, of course, have to answer for the impact of so-called welfare reform, but, in fairness, we will all have difficult questions to answer. I know that we will all seek to be guided by the evidence of what will work in the current and future context, not least by the working advice that we will receive from the independent and statutory poverty and inequality commission. Needless to say, I am sure that we will debate and disagree about what the evidence is and is not, but there is an opportunity here to build some consensus on what the right thing to do is and what the evidence tells us. As a Government, we are prepared to have that debate, whether it is a debate around tax or, indeed, our new social security powers. What I am clear about is that, as a Government, as a Parliament and as a country, we will have to pull together like we have never done before. What we will have to do and what we will have to be evident when we publish our first delivery plan is that, to tackle child poverty, it has to be at the very heart of everything that we do, and in that regard, absolutely none of us will be let off the hook. Ending child poverty is the biggest challenge that we face as a Parliament and, indeed, as a country. We all have a responsibility and a role to play. Whether it is Government, Parliament, Council, businesses, third sector, civic Scotland, we will have to work together in new ways. In a minute or so, we will, I hope, stand united even for that moment of time on the journey between now and 2030 to pass the child poverty Scotland act, a historic milestone, I believe, on the next step to confining child poverty to the history books. Presiding Officer, the time for talk is now over. It is now time for us to act. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on the Child Poverty Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8723, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now. I will call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 8723. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question, therefore, is that motion 8723 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of nine Parliamentary Bureau motions. Can I ask Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Bureau, to move motions 8568 and 8724 to 8731 on approval of SSIs? Moved on block. Thank you very much. I am now minded to take a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to now. Can I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move such a motion? Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that we move decision time to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The first question is—and we will vote on this. We will actually have a division on this. The first question is that motion 8696, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Child Poverty Scotland Bill at stage 3, be agreed. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 8696, in the name of Angela Constance, is yes, 115, no, 0, abstentions, 0. The motion is, therefore, agreed unanimously, and the Child Poverty Scotland Bill is passed. I propose to ask a single question on the nine parliamentary bureau motions. If anyone objects, please say so now. No member has objected. Therefore, the question is that motions 8568 and 872428731, in the name of Joseph Patrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business, in the name of Andy Wightman. We will just take a few moments, though, for members to change seats.