 Rwy'n credu i'r next item of business, which is topical questions, and the first question is from Angela Constance. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report on the fact-finding visit to the UK by the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, and how that will inform its plan to tackle child poverty in Scotland. For anyone who reads Professor Philip Alston's interim report, its conclusions are clear. It is a devastating critique of the UK Government's economic and welfare policies, which are causing and, I quote, misery. The rapporteur makes multiple recommendations for what the UK Government could do differently, including urgently changing universal credit to make it fit for purpose, end the benefits freeze and scrap the two-child limit and the appalling rape clause. The Scottish Government has also consistently requested UK ministers to take those actions and will continue to press the UK to change course. I welcome the rapporteur's references to the very different approach that has been taken by the Scottish Government, specifically highlighting the establishment of a social security system, guided by evidence and the principles of dignity, fairness and respect, recognising that we are mitigating the worst of the UK Government welfare cuts and describing our plans for tackling child poverty as ambitious. Going forward, we will build on the work of the member when she was community secretary and deliver in full on the ambitions that she set out in the Child Poverty Scotland Act. Angela Constance. The UN special rapporteur said that, despite the UK being one of the world's richest countries, we have staggering levels of rising child poverty. He called on UK ministers to open their eyes, although Amber Rudd has confirmed the UK Government's on-going state of denial. Given that this Parliament united to pass legislation to end child poverty and the knowledge of the powers that we have and the powers that we do not have, how will the cabinet secretary take forward the child poverty delivery plan and, specifically, the crucial components of affordable housing, the new income supplement and the tailored employment support programme? Amber Rudd's comments yesterday were disappointing. They seem to dismiss the report and characterise the language of Professor Alston as political in nature. In dismissing the report, though they dismiss the consequences of the actions that they are taking, causing great misery to the most vulnerable, the UK Government needs to open their eyes and, quite frankly, lift their heads from the sand. Child poverty is still too high and the finger of blame should point squarely at the UK Government and welfare cuts. While we will work to do all that we can with the powers that we have, often with a hand tied behind our back, we will continue our work on the development of the income supplement, a complex undertaking, and we want to ensure that this work meets our two key principles, that it reaches the greatest number of children living in poverty and that it tops up the income sufficiently to lift those families out of poverty. We are also on track to deliver our ambitious programme of 50,000 affordable homes, including 35,000 for social rent and, since 2007, we have delivered over 78,000 affordable homes. We have begun work on the £12 million programme of intensive employment support, and an update on all those actions will be provided to Parliament by June of next year. Angela Constance Professor Alston also said that resources were available to the Treasury at the last budget that could have transformed the situation of millions of people living in poverty, but the political choice was made to find tax cuts for the wealthy instead. He also said that it is outrageous that devolved administrations have to spend resources to shield people from UK Government policies. Given that this Parliament does not accept that poverty is inevitable, what choices will this Government make, by contrast, to ensure that ending child poverty is core to our forthcoming budget, and given that any mitigation needs to be affordable and sustainable, will the cabinet secretary commit to working with Parliament to ensure that we continue to work together to end child poverty in Scotland? Angela Constance We are very clear that the UK budget could have ended the benefits fees that the UK Government could have chosen to give a better future for children across the aisles, but it chose not to. Instead, it decided and prioritised tax cuts for the better off, showing an utter disregard for the most vulnerable and the Tories should be utterly ashamed of that. We cannot sit back, and that is why we currently spend this year £125 million in mitigating and mopping up the mess from the ideologically driven cuts of the UK Government, but mitigating everything is unsustainable, as the member pointed out. The scale of the cut, a £3.7 billion reduction in welfare spending, is the combined total of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Lothian's budget. I want to use our resources and our powers to create a fairer and more equal country, not just to mitigate the actions of another Government. I certainly look forward to working with Angela Constance and other members across the Parliament to do just that. Oliver Mundell to be followed by Elaine Smith The special reporter noted that the concept of universal credit in simplifying benefits, smoothing work incentives and providing more skills training are, and I quote, in many respects admirable. Can the minister confirm that the Scottish Government policy remains that, in principle, we should simplify benefits and ensure that there is no cliff edge in benefit levels? Gabriella Cymru He also called the system universal discredit. I think that the member should be reminded. We are clear that we have made many representations to the UK Government, asking them to halt the roll-out to listen to the views of this Parliament that has outlined and articulated the dire consequences of universal credit in the way that it has been handled. The UK Government could have, as I said to Angela Constance, taken a different path at the UK Government, their UK budget, but they chose not to. Instead, they prioritised tax cuts for the better off. Those are not the priorities of this Government. We will continue to work hard to make sure that we can create a better future for children in Scotland. Elaine Smith Despite the previous question, I am sure that many of us in this chamber will agree that this UN report is a damning indictment on the Tory's cruel and ideological approach to welfare and poverty. Although the cabinet secretary recognises that cuts to local authority budgets are having an impact here in Scotland as well as in England, while welcoming the report's acknowledgement of some of the good work that is being done by this Parliament, does the cabinet secretary recognise that it has been a year since the child poverty bill was passed but the Government still has not brought forward its proposed income supplement. With one in four Scottish children still living in poverty, will she now reconsider that there is a pressing need and accept Scottish Labour's proposal for quick action by topping up child benefit by £5 a week to lift 30,000 children out of poverty? I agree with much of what Elaine Smith set out in terms of the report and its damning critique of the UK Government. As I outlined to Angela Constance that we are undertaking and currently working on the development of an income supplement because the analysis that we had around the top-up showed and proved that we could use that resource and deploy that resource in a better way to lift more families out of poverty. It is a complex undertaking and I will continue to engage with it as I pledged to do so with her colleague Alec Rowley on that work. We have begun work on the £12 million programme of intensive employment support. That, again, is directly wanting to help parents on low incomes to move into work and progress their careers when they are already in work. The first delivery projects will commence on that next year. We are taking robust action. We are spending £125 million on mitigation and we will continue to work with others across the Parliament to make sure that, where we need to do more, we can do more in a collaborative fashion. The UK Government's contempt for the report is emblematic of the contempt that it has shown for the lives of the people affected by the issues that the report covers. However, although we should all be pleased that the report recognises the distinctive approach that is being taken in Scotland, I am sure that the minister agrees that we should never be complacent. How does the Government respond to the section regarding the Scottish welfare fund? It is clear to me that there is still a real accountability gap that should be addressed. The absence of a legal remedy or a more robust reference to international standards in the Social Security Scotland Act is significant and should be addressed. How does the Scottish Government respond to that aspect of the report? I thank Patrick Harvie for his interest on that. Of course, we take all the recommendations and actions that Professor Alston set out with the utmost of seriousness. I agree with his critique of what the UK Government has been taking forward. We will take on board the issues that he raised. However, nowhere is the Scottish Government's commitment to human rights more evident than our work to create that new social security system for Scotland. Section 1 of the Social Security Act establishes the human right to social security as a founding ideal of the system. It goes further than article 9 of the International Covenant of Economic and Social Cultural Rights. There is also a strong parliamentary accountability for the delivery of the social security charter to a company. In relation to the disability of human rights, we require a properly thought-through, Scotland-wide approach. That is why the First Minister established advisory group on human rights leadership led by Professor Alan Miller. We look forward to considering the group's recommendations. Amongst all that, we take Professor Alston's recommendations seriously. However, we have a good platform to build on around making sure that we can evidence to him that we are taking forward the work that he says that we need to do more effort on. John Finnie To answer the Scottish Government what its position is on mechanical harvesting of kelp-bied dredging, please. Roseanna Cunningham Of course, that is an issue that I would expect to deal with at tomorrow's stage 3 in the Crown Estate Bill. Currently, the mechanical harvesting of kelp from the seabed by a vessel or vehicle requires a marine licence. Through the marine licensing process, the Scottish Government is committed to protecting the environment and to the national marine plan, which sets a presumption in favour of development that is sustainable. We recognise that kelp is an important part of our marine biodiversity. Having considered amendments to the Crown Estate Bill, we intend to support Mark Ruskell's amendment, although there are some clarifications and qualifications that are required to be made. John Finnie I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Once the cabinet secretary will be aware that there has been much correspondence about that and some of which I have attained under the freedom of information. One such piece is a letter from Marine Scotland to the company dated July 2017, in which it talks about the innovative proposal that I quote there. It notes that, again, I quote, it has already received strong support from Scotland and its economic development agencies. I quote again, it is ready to provide further assistance as it takes the project forward. I quote again, I would like to assure you that Marine Scotland is keen to take this sort of initiative. This is a priority issue. I look forward to seeing it develop. Cabinet secretary, how can the promoter of a policy also be the regulator? Can you indicate, cabinet secretary, how public can have confidence that Marine Scotland will act within partiality, please? Cabinet secretary? I think that the chamber would probably want to welcome the fact that the Scottish Government and throughout the agencies are looking at new innovative industries, thinking about the new technologies, thinking about the new things that might be able to be developed in the future of Scotland. All Governments will be doing that. All Governments will be trying to ensure that within the confines that they may have set down about environmental sustainability, which is clearly part of what we are trying to do. That is something that we would wish to assist forward. I would have anticipated that almost any Government would be in the same position. John Finnie. I thank the cabinet secretary again. If environmental considerations that were at the heart of driving Scottish Government thinking, you would have already banned that process. Statements like you have made and, indeed, the correspondence we have seen leave open to question, who is actually in charge. Cabinet secretary, can you confirm whether it is yourself or the cabinet secretary for a rural economy that is pushing the dredging agenda inside Government? There are 500 businesses who are opposed to it. Those are businesses in my constituency that are vitally requiring in a pristine environment. People like the Fisherman's Association. Marine protection is vital, and we have seen already with ship to ship a very casual approach from the Scottish Government. Who is in charge, cabinet secretary? Cabinet secretary, can I say that nobody is pushing any agenda? What we are all trying to do is to ensure that Scotland does have new industries going forward, that innovative technologies are considered very carefully, and that is the basis on which we are doing this. I have already indicated that I will be supporting Mark Ruskell's amendments tomorrow. I am very grateful for the engagement that Mark Ruskell has undertaken with me on this, his care and his thinking about some aspects of this, which are not without some issues that will still need to be resolved. I am not sure that the process that we are currently in is the best way that anybody could imagine thinking about any new industry going forward. The licensing process itself is about bottoming out the environmental issues that are required to be considered. I would hope that everybody in the chamber did support the notion that new industries should be looked at, should be considered and that they should be considered carefully. Bill Kidd For clarification, can the cabinet secretary explain what activities will and will not be covered by the proposed actions that she has outlined this afternoon? There are one or two things that are probably for people to understand the complexities of this. It is our view that commercial use, which is the phraseology that is used in the amendment, should not extend to power stations or commercial ports or other similar public infrastructure being prevented from removing kelp species for maintenance or for other public interest reasons, nor should it prevent appropriate research and development. Removals should not be prevented where the activity is hand cutting, which SNH has advised is sustainable. I can say to the chamber that I will consider the need for guidance or directions to manage those issues. I will be announcing a review of the regulatory regime of all kelp harvesting activity up to and including farming. Claudia Beamish I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement today of support of our Mark Ruskell's amendments supported by myself and Alex Rowley. Kelp forests are indeed a priority marine feature and play a vital part in sequestering carbon and protecting our coastlines from erosion, feeding grounds for endangered seabirds and providing a habitat for a wide and diverse range of species, including juvenile fish. This is very important in relation to them being, as I would describe it, perhaps a cradle for existing sustainable industries. I just asked the cabinet secretary if those issues will be taken into account in relation to any future deliberations that the Scottish Government will take on this very important issue. Claudia Beamish Well, those are all issues that have been taken into account even during the licensing process, which there is not one at the current point. Those are all things that I will be looking at or expecting to be looked at with any review of the regime for kelp harvesting activity right across the board, for which members ought to be aware that there are five different ways of harvesting kelp. It is a rather more complex and diverse industry that is currently on-going in Scotland. There is a lot of commercial activity already on-going in Scotland, and we do not want to disincentivise that.