Chamber and committees

We have heard evidence from various quarters that it feels as if the national plan has been watered down and does not have the impetus that people desired in the consultation. Do you recognise that view?

That is useful, because there is concern about a lack of central oversight of all of that. In our session with the previous panel, we had a discussion about the lack of a formal oversight body. I appreciate what the Deputy First Minister has said about the legislative constraints in that regard, and I do not want to pit BSL against Gaelic, because I am supportive of the Gaelic language, too—which we will have a wide-ranging discussion about in the chamber this afternoon—but, earlier this morning, we were told that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has a very clear role and that it often acts as the central oversight organisation. The fact that we do not have a similar body for BSL was a matter of concern for the witnesses who gave that evidence.

The Deputy First Minister has said that she is open to having a conversation about that or to a potential recommendation, but I wonder whether she might like to reflect on that comparison.

Dr Adam, you said that the Government does not have an expert group on BSL to advise it on the plan. Is it your view that the status that Bòrd na Gàidhlig has as the national body for Gaelic should be replicated for BSL in Scotland? Is that what you are pointing to?

I appreciate the Deputy First Minister’s comments about taking a carrot-and-stick approach in encouraging people to engage in best practice. However, the DFM is very committed to delivering overarching Government policy. What scope is there to revisit the idea that there should be measurable goals, timelines and accountability?

I appreciate what Mr McGowan has just said about taking stock at the end of that three-year period, but is the Deputy First Minister committed to having more tangible timescales on what needs to be done during that time?

I think that it is fair to say that, in the evidence that we have heard so far, the views on the second BSL national plan have been mixed. We heard commentary not only on some of its positives but on people’s concerns, particularly the lack of focus, measurable goals, timelines and accountability. We also heard criticism that the plan was watered down, despite the evidence that was given during its preparation. Will the Deputy First Minister respond to those criticisms that the draft version was watered down?

We heard some useful evidence on that point last week, from people with lived experience. It is useful to hear that reinforced in the evidence today.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of her statement, both at the usual time and in her morning press exclusives.

There has been a lot of spin and, in the statement, there is a myriad of excuses, but the reality is that there is also failure. For all the rhetoric that we have had from the First Minister and the cabinet secretary, after the Scottish National Party’s 18 years in office, relative child poverty, after housing costs, has fallen by only 1 per cent. When the cabinet secretary says that rates are “broadly ... stable”, what she really means is that the dial has not shifted.

On the two-child limit, over the history of that policy, Scottish Labour has been consistently clear that we want it to be scrapped, but the haphazard and last-minute decision to include its mitigation in the budget makes a mockery of the claim that the cabinet secretary made over many years that she was powerless to do anything about it. I note the letter that has been issued before we meet her this afternoon, which outlines that applications will be open but does not say when payments will be made. It also talks about using Scottish child payment data—the cabinet secretary was not willing to admit to that in the past.

On the wider picture facing Scotland’s young people and the root causes of child poverty, responsibility for failing to meet the targets lies with the Scottish Government. It is the SNP that failed to deliver on its commitments to expand free school meals; it is the SNP that stripped employability services to the bone; and it is the SNP that created a housing emergency, with 10,000 children in temporary accommodation. Is it not the truth that more of the same will not deliver the 2030 targets and that the SNP Government is out of ideas and out of time to meaningfully reduce child poverty?

On Saturday we received the sad news of the passing of Councillor Betty Cunningham, a former provost of East Renfrewshire, who was known to many members on all sides of the chamber and who was described as a “force of nature”. Among her many achievements, Betty was responsible for setting up an international trust after visiting Kaponda in Malawi in 2007. The trust has supported the provision of education, healthcare, and agricultural skills and opportunities, as well as taking hundreds of young people on cultural exchanges to Malawi.

One of the key areas of interest there is oral health. Can the cabinet secretary say how the Government is partnering with charitable organisations such as the Betty Cunningham International Trust on projects such as MalDent? Does he agree that continuing such partnerships is a fitting legacy for people such as Betty, who had such a love for and connection with Malawi?

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, when your party came to power, relative child poverty was at 23 per cent after housing costs were taken into account. Last year, as we have heard, the figure was 22 per cent, so there has been a 1 percentage point fall in 18 years. The Government’s child poverty summary says:

“in recent years, both relative and absolute child poverty have shown little consistent change”.

Do you accept that that is perhaps just a polite way of saying that you have not moved the dial in 18 years?

If you could cover the point about lone parents, that would be really helpful.