When did you come to the conclusion that you could not deliver what the stakeholders wanted, cabinet secretary?

Given that you had had three years of conversation, why did people such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Amnesty and those who were referenced in Maggie Chapman’s and Annie Wells’s questions react in such a visceral way?

I appreciate that my colleagues might well pick up on that point, so I will hand back to the convener.

Unfortunately, I was absent from the committee when we took evidence on these issues. However, obviously, I have read some of the evidence. There is much in the arguments that Maggie Chapman has made that is important and needs to be put on the record and explored, particularly the point about wider access to justice. I hope that the Government will reflect on those points and particularly the one about what it is fair to call a crisis in legal services. That is particularly the case with access to lawyers in criminal defence trials and the availability of lawyers through legal aid. I have had a number of constituency issues relating to the pursuers panel and pursuing solicitors who are at fault.

There is a range of issues that need to be looked at in the round, and I hope that the Government will take that on board. I have a degree of sympathy with Ms Chapman’s approach, but I am concerned about what would happen to the court system if we annul the instruments. I appreciate the costs that are involved and the arguments that have been made. I would be much more comfortable if the minister would say, in summing up, what further action she intends to take as a result of this discussion. However, I share the concerns that annulling the instruments might have a knock-on impact.

Last week, Professor McHarg provided a number of suggestions or a range of options for exploring this issue with the UK Government. To what extent has the Government considered that paper? It would be helpful to understand the cabinet secretary’s intention as to what will form the basis of her discussions with the UK Government.

I used the word “abandoned”—and I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about that—because I think that people feel that the bill has been abandoned for this session of Parliament. I think that it is fair to say that we will not have a bill this session. That is certainly the language that has been used to me by human rights organisations, and I am just trying to relay that back.

I absolutely accept what the cabinet secretary has said about the need for a renewed relationship. That is important, and we have heard a lot of evidence about avenues that could be explored. However, I am trying to understand what honest conversations the cabinet secretary has had, in the three years between the UNCRC judgment and now, with the stakeholders that we have talked about in which she has said what she has just said to me about the need for further work to be done, and what avenues she has explored. I might well talk about one in particular, but it would be helpful for the committee to understand what work has been undertaken during the three-year period.

Will the member take an intervention?

In closing the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, I will return to some of the themes that we opened with. Anas Sarwar, Patrick Harvie and others opened with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on poverty in Scotland that was released yesterday morning. The report makes it clear that we face significant challenges on poverty in this country. As many members around the chamber have said, it is a sobering read, which makes it clear that the UK and Scottish Governments have been called on to step up and outline how they intend to go further.

Many people in the anti-poverty sector were pleased to see the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Shirley-Anne Somerville, launch and speak about that work together. That is very much the spirit in which Scottish Labour wanted to engage in this debate on challenge poverty week.

The Scottish Government was presented with a chance to spend valuable parliamentary time debating the tangible actions that we could take across the Parliament. For example, we could have debated the asks of Shelter and Engender, which this week published research that shows how the housing emergency disproportionately impacts women. We could have debated the work of One Parent Families Scotland and other organisations that aim to empower single parents to achieve sustainable and well-paid employment. We could have debated how we might bring about a new approach to dealing with public sector debt, to help families with financial struggles, which Aberlour has called for. We could have debated those issues and many others.

However, in its motion, the Government chose a very narrow focus for the debate, which I suggest has been disrespectful to the third sector organisations—

The cabinet secretary does not need a miraculous intervention. She needs to read the letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to confirm the extension of the household support fund, and the information that came from the House of Commons library that confirms £41 million of consequentials to the Scottish budget.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?