Chamber and committees

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.

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.

It is encouraging that the cabinet secretary continues to seek engagement on the UK child poverty strategy, which is important. I note her comments about the delay to the strategy’s publication, but she will recognise that Governments often have to take more time in order to understand the work that they are doing. For example, publication of the Scottish Government’s medium-term financial strategy has been delayed again. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has had a number of things to say about that, and its delay has an impact on what we are discussing this morning.

The scope of the UK task force is very important. The cabinet secretary knows my view on the two-child limit: the UK Government should act on that. However, as with any task force, any proposed measures have to be paid for, and I think that that is part of the reason why more time is needed. The Scottish Government, which includes the cabinet secretary, has opposed all the UK Government’s budgetary and taxation decisions—all the revenue-raising measures in the budget have been opposed. I am keen to understand her view on how we should pay for some of the interventions if she is not in favour of the tax-raising measures in the UK budget.

Given what you have said about the Scottish Government’s investment in whole-family wellbeing and employability services, do you expect the poverty rate for lone parent families to decrease over the period in trying to meet those targets?

I know that colleagues will talk about data and that we have already spoken about the child payment—I think that we are all agreed on its importance and on some of the anecdotal evidence that has been raised—but I have a final question under this theme on the modelling that the Government is using.

A year ago, many of your colleagues—and, I think, you, as the cabinet secretary—were speaking about 100,000 children being lifted out of poverty. That was shown not to be the case. I think that the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Government in that regard. The figure was then corrected to 60,000 children being kept out of poverty, and we are now at a figure of 40,000 children being kept out of poverty. Will you clarify whether the 40,000 figure is the accurate one in the Government’s view? How certain are you of the modelling that you are now using to establish that figure? Everyone around the table wants to make sure that we are dealing with accuracy, because it is such an important policy.

On the Scottish Government’s policy on the two-child limit and the background work that has been done on that, we have had a lot of conversation this morning about the need to take decisions over a period of time. The two-child limit was brought in in 2017, and the Government’s policy was that it was not going to mitigate the impact of the limit because it said that it could not. It then introduced the policy that we are discussing this morning, and the cabinet secretary gave figures on the modelling on the impact that that will have on Scotland.

I have asked a number of times when the policy decision was made by the Government. I asked at committee when we originally discussed the proposal, and I know that the finance secretary was asked at the Finance and Public Administration Committee when that decision was made. I have had to ask parliamentary questions, and I have made freedom of information requests, but I cannot get an answer to exactly when the decision was made. It is important in the context of understanding what work on the issue was being done prior to that decision. Will the cabinet secretary put on the record when she took the decision and, if she is not willing to do that, will she say why she is not willing to do that?