Will the member give way?

I find it very disappointing that the minister has chosen to politicise the issue in the context of the general election in the way that she has done. She mentioned the national care service. Will the national care service as proposed bring a single penny of extra money into front-line health and social care? Does she recognise that there is a serious challenge in supporting and recruiting staff to care jobs, and that her constant refusal to commit to £15 an hour for care workers—a rate which is outlined and supported by the trade unions, including the GMB, and by the Labour Party—is having a real detrimental impact that is adding to the current pressures?

Will the member take an intervention?

As we have already heard, there is no issue that we debate in this chamber that is more important than the work to tackle child poverty; all parliamentarians desire to reduce the levels of child poverty.

I heard what the First Minister said about the desire for consensus in the middle of an election campaign. There will be many debates on the approach that we take to child poverty, but it is important that we start this afternoon with a degree of consensus and that we look to see where we can find common ground.

Back in 2017, every member of this Parliament committed to binding targets to reduce child poverty by 2030. Watching those debates back, I think that that was Parliament at its best: we decided that we should set a target and aspire to do all that we can to meet it. Of course, many actions have been taken that the Scottish Labour Party has supported. The Scottish child payment is an example of that.

Currently, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee is really getting into the detail of the impact of the Scottish child payment across Scotland and the difference that it is making. In that evidence, we have had a lot of qualitative data on the impact that it is making and have heard about many positive experiences, but we need further quantitative data on the scale of the impact.

I recognise that the Government is doing modelling, but it often says that the child payment lifts children out of poverty, whereas I think that the data shows that it keeps children out of poverty. It is clear that we need to have that additional data, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on that in her summing up.

It is important that we reflect on how we measure the Government’s progress towards the 2030 targets. Last week, the Poverty and Inequality Commission published its annual scrutiny report on the progress that the Government is making. We should be concerned by what is in that report, and I will share with members some of that. It said:

“In view of recent statistics and the scale and effects of actions taken over the last year, the Commission’s opinion is that it is unlikely that the interim targets will be met. Furthermore, without immediate and significant action, the Scottish Government will not meet the 2030 targets.”

It also said:

“Limited progress has been made ... Progress in other areas is slow or not evident at all ... The Scottish Government’s next progress report cannot just point to actions already taken nor propose more small-scale tests of change”,

and that

“such a fall, while not impossible, appears improbable.”

It is clear that the Poverty and Inequality Commission exists to mark the Government’s homework and to provide that level of scrutiny. Those calls on the Government to act further are clearly concerning.

Will the member take an intervention?

I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the framework document and more detail. The charter is a foundational document, and we would not want to see a sense that improving those times is not foundational to Social Security Scotland, but I caution that we have to be aware that it could be read like that. It would therefore be useful if the cabinet secretary said what detail will go into the charter measurement framework about waiting times, call times and those sorts of issues.

Good morning. The cabinet secretary knows, because we have had many exchanges on it, that I have been particularly interested in the lengthy processing times. Mr Wallace will be aware of that as well.

Generally, we have heard calls for target processing times to be set to give clients an expectation of when their claims will be processed. There might be a view that we are watering down our commitment in that space in the wording of the charter, given that we are changing the language around handling applications from

“as quickly as we can”.

I appreciate what the cabinet secretary will probably say about lived experience—that that phrase felt vague and perhaps could have had more detail behind it—but I am keen to get her sense of whether we are moving in the opposite direction in respect of clients having clearer timescales. What does she feel the impact will be of removing the commitment to handle applications

“as quickly as we can”?

I noticed that there was a goal in the report to review and refresh memorandums of understanding and partnership agreements but that that was not met due to reprioritisation. Can you explain to the committee what was prioritised over that and provide some examples of things that were not met?

That is why that scrutiny is important, as people will want to ensure that those processing times are improving. I do not know whether Mr Wallace wants to add anything from the agency’s point of view.

Sure. I am happy just to hear from Mr Wallace.