Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We heard that from the Economy and Fair Work Committee. There should be proactive co-production and co-design—rather than unions having to just react in what is a worrying period for some in relation to the sustainability of jobs—with the opportunity to create many more well-paid fair work opportunities.

I will pick up on a comment that Edward McHardy made, that we would not want to have another 15 annexes to the climate change plan and that we want to be sure that ordinary people in communities can understand it.

The deputy convener also asked about all the disaggregated data. I suspect that, as Mr Stewart said, very few people read the plan in the first place, although I am sure that his constituents have.

Is there any chance that, despite all the extra detail that the committee is asking for, we could get a slimmed-down, jargon-free, accessible, practical, realistic and tangible plan that the public could engage with in a meaningful way? You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t, cabinet secretary. You slim it down too much, and we criticise you. You pad it out too much, and we criticise you. It is about getting the balance right, but could there be multiple versions to make the plan more accessible?

Jess Pepper established the Climate Café network across Scotland. She and others told the committee that it is important to ensure that communities have the capacity to engage proactively and meaningfully in relation to what climate change means for them, and that they can do so in a way that can benefit them and which enables them to embrace the process. However, they also wanted to make sure that there was enough resource to ensure that that community capacity could be built up over a long period. Do you have any reflections on that?

Mark Ruskell has exhausted most of the taxonomy questions, which is relatively new for me to see. I take no credit for the development of the climate change taxonomy, cabinet secretary, but I can look at the capital taxonomy of the budget and see that, for example, £543 million is earmarked as negative high or low expenditure, and £2.9 billion is positive high or low. We get a breakdown of where the money will go and the impact of it, but there is a narrative around that. There could be essential spend under the negative high category—it could be an essential road safety project or a resilience project that just needs to be done. What is next for the taxonomy? There needs to be more of a narrative that explains that, sometimes, the Government just has to do things that do not always fit in the budget line that you want them to go in, which would be positive on the taxonomy front. There should be more understanding of what is next and a narrative around some of it.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will reflect on some of the evidence that we have heard during our budget scrutiny. We heard from a variety of anti-poverty and child poverty groups. When those groups come to Parliament, they say really positive things about the Scottish Government’s investment in tackling child poverty and they commend direct action that is making a real difference, but they also talk about the statutory child poverty targets and they want clarity about what a credible pathway to delivery on those targets would look like. Will you say a little more about where there is strong success and where we are falling a little short of those targets? What big ideas are under way to drive us towards meeting those targets?

I think that there is good will across the committee for the regulations. I have just seen in my notes, and I think that you mentioned it, cabinet secretary, that similar regulations were approved at the UK level a few months ago, so there appears to be clear alignment in the UK with what we are doing here. Will there be a joint approach to monitoring the impact of the regulations? We do not want these emergency crises to happen, but we know that they do, so will there be a joint approach to monitoring the impact of the policy in the years ahead?

I just wanted to give the cabinet secretary the opportunity to put that on the record.

Notwithstanding any underlying structural issues and criteria for how the child maintenance service and other aspects of the system work, is the Scottish Government and its local authority and third sector partners well placed to offer tailored advice and support, even though that is not their responsibility? If the UK Government were to provide a quantum of £X million—I will let you fill in the blank for what the X would be—for the Scottish Government and its partners to pursue a strategy on advice, is that the kind of innovation that you would happily discuss with it, notwithstanding the fact that you would rather just control everything here in Scotland in the first place?

I may agree with those sentiments, but I am of course scrutinising the Scottish Government. What I am hearing is that the Scottish Government remains open to being constructive in this area, despite the fact that it takes two to tango, as you have said, and we are not getting there, thus far.

I will stay positive in my final question, however. The Child Poverty Action Group suggested that

“there is scope for serious joint working”—[Official Report, Social Justice and Social Security Committee, 15 January 2026; c 25.]

between the Scottish and UK Governments in a range of areas. CPAG gave the examples of housing and childcare. I will not ask you anything specific, but do you wish to reflect on that suggestion? Is there anything that you would like to put on the record in that regard?

I appreciate that tone, cabinet secretary. I have no further questions.

My next question was going to be about where not only social security payments but a range of other services and supports sit in the context of the Scottish Government’s spending review. Are you confident that the spending review will take account of our ambitions to meet our 2030 targets?