 Felly, ddifrwng yn gwaith. I welcome to this meeting of the convener's group. I have received no apologies. I think we're waiting for a colleague, but I'm sure she'll be along shortly. This meeting is in public, and your microphones will be operated automatically. I welcome the First Minister to the convener's group. The meeting will be around an hour and a half. We've agreed to focus today on the Scottish government's programme for government, ond, byddych i gael i siwr i wneud'r bod gyfwyddiadau cywyddiadau i brood gyfer y Gwyddiadau Cymru oherwydd, ac i gael i gael i gael i chi gyfrifio ar ein busnes oedd cael ei hynny, ac rwy'n wedi newid i gael i chi'r gweinydd iawn o'r cyflymau. Ond, os gallwch chi wedi weld cyfrifio ar gyfer eich busnes, mae'n dwyllfa'r cwysin hwnnw i gael i'ch gael i'ch gael ei gael i gael i gael i gael i'ch gael siwyddiadau cyfrifio ar gyfer eich busnes oedd. As with the previous meeting with the First Minister, it would be helpful if we could start with some general issues of interest to the committees before moving on to the more specific ones falling under the programme for government, but therefore start with some questions around transparency and accountability. I invite Martin Whitefield, convener of standards procedures and public appointments committee. I'm very grateful, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. You may be glad to know that I only have one question lodge. Which means I'll take about 45 minutes over it. I think that was the agreement. My question is in relation really, as I'm sure you will expect, about the scrutiny that this Parliament can give the Scottish Government, which I know you have indicated in the past that you're very much welcome. But in particular I was going to ask you about the committee system that we operate here, because obviously the committee system is the backbone of the process of holding the government account, the scrutiny of bills and other items. And it is the intention of my committee to look at some depth into the work of committees, probably principally in relation to bills. And really it was just to give you an opportunity to firstly put on the record, I hope, your confirmation of agreement of the importance of that element of our system in the Parliament, but also to say whether you have any concerns at the moment about the committee system. Can I thank Martin Redfield for the question? Can I thank you, convener, for the opportunity to be here today? I will also try to keep my answers brief, given as you may be able to tell. I am battling a very serious case of the man flu, as things stand, but I'll do my very best to power through. In relation to Martin Redfield's question, I'm very interested in the work of the committee, very interested indeed. Our Parliament, I should say, is of course still a very young Parliament, and it's right that its procedures continue to evolve. In fact, just after the back of summer recess we know there's been some tightening up of the time taken for questions and answers, for example, so we can get more questions and more scrutiny of the government, which is something that I absolutely welcome. We should, as a Parliament, be absolutely open to continual evolution. As a Government, we'll co-operate fully with the piece of work from the committee. I think that the committee system has absolutely got its strengths. We can see that in terms of how committees around this table have significantly influenced legislation, often ensuring that the Government compromises and makes compromises where it can. I am absolutely open for any discussions proposals on how that system is improved. When there are specifics, I can give an absolute guarantee to Martin Redfield that we'll engage constructively. There may be some recommendations that we agree with, some that we disagree with, but we'll be upfront about that. I certainly welcome that piece of work from the committee. My question is a very straightforward one with regard to budget transparency. At present, during budget debates, members often quote different figures like apples and oranges in relation to whether spend has increased or decreased. In the interests of transparency, will the Scottish Government present alongside the Scottish budget details of what was actually spent the year before the current year, details of what is being spent in the current year and what the planned spending will be in the next financial year so that Parliament can accurately compare this information? That's very open to that. Kenneth Gibson has made a couple of occasions, and it's a very fair challenge to us indeed. We want to be as transparent as we possibly can. I'm very proud of the decisions that we've made in relation to our budget and particularly in relation to progressive taxation. I'll be very open to doing what we can to publish that level of detail, because Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right. Transparency will absolutely help in relation to some of the arguments that are made around our budget and taxation. Thank you very much. I'm going to invite Edward Mountain, the committee's net zero energy and transport committee. Good afternoon, First Minister. Obviously, how we achieve net zero is critical to the remit of the net zero committee. Can you explain how you will show the Government's aim to reach their net zero budget in a bill? And when the first bill will be, where this is shown in detail, so that it aligns with your Government's objectives? First and foremost, I would say that, of course, we're committed to producing our climate change plan. We have to do that. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary stood up last week on the back of the UK Government's announcements. That may well have an implication for when we produce that plan, because we have to understand what the impact is of UK Government announcements on our own plans, particularly in relation to electric vehicles and facing out of petrol and diesel cars. The climate change plan will give some detail of how we intend to meet those targets. In terms of future budgets, of course, in our budget at the end of this year, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance will make it really clear how we intend to invest in our net zero commitments that will help us to achieve our net zero targets. First Minister, you mentioned the climate change plan, and I'm aware of what the Cabinet Secretary said last week. It was probably the most open secret in this Parliament that it wouldn't be produced by Christmas this year, which was when it was forecasted. My question to you is, when will it be produced? Will it be produced in time to allow the climate change committee to have full sight of it before they do that and your report to this Parliament? It would certainly be the intention to give the climate change committee as much notice as we possibly can. I don't think that it was inevitable that it was going to be delayed. It's not my reading of the situation. I can see that Edward Mountain has a different view of that. I mean, in all seriousness, we have to understand the implications, particularly around the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles. I think that Edward Mountain would accept that. If the UK Government has a different position, then what does that mean for, for example, the Internal Markets Act? What does it mean, for example, for those who may purchase a car from down south and therefore be used in Scotland? What are the implications of that? What I want to say unequivocally is that our position remains that we will not shy back from our own commitments. We are very committed to the various different timetables and milestones that we have to meet our interim targets. I want us to be seen as a climate leader. That's in quite stark contrast to what we saw from the UK Government last week, so we have no intentions of rolling back. I think that the committee that Edward Mountain chairs does a very good job of holding the Scottish Government to account in relation to the fact that we haven't met those targets recently and narrowly missed the last set of targets that came out. There is a job for all of us to do in ensuring that Scotland continues to show that level of leadership. Richard Leonard, convener of Public Audit Committee. Thank you, convener. First Minister, when you attended the convener's group in May, you said that you would, and I will quote, you absolutely commit to reviewing and examining what more the Government can do to be as transparent as possible. Can he tell us three things that you have reviewed and examined over the last four months? I don't have a list of the things that we have examined. One aspect that I have asked the Minister for Parliamentary Business to look at and engage with even external stakeholders is how we ensure that we are meeting our obligations to Britain parliamentary questions and FOIs. I know that there has been some considerable external commentary as well as internal commentary in this Parliament about what more we can do in relation to meeting those targets around freedom of information requests. I have asked the Minister for Parliamentary Business to look at that. There was a serious need for us. There was long-standing FOIs that had not been answered and I delegated, in fact, made it a point to discuss in Cabinet how we quickly respond to those outstanding freedom of information requests. I suppose that the third thing was during the course of this summer that there was a fair bit of understandable media attention on credit card purchases from the Scottish Government, so I asked the permanent secretary to look at the processes. That is still under way. I have had an initial response back from the permanent secretary on his examination of credit card purchases from the Government and how we ensure that we are transparent and that any spend that is being made is appropriate. Those might be three areas, but I am sure that there is certainly more that we have done in the space of the past four months, which I am happy to write to the convener. That can be passed on to Mr Leonard. Last week, the Public Audit Committee took evidence from Transport Scotland on the Barry Smith KC inquiry. In the interests of transparency, will you publish today the terms of reference for that inquiry? I will certainly look into whether we are able to do that. I will explore whether that is possible. I genuinely believe, particularly on the issue that Richard Leonard raises, that we should be as transparent as we possibly can be. I will certainly look into that and come back to committee if we are able to publish the terms of reference. We now move on to the Verity House agreement. I will invite Ariane Burgess, convener of local government housing and planning committee to take forward the questions in this section. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. This is a question around Government accountability. The committee welcomes the progress being made toward a new deal with local government as set out in the Verity House agreement. With the significant devolution of power to local government, how does the First Minister envisage the role of national government changing and how will Parliament be able to hold the Government to account for delivering on shared priorities when so much decision making will rest with local government? It is an exceptionally important question and I am grateful to Ariane Burgess for asking it. The Verity House agreement, for me, was exceptionally important to get over the line in the first 100 days. It is safe to say that the relationship between national and local government could be improved. I am pleased that the Verity House agreement is a demonstration of our collective desire to improve that relationship and I very much believe in the spheres of government as opposed to the tiers of government. I am very much believe in local by default, national by exception. For me, there is a genuine question, which costs absolutely except around accountability and ensuring that, as we listen, for example, ring fencing, there is a shared understanding of the outcomes that we each want to achieve and how we each held to account for the achievement of those outcomes. Having signed the Verity House agreement, that is the very beginning of the process. There will now be a period of quite a number of months and, as we go through it, it may even take years to ensure that there is the appropriate mechanisms in place to be able to scrutinise those outcomes. One of the key areas that we are working on with COSLA at the moment is the accountability framework. It is being very much developed in partnership with our friends and colleagues in local government. I fully intend that accountability framework be shared with Parliament and with bodies that hold local government to account as soon as practical. That work is very much under way, and I think that accountability framework will be important so that Parliament can hold national government to account in relation to those outcomes. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, First Minister. I am still focusing on the Verity House agreement, particularly in child poverty. I know that that is something that is high on your agenda coming from the last programme for government. How does the Verity House agreement affect the Scottish Government's approach to tackling child poverty? Ultimately, we both have a shared endeavour to tackle child poverty. Certainly, in my discussions with COSLA, it is an issue of the highest priority for them, and we are both committed to that. I think that that is where the accountability framework is going to be really important. We can all talk at very high levels about what we want to do to tackle child poverty. The member will be very aware of the four targets that we have set around poverty that we have set ourselves as a Government. The agreement that we have in place with the Verity House agreement sets out principles about how we will collaborate together to tackle poverty. It is very much central to the Verity House agreement. COSLA and Solace bodies are well known to conveners. They are very much represented on our child poverty programme board as well. The accountability framework will, given a very transparent way, detail the outcomes that we are hoping to achieve and how we can be held to account in relation to that. I can give an absolute assurance to the member that child poverty is a shared endeavour and a shared priority between ourselves and local government. It seems that my manflow may have spread to others, which I am very sorry about. We are going to move into some of the broad areas that are covered by the programme for government, and we are going to start in the area of economy. I call Clare Baker, the convener of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. The First Minister published her annual accounts today and recorded losses that are largely attributed to Circularity Scotland. Can I ask what lessons the Government has learned about the influence of government policy on bank decision making when we heard Willie Watt in front of the committee before recess? He did say that the bank would be a reflect on the process that was undertaken to give out this loan. There are a number of things that are unpacked in that question. First of all, having met Willie Watt, the chief executive of the Scottish National Investment Bank, I think that they are doing a very good job there. It is not unexpected that there would be a level of loss in this phase of the bank's life cycle. The Scottish National Investment Bank, one of the things that it is tasked with doing, is de-risking investment, particularly when it comes to net zero, particularly when it comes to new and innovative technologies. When I speak to business time and time and time again, they talk about helping to de-risk their investments in a greater appetite to share risk. That is right, particularly when it comes to new technologies. It has to be a calculated risk. It cannot just be cavalier, and I believe it is a calculated risk that is taken by the Scottish National Investment Bank. The Scottish Government has to allow the Scottish National Investment Bank to use its expertise to decide where to invest the funding that it has. Of course, they have done a good job in leveraging significant private investment in that regard. In terms of lessons learned in relation to the deposit return scheme in Circularity Scotland, there are a number of lessons to learn. I am happy to give a very detailed written correspondence to Clare Baker, but what I would say is that it is a source of great frustration. I want to go over all the history of where we are with the deposit return scheme and where we have ended up. The Prime Minister's most recent announcements give me little hope that there will be a UK-aligned scheme by the time that the UK Government had suggested that there would be in 2025. We have had our own scheme, virtually torpedoed, and no UK scheme, I do not think, at sight. It was right that SNP invested, and it was a decision for them to invest in Circularity Scotland at the time. I am just frustrated that we have ended up in the position that we are in and unable to take forward a Scotland-only scheme that was ready to go and would have been very helpful in relation to reducing litter on our streets. The committee has followed up those questions with SNP ourselves. The other issue in relation to SNP was the legislation that established the bank. It was very clear in its expectations around gender inequality in the financial sector, and the Government has a number of commitments around women and enterprise. In the discussions that you have had with the chairman and with the bank, do you make it clear the expectations from Government and from Parliament that they will be addressing gender inequality and supporting women within businesses, and they will be recognising the range of businesses that women in particular are invested in? Yes. Those discussions will be reiterated in most of the discussions that we have with the Scottish National Investment Bank and other stakeholders. I was in a meeting with representatives of the financial sector as part of our FISGAD group. I am pleased to say that there was a number of women in the financial sector industry that they represented, but more importantly, in agreement with the group that there is more work to be done in that regard. Of course, I know that Clare Baker will know about Anna Stewart's excellent work that she has done on women in entrepreneurship. We are very committed to taking forward the recommendations in Anna Stewart's excellent piece of work. We have made some considerable progress when it comes to the support that we are offering to offer women in entrepreneurship into work. That is why a key commitment of my programme for government was to ensure that we expand our childcare offer, because although that helps families in the round, we know that it disproportionately impacts in a positive way women's ability to get back into the workforce, which is good for women, good for families and good for the economy as well. The mandate letter to Neil Gray highlighted the Fair Work sectoral agreement. I appreciate an update on where we are with those, but it would be particularly retail, as we did an inquiry into town centres. I would probably have better writing to the member in more detail, but that is exactly why I found it important to raise that issue explicitly within the mandate letters, which is a new innovation that I have brought forward in order to ensure that all of the cabinet secretaries in my government are focused on delivery. I know about the town centre inquiry that has been done in the report that you published at the end of last year. We are very keen to continue to work with COSLA around the town centre action plan and solidify multi-year long-term funding for town centre regeneration in Scotland. I am happy to write to the member in more detail on some of the specifics that she asks in that regard. We are much sticking with the economy theme, and we are going to invite back in Kenneth Gibson. Thank you very much, convener. Funding public services requires thriving and growing economy. What is the Scottish Government's long-term economic growth strategy to deliver fiscal sustainability? Are there huge demographic challenges that we face and a fiscal gap of around £1 billion as highlighted by the Scottish Fiscal Commission? We could spend hours answering that question. I won't, of course, as we don't have time. Again, if there's anything that Kenneth Gibson wishes in terms of specifics to follow on, we'll always be happy to provide further detail. I know that Kenneth Gibson is very familiar with the NSET, our national strategy for economic transformation. That's at the heart of our economic growth strategy. I was very clear in the programme for government. It was both an anti-poverty and pro-growth programme for government. There are a number of areas that we will look to invest in in Scotland. I believe that its economic growth will be powered by our net-zero opportunity. It's an incredible opportunity in relation to renewables, but we are blessed as a country with a number of sectors of great abundance. We know that our food and drink offer, for example, for the first time broke through the £6 billion barrier. We know that our life sciences sector is growing, and our space sector is booming. A number of industries in Scotland—agriculture, hospitality and tourism—are great opportunities to continue along our path in relation to economic growth. Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right to make mention of the demographic challenges. It's a source of great worry and concern. If there's something that gave me endless sleepless nights, it's that demographic challenge and workforce challenge that we're facing. I think that every single sector that I talk to, excuse me, both public and private sector, share with me concerns around that demographic challenge. Before we resolve it, I commend the detail of James Wither's review in relation to skills. The Government is seeking to ensure that we take forward a number of the recommendations in James Wither's review in relation to skills. That is clearly going to be important for us to understand the workforce of the present and the future and how we fill those gaps that clearly exist. We'll continue in relation to trying to attract talent from across the UK, and our talent migration and attraction service will be important to that. Although we obviously don't have the powers over migration, we'll do what we can to ensure that Scotland is an attractive place as possible and work with others to put forward sensible propositions to the UK Government around how their migration policies can better suit our needs. The very last thing that I would say is that when it comes to depopulation, there are areas and parts of the country where we have a real concern, remote rural island communities, and that's why we're, for example, producing a variety of different plans to tackle those depopulation issues and housing very much at the heart of those plans. Thank you very much. It's obviously a huge area. Clearly, I focus on skills, innovation, start-ups and research and development would certainly be of assistance. I want to move on to my second question, which is on taxation. The Finance Committee heard in a pre-budget 2425 evidence that both the United Kingdom and Scottish tax systems are complex and disjointed with no clear progressivity in either. For example, the marginal rate of tax due to the interaction of income tax and national insurance, and of course national insurance is not devolved, is actually higher in Scotland for someone earning £44,000 a year than someone earning £54,000. What is the Scottish Government's long-term taxation policy to provide certainty for taxpayers, progressivity and ensure that potential investors and public services can see into the future as to what their taxation policy is likely to be and therefore how it will impact upon them? There is so much to unpack in that question from Kenneth Gibson. I suppose that I would start by saying that I am not convinced or certainly don't agree that we haven't shown progressivity. I think that we have a progressive tax system. In Scotland, we are very proud of that progressive tax system. Of course, we have to be mindful of national insurance contributions and frankly we also have to be very mindful of what decisions the UK Government makes in relation to taxation. We are very alive and alert to the divergence that exists, and I don't have an issue with that divergence because it certainly demonstrates our progressive taxation system, but we have to be mindful because, if it gets to a certain point, there could be behavioural impacts that could be to our detriment and we ensure that there is appropriate analysis and modelling done in that regard. However, I don't flinch away from or shy away from the values of our taxation system, which essentially boils down to those who earn the most should pay the most. That's not something that I'm scared of, unashamedly and explicitly, putting on the record time again. We do believe in a progressive tax system. I believe that it was the IFS that said, due to our tax and changes that we've made in relation to social security, that those households in the 30 per cent lowest income households with a child are better off to the tune of about £2,000. That's testament to the decisions that we've made both in relation to taxation and social security. On the question of how we give certainty over the longer term, it's a very reasonable question for Kenneth Gibson, of course, to ask. It is a difficult one to answer because, as Kenneth Gibson has already said in his question, some of the factors that influence what we will do with taxation don't lie with us. Of course, the UK Government's own tax policy, if they choose to, as they did with Liz Truss's mini-budget, cut tax for the wealthy, then we have to be understanding and mindful of that. Doesn't mean that we'll change course. Of course, we didn't change course during the mini-budget, we're right not to change course during the disastrous mini-budget. Of course, we have to be mindful of what the UK Government does in that regard, but our central driving ethos will be a progressive tax system so we can invest in our public services. The Scottish Fiscal Commission, of course, does say that, because of the taxation policies that we've brought forward, we're having around £1 billion to spend and invest in our public services. Apologies. I'm going to have to move on. I'm going to move on to the issue of constitution and I call Claire Adamson, convener, constitution Europe, external affairs and culture committee. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, First Minister. The programme for government includes an on-going policy commitment to align with EU law. Previously, this was qualified as appropriate, but is now qualified as being where possible and meaningful. The scale of this task is very familiar to everyone sitting round this table today. Our committee has published an EU tracker that will help committees in their scrutiny process. Can you confirm that the policy commitment is set out in the continuity act? A statement of policy is that the Scottish ministers' default position is to align with EU law and how will the Scottish Government support the committees in scrutinising those decisions? That is absolutely the policy position around alignment where we can and where it is possible. We have to also be upfront, and we have been around where the limitations are in that regard. We absolutely wish to continue alignment as far as we possibly can. In terms of transparency, I am happy to continue to liaise with Claire Adamson, our committee. If there is anything further that we can do in and around transparency of alignment. In my recent visit to Brussels, I made it very clear to every single EU official that I spoke to that we want to continue that alignment so that when the day that Scotland does rejoin the European Union, that should help with that application process. I also think that it is the right thing to do because of the high standards that the EU often applied to a number of areas. I do not want to see us moving back from that one single bit, but I am more than happy to continue our discussion with the committee if there is anything further that we can do in and around being more transparent around that particular piece of work. Clif, thank you very much. We now move on to a broader theme under the hearing children. I am going to invite Cokab Stewart, convener of equality, human rights and civil justice committee, Cokab. The new UNCRC rights will only apply to acts of the Scottish Parliament and not to Westminster legislation or any amendments that Holyrood has made since. This will obviously put out of scope key acts including the Children's Scotland Act of 1995, Education Scotland Act as well. What does that mean practically for children in Scotland in terms of the UNCRC bill? Practically it means that we will not be able to give them the full range of coverage that we would have hoped to have done so with the incorporation of UNCRC. There will be many existing acts of the UK Parliament in areas, in devolved areas that impact on children rights that will not be subject to the compatibility duty. Of course, we had to have made the amendments to the legislation in a way that addressed the findings of the UK Supreme Court and tried to reduce so far as possible the risk of any further legal intervention from the UK Government and at the same time state legislation that is coherent. In terms of the practical implication of the adjustment of the scope of the duty, I suppose that that will become clearer over time once the bill has passed and the duty itself commences. From a Scottish Government perspective, we will continue to do what we can consider ways that we can support children, young people and the representatives to understand the new laws and consider what can be done within that legal framework to increase its scope in the future. I suppose that I was looking at the duties of the scope on duty bearers and the implications and rights holders around that. What work is the Scottish Government undertaking to consider how those changes to the UNCRC bill will have to be drafted into the Scottish human rights bill? What will that mean in practice for the people of Scotland? That is a very fair question indeed. We are obviously very mindful of the judgment from the courts and what implication I would have for the Scottish human rights bill, which I have to say is speaking to very imminent individuals like Professor Alan Miller, as he did a couple of weeks ago. There is great global interest in Scotland's human rights bill, but we will have to consider what the scope of that is. The duties that are currently proposed for that bill are different in nature to the compatibility duty in the UNCRC bill. They involve both procedural duties but also compliance duties. We will have to think carefully about the implications bearing in mind the nature of those duties and the last thing that I think any of us want is to go through the bill process only for there to be another legal challenge and risk having to go through a reconsideration phase and process once again. I am happy to keep the member. I am certain that the committee will be close to scrutinising the bill and I am happy to continue to liaise with her on those matters, but it is fair to say that we have to consider the court judgment when it comes to what we are doing in relation to the Scottish human rights bill. I am now going to invite whoever, convener, education children and young people committee. Good morning. Good afternoon rather, First Minister. As you are aware, our committee has taken a great deal of interest and behaviour in schools and has written to the cabinet secretary on the matter in advance of the first summit that took place earlier this month. Relationships and wellbeing in our schools is something that is vitally important to our committee. While we appreciate that there are summits being held, can I ask what support the Scottish Government intends to give teachers in the meantime to address the behavioural issues in our schools? I am thankful for the work that the committee has done in this regard to the convener for the interests that she has shown and she is right that the cabinet secretary for education has continued to take these issues up. We are liaising with our colleagues and local government to see what more we can do to support teachers and staff in relation to some of the concerning behaviour that we have seen. Whoever will also be aware that there is concern about the impact of the pandemic potentially on children and what that might have done in relation to behaviour, so we are keen to understand what is behind the reasons that we are seeing difficult behaviours that have been the focus of political attention, media attention and press attention. The other thing that we are very keen to do is to ensure that there is appropriate counselling available pre-crisis interventions that are accessible to every secondary school in the country. We will continue to fund those interventions to understand the anxiety and concerns of our young people, which I hope will help in relation to behaviours. The reason for the summit is to bring a whole range of stakeholders, including political representatives, to see what more we could possibly do, so there is detailed consideration being given in that regard. I've got another question on a slightly different topic, First Minister. It's on the promise. What will the cabinet's authority on the promise announced in the programme for government will be looking at? When will it meet and who will be involved in it and what does a lot of questions there? Apologies. What does the First Minister hope to see this group achieve? When can we likely expect that? A number of things are right in that question. We haven't finally determined the absolute membership of the sub-committee on keeping the promise, but the entire purpose of that sub-committee is to ensure that we have all the appropriate ministers, cabinet secretaries and officials around that table, so that we will cross-government focus on not just keeping the promise but delivering the promise in relation to what will be overarching aim. In that regard, the overarching aim will be to make sure that we keep the promise. That is a commitment that we have made. We are very aware of the challenge that the oversight board presented to the Government, and we have to make sure that we are back on track to meet that commitment in relation to the interim commitments but also in relation to 2030. We will, of course, as a sub-committee, take advice from, for example, the independent adviser Fiona Duncan in relation to the promise. I don't have the detail of when the bill will be ready to bring forward that sort of work very much under way, but I'm more than happy to furnish whoever with more detail, not just on legislation but on the detail of the sub-committee once we have it under way. The work on the promise doesn't rely on the sub-committee to be put together. We're making progress in relation to the promise. If we take a step back, there is noticeable progress that has been made in relation to the promise of fewer young people in care, for example. We won't wait for the sub-committee to necessitate that action, but the sub-committee will bring a cross-government focus, which I hope will be welcome by all. At our committee, we've just completed an inquiry into childcare and parental employment. It was a welcome announcement within the programme for government. A number of measures aimed at tackling childcare, including six local authorities, to develop childcare from nine months to the end of primary school. Pilots aimed at recruiting 1,000 childbinders and expanding the eligibility of two-year-olds for early learning in childcare. Do you feel that the childcare expansion is large enough and quick enough to have an impact on child poverty? It's a really fair question. I've got every confidence that not just the childcare expansion but all of the initiatives that we're bringing forward to tackle child poverty collectively will make a significant difference in relation to child poverty. We've seen, of course, from figures released in the last few months that are estimated through our work that 90,000 children are set to be lifted out of poverty this year. We're not complacent about that. We know there's more to do. We know that the very serious warnings from experts that the Government needs to do more to remain on track in order to meet our child poverty targets. That's a challenge that we take very seriously. If I combine all of what we're doing in relation to tackling child poverty, I'm confident that it certainly moves us in the right direction. It's why the budget that will be announced to this Parliament at the end of this year, I don't think that I'm giving any surprises away when I say that there will be a significant focus on reducing child poverty in particular. That will require some difficult decisions to be made around issues, potentially around taxation, targeting our resources in order to ensure that we focus on those that need it the most. I'll move down the line to Audry Nicol, convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. My question follows on from the chamber debate that the Criminal Justice Committee led last week on tackling online child sexual exploitation. Stakeholders have described how the threat, complexity and severity of offending continues to grow and that tackling this issue goes beyond just one of law enforcement. This week, a three-day international conference is taking place here in Edinburgh to consider the global prevalence of child sexual exploitation. While taking evidence, the Criminal Justice Committee heard calls for the development of a sexual harm strategy for Scotland, however to date that has not been completed. Given the cross-cutting and complex nature of the issue, will the First Minister give further consideration to the development of an overarching sexual harm strategy as highlighted by stakeholders who are working in this very complex space? I will absolutely give consideration of that. I know that this is an issue of great interest and worry to members right across the chamber, regardless of whether you are a parent or not. I can't think of anything worse as a parent than my child being exploited in that way. I know that the minister in relation to the debate that took place last week gave a multi-faceted approach on tackling child exploitation and child sexual abuse. We absolutely agree that there is a complex issue of the cross-cutting nature of evolving issues that requires a very strategic and co-ordinated approach. I am also keen to work with the UK Government on the issue where we can. I think that the UK Government and the Scottish Government have worked well on issues such as human trafficking. In the past, I am happy to explore what more we can do on that and in that regard. In August, we advised stakeholders that the member will be aware of our intention to establish a new strategic advisory group to review and further develop an approach to preventing and tackling all forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation, including online exploitation and abuse. The group will consider whether national strategy would help to underpin and strengthen work already under way. In short, we will absolutely give that consideration. We are going to move on to, broadly, under the environment theme. I am going to invite Finlay Carson, convener, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. How will the Scottish Government achieve its vision for agriculture through the much anticipated agriculture bill? It is much anticipated. We are keen to ensure that we work alongside our agriculture community to provide a level of stability. I am not going to get into all the arguments around Brexit or not, but we can probably all agree that being part of the EU scheme when we were members of the European Union allowed a level of certainty around longer-term funding, which we just do not have at the moment. We will look to see how the bill can provide a level of stability around longer-term funding, which will be really important to our agricultural community. The second area, which is of great importance to our farmers and those involved in agriculture industries, is ensuring that we create a sustainable future for farming in particular. Therefore, from 2025 in particular, how do we use the subsidies, the payments that are made and how do we use those in order to further our collective net zero aims and net zero ambitions? We can do that in a way that is phased and in a way that, as I say, is done in conjunction with, as opposed to simply imposed upon farmers and those in our agricultural industries. Finlay Carson is right to say as much anticipated and I'll lead to the fact that it will be introduced imminently. We had a further discussion about the agriculture bill at Cabinet just this week, so that bill will come forward imminently. I think that a lot of the agricultural sector will take exception to the word subsidy. I hope that we are moving away from there and need support for food production. Given the funding that you touched on funding and currently there is a unique situation that exists with regards to ring ffencing funding that comes from the UK Government and we have had that guaranteed for the last seven years specifically for agriculture. What thought is the Scottish Government given to introducing multi-year funding such as the Welsh Government has done to protect agriculture funding, particularly given the significant role that agriculture is currently playing, but more importantly will play in delivering food security, climate change and enhanced biodiversity? It's very favourable to looking at what certainty we can give to multi-year funding. I think that it's necessary, it's required, it gives the sector a level of stability in certainty, which, as I say, I'm not entirely convinced that that has been given to them since our exit from the European Union. It's absolutely important and it's an issue of consideration as we bring forward the bill. We're going to move on to the health theme now and I'm going to invite Claire Hoche, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. Good afternoon First Minister. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recently took evidence on the NHS and social care winter planning. The importance of the adult social care workforce and winter planning was quite rightly emphasised by many stakeholders, by officials and the Cabinet Secretary. The recruitment and retention of the social care workforce was raised in written and oral evidence. Can the First Minister advise what work needs to be undertaken to support the implementation of the commitment to a pay-up lift for the adult social care workforce, as outlined in the programme for government, and how it's anticipated that this will benefit the workforce in the sector? First Minister. It's an issue of great complexity and one that, if Claire Hoche wishes, she can come back to me if there's further detail that she wishes. In the interests of brevity, I'll try to cover just the key salient points. Pay is absolutely an issue, so everybody that we talk to in social care will tell us that they are in a very competitive labour market. They will often be losing people from social care and adult social care in particular to a whole host of sectors, from retail to the NHS to many other sectors. That's why it was important for me in the programme for government to be able to signal that from April next year we will give a significant pay-up lift. That comes in the back of the fact that we've already seen an increase to a minimum of £10.90 per hour from April this year, in line with the real living wage rate. That minimum pay represents an almost 15 per cent increase for those workers in the last two years. Let me be absolutely honest, I've heard from the sector too that they feel that that pay-up lift should have been made at the time of the programme for government announcement. I wish we could have done that, but given the significant financial pressures that we are under, that just is not possible. However, I completely understand why the sector would want us to make that investment now. I hear the sector in terms of some of its frustrations and even disappointment that that uplift hasn't happened immediately. The other issue that I would point to is terms and conditions. Pay is of course important. I think that it's probably the number one factor, but terms and conditions are important. We have a group that is looking at fair work in social care. There are some further actions that we can take in relation to fair work in social care, which are really important. Career progression is usually important as well. That's why I'm absolutely committed to the national care service. It's not the panacea to all of the issues that we face in social care, but it will greatly help in terms of pay, terms and conditions. The sector of bargaining, ethical commissioning, and all of those issues will help in relation to having a thriving social care sector. One that is absolutely vital. Social care is important in its own right, but we know that it's important in order to help us with the NHS recovery as well. I'm going to move on to another subject, if I may. The joint committee on tackling drug deaths and drug harm met yesterday. As you can imagine, there was a great deal of discussion about the establishment of a safe consumption facility pilot, which I believe was approved this morning by authorities in Glasgow. Unfortunately, the minister was unwell and unable to answer questions yesterday. Can I ask the First Minister if he can provide an update on plans for the Glasgow City Facility? What community engagement and consultation will be done both before and during the pilot process? Importantly, that was raised with the committee yesterday. How the Scottish Government will ensure those with lived and living experience will be included in the development and evaluation of the pilot? I thank Clearhockey for an exceptionally important question. I've seen the news today that Glasgow has approved a safer drug consumption facility. It's a decision I very much welcome. I also welcome the Lord Advocate's most recent statement in relation to prosecution policy in this regard as well. I'm very grateful to Glasgow for moving at pace. Let me say unequivocally that the Scottish Government is ready to stand alongside Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership and our colleagues within local government to advance this proposition as quickly as we possibly can, obviously within the confines of the pilot that was proposed and received that statement of prosecution policy from the Lord Advocate. That extends to, for example, how we can provide funding support for that safer drug consumption facility. It will be for Glasgow to take forward and I have no doubt in the discussions that we as a Government have had with Glasgow thus far that they are very mindful of taking the community alongside us and alongside them and also in taking forward the views of those with lived experience. I think that it's appropriate for me to pay tribute to the likes of Peter Cracken and others who have spoken about their own experience in this regard and have, frankly, pushed us all to take more actions in the face of an unacceptable drug death crisis. While I was in New York primarily for climate week, I did take some time to speak to the New York State Commissioner for Health for the Department of Health, Dr Svan. He had mentioned to me that his experience of having safer drug consumption facilities in New York for the last 18 months, I believe, was that it was imperative to try to take the public with you as best you possibly could. The second point that he made, which is one that I know that Glasgow is absolutely committed to, is that it isn't just about the safer drug consumption facility. It's also about all the services that are co-located and wrapped around that. I believe that New York is going to be publishing some data from the first 18 months of the safer drug consumption facility. That's been promised to be shared with us in the Scottish Government, and I'm sure we can then share with Glasgow, but it certainly seems to be a helpful and positive experience in New York as being one tool as part of a wider effort to reduce drug deaths. I think we're going to stick with this theme. I'm going to move it over and invite back in. Yes indeed, I am going to stay with this theme, and I would follow up from the comments that Claire Hoge asked around the Lord Advocate's recent statement and obviously the news today in relation to safe consumption rooms. I would also like to ask about wider questions that this has raised regarding support for people using such a facility with particular regard to their continued contact with organised crime to source their drug of use. Obviously there is consensus that a public health approach is the right approach in Scotland. However, I wonder if the First Minister can outline how the Scottish Government might take account of the issue within the safe consumption room pilot in such a way that provides a holistic response that in time might support the elimination of the need for individuals to maintain links with organised crime in such a situation. I'm interested in the comments that the First Minister made about the work in New York. I don't have the Lord Advocate's statement in front of me, but certainly from memory. The Lord Advocate was very precise and focused on the language that she used. Of course, she mentioned that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute for safe consumption. It is a simple possession offences that are taken place in the pilot. That is a narrowly defined pilot in Glasgow in relation to safer drug consumption facilities. The Lord Advocate made it clear that it does not impact on prosecution outwith that quite narrow definition. The work that I know, which Nicolle was very familiar with in relation to the Serious Organised Crime Task Force, will continue in relation to those criminal gangs who seek to exploit people's vulnerabilities and look to profit from the misery of communities. That work will continue. I would suggest that it is unaffected by the statement of prosecution policy from the Lord Advocate. We take a public health approach when it comes to the issue of drunk deaths, but we know that police Scotland and credit goes to police Scotland that their focus on tackling Serious Organised Crime has reaped many rewards in terms of breaking up some of those criminal gangs. There is a significant amount of work still to do. I also go back to the point that I made a moment ago to clear hockey that the safer drug consumption facilities in their own can of course be helpful, but the real value comes in having access to other services. That was a really strong message from the commissioner in New York. I invite Stuart McMillan, convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, to take over the next question. First Minister, you announced a bill on judicial factors in the programme for government, which is based on a Scottish Law Commission report and which you believe is likely to be a strong candidate to come to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Can you set out what benefits you believe this bill is going to bring about? For the judicial factors, Bill Bill has been aware of for a number of years now. First and foremost, before I go into judicial factors, it is important to say that we have got to a better position when it comes to the Scottish Law Commission bills. It was a concern about the flow coming from the Scottish Law Commission through to actual legislation being passed by this Parliament. I think that we are in a better place. This will be the third SLC bill to be introduced to this Parliament this session. In terms of judicial factors, the issue of judicial factors is not a new one. It has got a long history in Scottish law and there is a continuing need for capable, knowledgeable, expert administrators to be appointed to manage the property of those who cannot, should not or will not manage it properly themselves. The current law is outdated. It would be fair to say that it is over a century old, with no new primary legislation specifically on judicial factors since 1889. The bill will aim to introduce a statutory framework that sets out clearly the essential features of the Office of Judicial Factor and the broad parameters within which it should operate. It will benefit all those involved in judicial factors in whatever capacity. The Scottish Law Commission consulted on the issue and made a number of recommendations that the Scottish Government tested in a further consultation. As I said, we are committed to bringing forward that bill this year. On the theme of the SLC bills, I mean that you are quite correct in terms of looking at the third bill. When this does go into the Parliament, hopefully it does come to the Delierry Powers and Law Reform Committee and progress has been made. Can you give an assurance to this committee today that the Scottish Government will continue on that theme of bringing forward more SLC bills? Yes, simply I can. We have got into a better rhythm of doing that over the years, especially since changes were made in 2013. This would be the eighth bill to be introduced. Sorry, there have already been eight bills introduced since those rules were updated in 2013. You will know that the Government is considering a number of other SLC reports during this session, as we are set out by my predecessor's programme for government in 2012. I think that we are in a better place in that regard. We look forward to working closely with the SLC and, of course, with the appropriate committee in that regard. First Minister, as convener of this particular committee, it affords me the opportunity to bring directly to you the aims of a particular petition and hopefully to bandjax you into agreeing with the petitioner's ambitions. I acknowledge the statement this morning in relation to on-going support for asylum seekers, but we heard a petition, petition number 2028, from Penar, Aksu and Doa Abu Amar, who are both aware that I am raising this with you today, on concessory bus travel for asylum seekers. At the moment of the 6,000 asylum seekers, roughly a third are probably able to claim that they are either under 22 or over 60, but it leaves about 4,000 people who are not. I understand the difficulty when it comes to benefits, but this is a concessionary scheme. Spice thinks that it is entirely within the competence of the Scottish Government to extend free concessionary travel to this group. It was within the 2223 programme for government, a specific reference, to delivering a scheme whereby free concessionary travel would be available. It is not in the current programme for government, but we have obviously heard from MSPs and from the community themselves who believe that an extension of this kind would be enormously valuable to asylum seekers and their ability to live and operate within the community. Paul Sweeney brought to the committee last week an example of one asylum seeker who required dental treatment, couldn't afford the bus fare, had to walk 10 miles in the rain and in pain to secure the treatment that was otherwise available for him. I don't want to throw figures around. It's been suggested that it would be about half a million pounds. I don't know whether that's correct or not, but bluntly I suppose is this an objective that the First Minister might like to commit to being able to deliver? If it's taken over an hour for the first Ban Jackson. If there's one issue that I should be Ban Jackson into, I think that this is probably a contender for an issue that I absolutely should give consideration to. We are actively giving consideration to this very very issue. Can I commend the petitioners as well? I know PNR in particular over a number of years has been a vocal advocate for the rights of asylum seekers. Can I also say that Jackson Callaw's question is particularly welcome on the back of some dreadful commentary around refugees that we saw in the last 24 hours from the UK Government and I know Jackson Callaw has been often on the right side of issues in relation to asylum and refugees for a number of years. In short, we are open and not only open to this issue, but we are giving it active consideration. There are a number of complex challenges when it comes to what we are able to do in relation to asylum seekers, how they are identified and how we can make a concessionary scheme work. However, those are not insurmountable if there is a desire to take forward those issues. I can't say anything more other than that it has been an issue of live discussion within Government. If there is a way to do this, then we are certainly seeking to do that. However, it does come with some complexities, which I am certain that Jackson Callaw will be aware of. You are on a roll, Jackson. Do you want any more? I will do that as a yes. We will move on now to Clare Adamson, who I think has got some questions in relation to culture policy. First Minister, if I could turn to the culture remit of our committee. In your mandate letter to the Cabinet Secretary, you state that Mr Robertson should collaborate with ministerial colleagues across Government to mainstream culture into policymaking. That is an aspiration and ambition that has been around for a long time, almost back to Christie, and one that not least, most recently, the published culture and communities report from the committee has touched on as well. Do you agree that we need to see real progress in this area to truly meet the ambitions and cross-portfolio funding for culture? How do you see your role as First Minister in leading in this area to ensure that we meet the ambitions of a well-being society and a well-being economy? I am really grateful to Clare Adamson for asking the question. I go back to my point around the mandate letters, which has not been done before. I know that it can seem quite almost an Iraqi point to make within policy development and delivery, but it is really important that it is understood that the reason for the mandate letters is to drive forward a real focus on delivery. It has been done in collaboration with Cabinet Secretaries, but there is no doubt whatsoever about what the public's expectation will be on what they deliver between now and 2026. Mainstreaming culture has got to be a part of that. What I have asked Angus Robertson to do is to consider what structures need to be put in place with fellow cabinet secretaries and ministers in order to understand that they equally understand the importance of mainstreaming culture in their portfolio. Angus Robertson, in the first instance, has taken forward a number of bilaterals, if not all, the vast majority of cabinet secretaries around that very issue of mainstreaming culture. From my previous, most recent experiences, health secretary, there is huge amounts of synergy between what we are looking to do in relation to better health outcomes and in relation to culture. I think about social prescribing as one example of that. On Tuesday, we had a post-cabinet discussion on child poverty. Of course, culture was a significant part of that discussion, given the excellent work that a number of cultural organisations such as the STEMA do in relation to child poverty. I can give Cleamson the absolute assurance that Angus Robertson has my full support in taking forward those discussions with cabinet colleagues. It is now a case of putting in place the appropriate structures to make sure that that is understood and delivered upon. We will now move on to housing-related issues. The programme for government sets out the intention to introduce a housing bill, which will, among other things, make provisions for long-term rent controls. The emergency measures set out in last year's cost of living tenant protection Scotland Act will have expired before these long-term measures can take effect. Both tenants and landlords need certainty about what will happen in the interim period of matter of urgency. The committee has been assured that there will be transitional provisions in place, but we would welcome the First Minister's reassurances that this clarity for tenants and landlords will be coming imminently. It will be an important point that Ariane Burgess raises around the need for transitional arrangements. The fear, of course, is that when those current provisions expire, there is a significant steep increase in rents. I know what is the number of private renters in particular. The committee did hear from the minister for zero-carbon buildings, active travel and tenants rights just a couple of weeks ago. We are very much looking at options for the effective use of the regulation-making powers in schedule 3 of the cost of living act to temporarily reform the current rent adjudication process. That regulation-making power will, of course, be subject to the approval of Parliament and will be crucial in allowing us to temporarily alter the rent adjudication process to prevent unintended consequences as we transition out of the emergency measures of the act. Of course, continued discussions with stakeholders, including landlords, will be incredibly important. We hope to be able to introduce proposals in due course shortly after the current extension takes place. I point again to the words of Patrick Harvie in this regard that an adjustment to the rent adjudication process will prevent an immediate cliff edge when the temporary emergency legislation expires. That is absolutely right and proper. Nobody wants that kind of cliff edge for anybody that is renting in Scotland. I am no surprise that I am going to focus again on child poverty. What more can be done to reduce the number of children living in temporary accommodation just now? There is a significant amount of work for us to do in relation to children's temporary accommodation. Unfortunately, the latest statistics show that the trajectory is moving in the wrong direction. That is not acceptable. We have to take our share of the responsibility in that regard, which we absolutely do. I know that Collestine and I will absolutely be aware of the work that we have done in relation to the temporary accommodation task. We are committed without exception to act on the recommendations of that group. That includes investing at least £60 million for councils and social landlords to acquire properties to use as social homes, asking social landlords to increase allocation to homeless households and supporting councils, facing the greatest temporary accommodation pressures to develop targeted plans. We will not rest until we make progress in reducing significantly the use of temporary accommodation. I am afraid that the latest statistics show a worrying number of families and children in temporary accommodation. That is not acceptable. I am going to invite Kenneth Gibson to ask any last questions that he has. First Minister, Westminster, Holyrood, local government, health boards, community planning partnerships, joint integration boards, regional and city deals, 150 or so quangos, an increasing number of commissioners, as we will see this very day, and a board to oversee the national care service. That is a lot for a country of 5.4 million people. I am just wondering what steps the Scottish Government will take to reform and declutter this very crowded public sector landscape. The member will be aware that the Deputy First Minister has responsibility for public sector reform. That is an important role for the Deputy First Minister to have, given that she has the finance brief and that is deliberate. We are very mindful of the fact that it can be quite a complex landscape for the public to navigate. That work is being undertaken by the Deputy First Minister. She is involving all cabinet secretaries that are relevant and appropriate and ministers that are relevant and appropriate through a regular meetings, cross-portfolio meetings that take place. We recognise that there is a need to simplify and ensure that we are as efficient as possible, particularly in a challenging financial landscape. I also make no policies whatsoever for ensuring that at the heart of our principles is fair work and ensuring that those in the public sector are paid well, paid fairly for the exceptional job that they do right across the public sector. I was also going to ask him on another topic. What discussions has the First Minister had with the UK Government over any guidance on the role of civil servants working in the devolved administrations regarding the delivery of manifestal commitments? I am certain that the member is aware of the various interventions from members of the House of Commons, members of the House of Lords and even UK Government ministers, certainly alluding to the fact that the Scottish Government should not be doing work that we have a mandate for in particular in relation to the constitution. We have, of course, since the Supreme Court judgment, clear guidance from the Permanent Secretary around what work we can do. Of course, I will quote from John Paul Marx, Permanent Secretary of the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 16 May of this year. We serve the Government of the day. That includes with regards to constitutional reform. It has been well understood and devolved for many years that the civil service in the Scottish Government serves the Scottish Government at its priorities. We provide policy advice, including the development of the Prospectus paper series for the Government to set out its constitutional objectives. We know that our excellent civil service will work in an impartial, apolitical manner, but it will provide assistance. It will provide assistance and support to the Government of the day for the objectives that the mandate has been given and the manifestal commitments that it has made. There can be no doubt or dubiety about the fact that the party I lead has a clear mandate for a referendum on independence and that something will continue to pursue. You won't be surprised to know that you've sparked late interest in further questions. I'm going to come first to clear Adamson then to Richard Leonard. My colleague Sue Beber raised the issue of behaviour in schools and you touched on all the issues post Covid and an understanding of all of this. Obviously, educational reform is on the agenda of the Government going forward. In the summer, I hosted as part of the Festival of Politics, a quick Q and answer session in the chamber with Gustavo Dudamel. We had the L-Systema graduates from the number of years and all the L-Systema projects from across Scotland in the gallery. To hear the inspirational transformation that that had made to these young people was simply inspiring. How will you ensure that projects that we know work that make a difference to young people will be embedded going forward as we look to reform some of these issues in our education system? I think it goes to the heart of the work that I've asked the finance secretary to do and the cabinet to do more broadly, which is that we know that the financial circumstances we find ourselves in are very challenging. I've been in government for 11 odd years and I've never seen the public finances as constrained and difficult and challenging. That's not just the Scottish Government. One only has to look at the measures that the Welsh Government has brought forward, for example, and I've got tremendous good and constructive relationships with the Welsh Government, but the fact that they've put every health board into special measures around governance and finance just as a demonstration of how difficult financial circumstances are right across devolved Governments. That's why I've asked the cabinet and again the Deputy First Minister to spearhead the work around targeting and ensuring that our focus is that every penny that we spend is going to those people who need it the most. In order to do that, we have to make sure that we have the requisite data that tells us what works, what interventions are significantly helping us in relation to the targets that we've got in regards to poverty and child poverty. I commend the programme's like system. I've seen the big noise myself and Dundee during a visit to Claypot's Castle primary school not too long ago. If I can give Clarence an assurance that that piece of work is very much under way around what targeted interventions can help, what do we need to scale up? It will also involve difficult decisions and we'll get to that during the budget in relation to other things that we might not be able to do or we might have to re-profile. That will be a really difficult discussion to have, but we're not shying away from those difficult decisions because they have to take place, given the really difficult financial circumstances that we find ourselves in. First Minister, last year the Scottish Government paid £30 million out to the consulting industry. That's more in that year than the previous four years put together. At least some of those consultancies insist on non-disclosure agreements that the Public Audit Committee discovered. Doesn't that prove one of your council of economic advisers right when she says that the consulting industry is the big con in fertilising our governments, warping our economies and significantly in the context of transparency, obfuscating political accountability? I tell you where I disagree with that quote, is that where we can provide the expertise within government we absolutely will seek to do that. There's always the default position. Where we need further expertise using consultants is something that is done by governments again right across the UK, whether it's the Welsh Labour Government, whether it's the Scottish Government, the UK Government and of course the Government in Northern Ireland as well. We will try to limit that spend where we can. £30 million is not an insignificant amount, I accept that. It is a fraction of our resource budget, it would be fair to say. We try to limit where we can. I would need to look at the specific details of all of that spend in order to give an individual commentary on each amount that was spent. In terms of non-disclosure agreements and NDAs, we have a default position of not using them. Where NDAs are sometimes entered into is because of issues around commercial sensitivity in relation to, for example, Ferguson's shipyard. That is to protect the commercial interests of a particular entity so that it can be competitive in the marketplace. If the NDA wasn't there, that would potentially jeopardise that commercial sensitivity. The points that Richard Henard makes broadly are absolutely right, and the Government should be very aware and wary of the spend that they make in relation to consultants. In relation to that specific example, the NDA was insisted upon by the consultancy, not by Ferguson Marine. From the detail that I have seen, when it comes to the NDA that exists between Ferguson's Marine and the consultants involved, it was there to protect commercial sensitivity. The concern is that it would work against the competitiveness of Ferguson's if the report was published in full. That is my understanding, certainly, of the position of the NDA between Ferguson's and the consultant. When it comes to any non-disclosure agreements that we are involved in, it will be often when it is, for example, the sharing of sensitive material. I take the point that Richard Henard makes and that he quotes in that we should be as open and transparent about our use of consultants and the reports that they publish. I've now got a couple of finales. I suspect that Stewart is on this issue. I'll come to Stewart first and then collect with her. I'll have to be brief. No, thank you. It's not regarding DNAs, but it certainly is about the shipyard. First Minister, is the Scottish Government any need or two taking a final decision regarding a direct award to Ferguson's shipyard? It's under consideration. You announced in the programme for government a number of measures aimed at tackling poverty, such as the removal of income thresholds from the best start foods programme. To address the root causes of poverty interventions are clearly required at reserve level as well. Can you elaborate on how urgent and essentials guarantee from the UK Government to adequately cover the cost of essentials like foods, transport and energy aligned with the Scottish Government's missions to reduce inequality and child poverty as well? Given the time, I'm happy again to furnish Collette Stevenson if there's any further detail, points of detail that she wishes to receive. Essentials guarantee is an idea that's been brought forward by a number of anti-poverty organisations. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in particular, is called on the UK Government to immediately set the universal credit standard allowance at £120 per week for a single annulant and £200 for a couple for £23.24. It would have some real impacts on the UK population, according to the foundation. Over 8 million families receive their incomes rise on average by £48 per week. Over half of working-age families in the UK with a disabled family member would benefit and almost 70 per cent of people in poverty being able to pay for essentials with three and five who are already working families. It's a significant intervention. It's why we add our weight to the voices that are calling for essentials guarantee, but we also accept that it doesn't abdicate us of our responsibility in terms of the devolved powers that we have, hence why we've used those devolved powers, social security powers, taxation powers. I believe to move us into a positive direction in relation to tackling poverty and child poverty, in particular with the Scottish child payment, perhaps being the most obvious and deliberate example of a game-changing intervention that can help and assist in relation to poverty here in Scotland. I'm going to wind it up there. Thank you very much, Steve. That concludes the meeting, and I thank the First Minister for his attendance. Not least, struggling through man flu, which I know from personal experience, could be hugely debilitating. I hope that we can repriege this in about six months' time and we will be in touch with your office about scheduling a date for that, First Minister. That concludes the meeting. The next meeting will be after the October recess on 25 October, so thank you all for your participation and I close this meeting. Thank you.