 Welcome to the 32nd meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security committee. We have no apologies. Our first item of business for today is a decision to take agenda item 5 in private. Are we all agreed? the Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill, SEAC Bill, for short. That is a member's bill, which was introduced by Mark Griffin MSP on 8 June 2023, and it is currently at stage one. We have already heard from four panels and the Scottish Government, and today I welcome Mark Griffin MSP, and I also welcome Neil Stewart, senior clerk, non-government bills unit and Ailey Callander, senior solicitor, legal services office Scottish Parliament. Thank you very much for joining us today. Mark, I believe that you would like to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener. I really appreciate your welcome here today, and the five weeks now of evidence that the committee has taken, so I really appreciate the in-depth look that you are taking at this proposed bill. If I can, convener, maybe just go into some of the motivation that lies behind the bill and give the committee perhaps a flavour of why I am here in the first place. The first thinking behind this bill was back when we were in the middle of the pandemic, and thinking particularly about key workers who caught Covid through the course of their work, some of those who developed long Covid and who have not been able to go back to work at all. The motivation was really started by that, and thinking about how we could get long Covid prescribed for those key workers who did not have the luxury of being able to self-isolate, how we could give them support through the newly devolved employment injuries assistance that was about to be delivered by the Scottish Government. However, when I looked deeper into the industrial injuries disability benefit scheme that already existed, the feelings in that current system became much more apparent to me, and it was clear that it was more than just people with long Covid who were in desperate need of support. You will have heard evidence of a whole range of people who are being missed out and left behind by that current system. You will have heard evidence about the gender nature of the entitlement as it stands that only 7 per cent of applicants through the prescribed route are women. That is a social security entitlement that essentially fails half of the population. It is also outdated in terms of the types of employment that it covers. It does not reflect modern workplaces in the 21st century. It essentially supports men and male-dominated heavy industry that existed in the 60s and 70s. You have heard compelling evidence from trade unions and workers representatives about the types of people who are being missed out, such as fire fighters, shift workers, care workers, footballers with head injuries and women completely ignored by the current system. That is why, taking a step back from the long Covid aspect, I felt that a whole systems approach was more appropriate and more important. That is how I have come to this point today. As well as at the timing of when we are introducing the bill and the council, it is really important, because the Government and the Parliament will need concrete evidence of what the benefit will look like. The council is in place to advise on modernising that benefit before it is fully devolved and delivered. The Government's agency agreements with the DWP say that they must have a business case, they must have a plan in place for how they will deliver this new benefit by the end of March 2025. That is not very far away, that is less than a year and a half. The Parliament, the Government really needs to get on with the job of delivering what that new entitlement will look like. The cabinet secretary welcomed the wealth of work that we have collated last week in our evidence session. There has been a lot of work that has gone into this bill and the consultation that went before it. For me, there is really no need to reinvent the wheel here. There is a ready-made proposal that the Government could adopt, because I think there is a real risk that running up to that March 2025 deadline, the Government could end up duplicate a lot of this work, having to do it in a hurry, and probably costing itself a lot more money. The cabinet secretary and I have an outstanding meeting that we need to put in the diary, but when we meet what I will say to the cabinet secretary, there is a line in this bill that relates specifically to commencement. I am more than happy to discuss and negotiate with the Government when they feel that the best date for commencement is, whether, in fact, they would prefer to commence this bill by regulations and leave that entirely within the gift of Government to choose that date. I am absolutely open to the Government on timing, but, like I said, I think that we are fast running out of time. The cabinet secretary also said that she felt that an advisory council was perhaps one piece of the jigsaw of employment injuries assistance, but I fundamentally disagree with that. I do not think that the council would be one piece of the jigsaw. That council would be the body of expertise, the lived experience that would design the jigsaw itself. It would be advising the Government on designing it and putting it together, not just a single piece. You will see from the bill that it has the capacity to commission its own independent research. The membership criteria is clear. It draws on medical expertise, workers and their representatives, and, crucially, those with lived experience of employment injuries and illnesses. It has a balance of employers and employees on that council. The crucial point is that it delivers the Government's aspiration to be a fair work nation. The Fair Work Convention supports that proposal, because one of the key planks of that ambition to be a fair work nation is effective voice to give workers effective voice. That is to give workers, those with lived experience, those with the real in-depth knowledge of injuries and illnesses at work, their seat at the table to give them their voice and to sign in this new benefit, making sure that it can be what it could and should look like fit for modern Scotland, 21st century workplaces and the illnesses and injuries that workers are getting today and into the future. I am looking forward to the questions that I am going to get today. I am going to invite members to ask questions. First of all, I am going to bring in Rose McCall. You have already alluded to this reasonably succinctly in your opening statement, but I am wanting to talk about timing, if I may. As you are aware, the Scottish Government wrote to the committee back on 6 November saying that it will shortly consult on EIA, but we are still some years away from its delivery. The cabinet secretary could not give a lead in time from the consultation to the benefit introduction and she did not give a timescale. You have highlighted that time is running out. On that timescale, could you elaborate a little bit more on why should this bill be supported in the absence of any policy on EIA or a commitment to a firm timetable for its introduction and its reform? Why not wait until the consultation? There is a bit of frustration on my side that I feel like I have been waiting on this consultation since 2019. Parliament and the committee have been told on almost an annual basis that the consultation will come this year. The Government told the committee that it would come this year, and the cabinet secretary said last week, potentially next year. We have been waiting and waiting and waiting, and there is a frustration in there. The key point when it comes to introducing the bill in the absence of the developed policy of what employment injuries assistance looks like is crucial, because you would want to have the expertise of that council. You would want to have the medical expertise, the trade union expertise, but more important, the lived experience, those who have been injured or become ill because of their work and are not being supported by the current system, you want them to be in place to advise on the development of the policy, on the development of the new entitlement to have them in place in advance of the Government taking over full responsibility for this entitlement. On timescale, the Government has the agency agreement with the DWP. The DWP has said that there will be no extension to that. They have been fairly firm and robust with the Government that the Government must take over responsibility for this benefit by the end of March 2026. They need to have a business plan in place, as per the agency agreements, by the end of March 2025. That is less than a year and a half away where the Government needs to have fully set out their plans, their business plan, for how they will transfer the existing caseload into the new benefit and what the new benefit will look like in terms of levels of payment and entitlement and everything else. For me, it is really important that we get the expertise in place before that happens to advise on how all of that is done. We are less than a year and a half away from that point, so we are running out of time. I appreciate that. I am going to bring in Bob Doris. Thank you, convener. Mr Griffin, I know that there is a frustration over the timing of when the Scottish Government will bring forward its detailed proposals. I understand and appreciate that, but it is about getting it right. Of course, Dr Sally Witcher, last week at committee, former Head of Scots, said in relation to going now with proposals such as your own. Mr Griffin said, we will not know what expertise we will need to scrutinise that would be any new benefit put in place and ensure that it is designed and delivered as effectively as possible. Dr Witcher, I am not taking the tip of context, I do not think I am. Mr Griffin was suggesting that the timing was too early in relation to going now with that. I would add reflections, Mr Griffin, to help the committee to come to its deliberation conclusions. The cabinet secretary indicated that there would be an advisory panel in place, with experts on it, to help to give advice on what any new benefit and title would look like. You will see the committee's wrestling about whether or not that is needed at this time. I did see the comments from Sally Witcher last week. She welcomed the proposal and cavatied that with her thinking on whether the timing was right. For me, there are two aspects to the council. There is a council being there in advance and being able to give advice to the Government on the creation of the entitlement. The further role that it would have in terms of scrutinising regulations that the Government brought forward, but commissioning research into emerging illnesses and injuries. When we come to employment injuries and assistance, the membership criteria that I have set out in the proposed bill covers what an employment injury's assistance would look like. I am sorry, on the cabinet secretary's commitment to creating an advisory group. That is a welcome development. It is a step in the right direction, but what it is, is an advisory group that will create recommendations that we have had in the past. We had Dacbeg, which was an advisory group, set up in the past and then disbanded before its recommendations have been implemented. Dacbeg was a working group that was set up to advise on this among other benefits, and it recommended that the council be set up, but that recommendation has never been accepted or advanced before it was disbanded. I have a concern that, while a working group is a step in the right direction, it is not set up by statute. The group can be disbanded just as easily as it is set up. The membership criteria is not set out in primary legislation, so it is not as defined as the Parliament might like it to be. It potentially would not be gender balanced. There is a whole range of questions about what that working group could or could not look like. We do not have clarity as a Parliament, but, crucially, it would not be protected. It would not be independent of government and set up by statute. It could be disbanded as easily as it was created. Can I just check? There are two aspects to this. Mr Griffin, one is about whether there is a value in the advisory group advising government ahead of a new benefit that has been finalised, launched and rolled out. The expert recommendations to Government about who qualifies for any new benefit are two separate things. If I could separate those for a wee second, Mr Griffin, given all the caveats that you have said about you would want somebody assurances about what any Government advisory group would look like, would you accept that it would be possible for the Scottish Government to draw on expertise from across the country and across all areas required to inform what any new employment injuries assistance would look like that it does not require, and what your preference would be setting up on statute, but it would not require that to fulfil that function? It is possible, but not preferable, because it would not have its independence from government. Some of the advisers that it could potentially recruit to that advisory group would be employed by the public sector, not directly but indirectly by the Government. It is much more preferable to have an independent body set up by statute that has no fear or favour and can make recommendations on that basis and cannot be disbandy that the Government, if it does not like the answers that it gets, but there has been nothing stopping the Government having this in place for the last four years. It seems a bit strange that the Government is only now coming forward with a potential for a working group at the point of an introduction of a member's bill in a similar area. Finally, Mr Griffin, I think that we heard last week that the reason for some of the delay was the prioritisation of the Scottish child payment in this Parliament. That led to slippage elsewhere, and I suspect that it is being introduced now, because you mentioned the tight timetables that the Government is on, so now would actually be the time to do it, but I take on board the points you have made, Mr Griffin. I did hear the cabinet secretary's comments about Scottish child payment, but, since the introduction of Scottish child payment from the very first announcement, the consultation on employment injuries assistance has been promised almost on an annual basis. Since that announcement, the work on Scottish child payment has not come out the blue. That has been on-going and has been known by Government, but they have still promised almost on an annual basis to start the consultation. It is not as if the Government promised that the consultation would arrive before Scottish child payment and then had to push everything back. They have still promised the consultation almost on an annual basis, while Scottish child payment has been in place and been developed. I quickly want to touch on a point that you mentioned earlier, when Ross Pickall was asking questions about the minister for disabled people health and work. He noted the importance of keeping on track and a formal request would be required if agency agreements for IIDB were to be extended further. I am just wondering whether you have any further additional information on that, based on what you stated. I am only going on the agency agreements that are in place between the Government and the DWP, and the DWP's assertion that they would count in a further delay that they were looking for. Essentially, the 2026 deadline is a hard deadline that they did not have capacity to go beyond. I am now going to invite Mary McLeary. I suspect that your long-standing interest in the matter and your bill obviously raises a number of wider issues that need to be considered. Before I get to the theme that the committee wants me to cover, given your long-standing interest in industrial injuries, can I ask you about something that Ian Tasker said during his evidence? He said that regarding political decisions and eligibility that has been part of the problem over the years in excess of governments who have just ignored industrial injuries benefits. I just want to know why UK governments for decades have refused to allow women and men injured in the workplace to seek benefit? That has been partly a failure of government, of my own party and other parties. It has absolutely been a failure of government, but also a failure of the way industrial injuries advisory council has been set up. It works at the behest of the DWP, which is why I thought it was important in the proposal to give the Scottish Employment and Injury Advisory Council its independent research commission function, so that it is not at the best of government or civil service as to what it could or could not do. It would have that independent power to go out and commission the research and make the argument almost undeniable when it came to make its recommendations to government. I hope that there will be a much stronger relationship between the Scottish Council and a more responsive Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to address the undeniable calls for change in the system as it is devolved. Is the next generation Labour a return? Do you think that your party would make reforms, because additional consequentials would come over to help us to reform our benefit? I do not know what the UK Labour manifesto will contain. All I can say is that we are devolving the entitlement to Scotland and in that devolution I would want to see a much stronger advisory council in place with its own research power to make that argument. Like you say, if there were changes at the UK level that would lead to consequentials, but we have already seen from the Scottish Fiscal Commission that they are projecting that the budget for this entitlement is due to fall, so there is still headroom created in the budget that has been transferred. There is capacity to make changes, I think, on entitlement specifically, but focus purely on the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament aspect of that. I hope that the new council would have a better relationship to start with, but the greater powers it has on commission and research independently would make a difference. Covering your bill now, I mean obviously a number of my questions you have already covered. The bill would prevent Scots from considering a draft relation on EIA. Does the proposed Membership of Sea Act include enough expertise on the wider social security issues to replace Scots? When we were drafting the legislation, I am sure the committee will see that a lot of the legislation is a mirror image of the legislation that was put in place that created Scots, so a lot of the membership criteria are the same. Off the top of my head, there is maybe section 97 of the bill that set up Scots, so there is a mirror image of a lot of the membership requirements, so I hope that the Government in seeing the strength of Scots and their expertise and experience will appreciate that a lot of the similar expertise and experience will also be recruited into the Sea Act membership. Again, it was the mirror, the current situation, where at a UK level IAC scrutinised regulations on industrial injuries that they will not benefit and the Social Security Advisory Council, I think it is called at a UK level, do so for all other social security regulations, so it is a mirror of what we have at place at a UK level. Close the gap, said that membership should be gender balanced, do you agree with that? Absolutely, and that is why I think it is in the schedule of the bill where it is linked to the gender recognition and public board Scotland act, so that would achieve the gender balance requirements, that I think are really crucially important to start the work on addressing the failures of the current system when it comes to women. Given that, do you anticipate any strain trying to achieve gender balance, obviously securing the right expertise? That is why I think we have given flexibility in the membership. We have said that there should be a range between six and 12 to hopefully give the council the flexibility it needs to recruit the range of membership while maintaining the balance on gender, maintaining the balance between employers and employed members of the council with the membership criteria that we have set out, that gives the flexibility to recruit the level of expertise that we need. You will have seen from five weeks of evidence that there are really passionate people with a lot of expertise that are desperate to get round the table and start doing the work, so I do not think that there will be a shortage of volunteers. I really appreciate your answers. Just on that, I will come in quickly on the fact that you touched upon the membership, and that it is a fairly small membership, given the wide variety of issues that you are dealing with. How do you expect to get that level of expertise, given some of the scientific issues and social security issues? How would you be able to kind of widen that net, if you like? Well, like I said, a membership of being between six and 12, the current UK advisory council, I think, is 17, so marginally two thirds the size of the UK advisory council potentially. However, we would not expect every individual category of membership to be held by an individual. There will be crossover, there will be people there with a range of skills and expertise, multiple areas of expertise. I think that looking at a council of 12, you could quite comfortably realise the membership conditions of the council without going beyond that number and potentially being overcostly when it comes to the proportion of the benefits bend that they would be scrutinising. I think that when you start to go bigger than that, then you potentially look at costs running a bit higher than you would want them to. Just touching upon the wider role that SEAC could play, witnesses that came forward suggested that SEAC could have a more preventative role to help improve occupational health in the workplace. To what extent is that possible, given that a statutory body could not be given functions that relate to reserved areas as well? That was one area that we were really careful of when it came to reserved issues and devolved issues. I absolutely would not want to see this piece of legislation if it was passed at the Supreme Court. I do not plan on going there in my lifetime. I was really careful to make sure that the preventative role is reserved, it is with HSE, so it is not straining to that territory whatsoever. However, that being said, the work that it would do would have a preventative role in itself. The research that it would commission would fill data gaps that we have currently in Scotland. Filling those data gaps, filling those knowledge gaps, improving awareness and education would have a preventative role in itself. It is mandated to have at least one public meeting every year, where it would publicise the work of the council and improve the education of it, which, I think, proves prevention. However, if the council was making recommendations that were accepted by the Government that was increasing entitlement and the budget for employment injuries assistance is demand-led, I would imagine that if a Government saw that demand-led budget creeping up and up and up, it would look into that to see why and probably take some preventative action of its own. While it does not, like you say, because of issues around reservation, have any direct impact on preventative work? I think that a lot of the work that it would do in and of itself would lead to greater prevention of illness and injury in the workplace. Thanks very much, Mark. I am going to bring in Bob Doris. Thanks. I did have a supplementary on the convener's questions, but he said something on your answer there. Can you just ask a really brief question on your answer there, just for a bit of clarity? Mr Llyfr mentioned increasing entitlement and recommendations. By that, do you mean increasing changing eligibility criteria to increasing entitlement? Or do you mean scientific and wider evidence to say that the threshold has been met that certain conditions and certain categories of the workforce should receive the benefit? Is it about changing the eligibility criteria or is it about that scientific and wider expert evidence to say that eligibility criteria and threshold has been met? I was talking about prescription. Essentially, if the council was making recommendation on prescribing certain illnesses or injuries in certain occupations and the Government then decided to accept that recommendation and implement it, and that led to a bigger call on the budget, then the Government might look at that to say that perhaps there is a bit of preventative work to do in the fire service or the health service or whichever area that that spend has been driven by. That was the focus of my questions when that came up. Other members will question later on whether or not, without changing eligibility criteria, we really addressed the fundamental flaws with IAC. That is for others to explore in their evidence. I was really interested in the preventative role. I have to say, convener, that I am a little bit conflicted not about the preventative role but about whether that is the right bill at the right time, but there are lots of really good things within it, Mr Griffin, that I do not think should be lost. One of the things that come out to me is that gap of granular data at a workplace level. I do not think that the health and safety executive is sufficient in how they go about that. The ridder reporting is not the only way that that can be done. There is a gap there, and it does overlap between devolved and reserved responsibilities. Of course, trade unions are important, occupational health is important and others are important as well. The committee will have to make recommendations, and that is the essence of my supplementary, I suppose. I would like those recommendations not to be bound by constitutional debates. If that information tells us that the preventative role is in relation to aspects of employment law or health and safety, would any expert body feel empowered to make recommendations on the reserved matters as well? I would like to know your views on that, but I would also like to know whether or not the committee should recommend for completeness that employment law and health and safety law should simply be devolved to this Parliament, because that would have all those powers sitting in the one place. You will know from the vote that we had in Parliament in November that there is no disagreement between the member and I on devolving employment law, but we are looking specifically at the bill that we are giving. I will check on that. For completeness, it would be helpful for the bill if employment law was also devolved to this place. That is good that you have agreed with that. What about health and safety? I do not think that I have explained myself properly. I am saying that I do not disagree with the need for devolving employment law, but what I was going on to say is that I do not think that it is necessarily applicable to this bill in itself. On the wider aspect than yes, but specifically on this bill, we are setting up a council that would scrutinise regulations on employment and reduced assistance. While it would have a specific power within the bill to work with others, the HSE and the evidence have said that it regularly works with the Scottish Government and the public bodies in Scotland. It is worth noting that. I apologise for doing that, but the health and safety executive would not come and give all evidence to the committee. The written evidence is pretty incompletely insubstantial, but it does talk about its pretty close working relationship with IAC. It would need to have a pretty close working relationship with SEAC or whatever was put place in Scotland, but it is pretty much silent on that and will not give a view on that. I am a bit dissatisfied about that, but this line of questioning is not about criteria and eligibility for a new benefit. It is about the preventative work. If research and evidence at a granular level were to find a compelling preventive argument to change employment law or to change health and safety legislation, shouldn't this body have the power to make pretty strong recommendations in relation to that and wouldn't it be helpful if those powers sat in the Scottish Parliament? I think that that is the essence of my questioning. For me, there is a specific power within this piece of legislation that gives the council the power to work with other bodies as they see fit, which includes HSE. HSE themselves, although it does not give oral evidence in the written evidence, have said that they regularly work with the Scottish Government and other public bodies in Scotland, so it seems that they are capable and willing to work with the new council. They have observed a status on IAC. It would be open to members to propose an amendment at stage 2, which we could look at as to whether HSE had observed a status on this council too. On that side, there is already the power within the bill for the council to work with others, which includes HSE, but they do not have a preventative role in and of itself. I will ask one more time then, and I won't pursue it further, because we are just coming across purposes, which is not intentional from my part. Anybody—I want to capture something really good within this legislation that is proposed, Mr Griffin, and that is irrespective of whether it is your bill or whether it is what the Scottish Government brings forward instead of your bill. If we identify, as a Parliament, as a statutory body, deficiencies within the workplace where we can be doing more to prevent ill health disease at a workplace level, and that overlaps with employment law and overlaps with health and safety legislation, do you think that this body should be able to make recommendations on employment law and on health and safety legislation? I won't ask again about whether that should sit within this Parliament, because I don't think that we were getting anywhere on that. Should it be making recommendations on those two things? As it stands, as the bill is set up, it doesn't have the power to interfere on preventative work because of the reservations. Are there any recommendations, though? I mean, anybody can make recommendations, but whether it is in its power to do so, I would argue that, again, I have been very clear about staying within the bounds of the devolution settlement and, like I said, not wanting this piece of legislation to end up at the Supreme Court, that this is something where we have been very focused on the powers within the Scottish Parliament. That is not to say that we don't agree on the need for further devolution, which could lead to greater enhancements at health and safety at work, but I am operating within the constraints that the Presiding Officer and the Parliament set me when it comes to drafting this piece of legislation. I want to test the convener's patience any further, but thank you. Thanks very much, Bob. I am now going to invite Paul O'Kane in. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to Mr Griffin. I am keen to understand the opportunity for reform that exists, which we have already covered this morning. We have had the Scottish Government here last week, in terms of the Cabinet Secretary, arguing that the bill will not deliver a reform benefit. We have heard some of that already, but can the member explain how setting up CAC would address the stakeholders who we have heard from as well their desire for reform? The bill in and of itself will not deliver a reform benefit. It is up to the Government to deliver the reform benefit. However, if you are the Scottish Government looking at the devolution of what is an inherently unfair and discriminatory system and creating that new benefit that you would hope would be in line with the progressive ambitions of this Parliament when it comes to devolution, you would want the people around the table advising you on that new benefit to be those with lived experience, those who have been left behind and discriminated against by the current system. I think that that is where a lot of the stakeholders who are desperate for change are putting their argument. The best thing to do would be to set up that council, have it independent of Government, get those people around the table advising Government on the setup of the new benefit. Like I said, we are running out of time. There is less than a year and a half for the Government to put their plans in place for this new entitlement. The best thing to do, in my mind, is to have those experts, those with lived experience, in place designing that new benefit from the get-go. Like I said, the cabinet secretary said last week that she felt an advisory council was a piece of the jigsaw of EIA, but for me that is completely wrong. The advisory council designs the jigsaw, they set it up, they make sure that it best meets the needs of the people of Scotland who are becoming ill or injured through the course of their work. I wonder in terms of the stakeholder engagement that you have had thus far in terms of your preparation of the bill. We have heard evidence here that they have been very clear about the importance of their lived experience and the range and breadth and depth of that. I do not know if you want to say any more about the sorts of areas that would contribute to that. I suppose that expert advice goes into that creation of the benefit. There is a whole range of occupations that have been ignored and there is really strong evidence out there already that the FBU has presented on cancers and firefighters who are getting them because of exposure to contaminants getting cancer at a much earlier age than the rest of the population. There is clear evidence that shift workers, particularly female shift workers, have a higher incidence of breast cancer and other cancers. There is a strong campaign supported cross-party on footballers with head injuries. There is a whole range of workers with asbestos who have been completely ignored by the current system and the strange rules that unity has worked with asbestos itself, ignoring the workers who work every day in buildings with asbestos, ignoring those who handled the overalls that were covered in asbestos dust. There is a whole swath of workers who have become ill, injured and died as a result of just going to their work that has been completely ignored for the past 56 years. The devolution of that entitlement is a real opportunity to start addressing that, but we only do that if we get those people with lived experience in the room on this council, independent of government, making those recommendations and setting up the benefit from the get-go. I want to return to the comparison between a non-statutory working group and what you have proposed, because Government last week said that we will have a non-statutory working group, and I know that, in the exchanges with Mr Doris, we started to touch on some of that. However, it would be useful for us to hear your comparison of what the two would look like and why, and I know that you touched on it, but the statutory footing is so important in terms of ensuring that the recommendations can be implemented and acted upon? One of the key points is that it is set up in statute, as primary legislation passed by this Parliament protects the status of the body. If they make a recommendation that a Government of any colour disagrees strongly, they are not at risk of being disbanded. A working group set up by Government can be disbanded just as easily as it was created. We have seen working groups in the past set up and disbanded without seeing the recommendations implemented. That is a crucial part for me that we set out in statute that the body is independent of Government, and that we are clear on the membership requirements that are set out in statute, again not subject to change at the one of Government. They cannot just be ignored, but there is also the aspect of who would be on that council. That is likely to be made up by some public sector workers, some workers who are employed directly or indirectly by Government, and they might feel that they are curtailed in a Government working group by their employment status, and I think that it is important to give them the protection of their independence created by Parliament through statutory legislation. Your convention is that if the Government is able to abolish at WIM a working group, you will lose the richness of that diversity from certainly the trade unions. We have heard them speak about the importance of having that work of representation. I think that Mary McNair made around gender balance and having that locked in in terms of the Representation on Public Boards Act. She was essentially saying that without that statutory underpinning, there is a much looser, and I suppose that in terms of the expertise and the experts that might sit on that, rather than having just the choice of the Government, it is about laying that out in statutes so that there is a clear path to who is there. Absolutely, you have that clear, defined membership. You have also got to look at the comparator with the UK system. The UK system, while, as I said to Mary McNair, the relationship and the setup of IAC is not ideal, still at least has worker voices on it. It has a body set up by primary legislation, which cannot be the spandex, which has worker voices. We have devolved the system to the Scottish Parliament, where normally we devolve to be closer to decision makers, to be closer to people affects to be more progressive, but we have devolved a benefit entitlement and cut out lived experience. We have cut out worker's involvement, cut out trade union involvement by not establishing a council. For me that is a big gap that we need to fill, whether we do it now or whether we do it later. Let's not reinvent the wheel, like I said in my opening statement. As the cabinet secretary said, there is a lot of work that has been done into this proposal. We could end up in a situation where the Government replicates this at pace right up to the deadline and costs itself a lot more money in doing so, rather than just working together on the bill when it comes to stage 2 to get something that we can all agree on. To start with the financial memorandum, we have figures concerning research and IT and the two areas that I am particularly interested in. IT and website set up 50,000 and then maintenance going forward 7,000 a year, research 30,000 a year. I wonder if all those figures look a little bit low to me. Can you say anything about them and why you think they are the right ones? When it comes to the financial memorandum, the estimates that are being provided are based on bodies that have been created of a similar size and nature. There is detailed work when we look at IT costs to show the similar set-up costs for the patient commissioner. I think that those figures stand up. I think that there has been an element of confusion when it comes to IT set-up costs in previous evidence sessions. We are not talking about the IT set-up costs for the benefit itself. We are not talking about the costs of transferring from paper and microfiche from huge warehouses down south up here. We are purely talking about the IT set-up costs of a very small body with, as I have set out, three or four members of staff. When it comes to the IT costs looking at comparters with other bodies that have been set up of a similar size, I think that the IT costs estimate is absolutely robust and I would stand by those. When it comes to research, that is a different area. Again, we have provided three separate examples of costs of research that other bodies have done in a similar area. We have said specifically that when it comes to the financial nature and length of research commission, it would be a matter for the council, so it could vary significantly. I appreciate that, while we have given three examples and the £30,000 figure relates closely to the three examples that we have given, that, as the council is set up, as they set their own work plan, that, like I said in the financial memorandum, that could vary significantly. It was good to hear the cabinet secretary last week saying that she thought that perhaps £30,000 was too low, so it seems that the Government is open to the negotiation that would inevitably take place. The council would independently set their work plan and their research plan and then negotiate with the Government on what their budget would be. That is the likely place where we would end up, but it is good that the Government seems open to that discussion on what it would view as an adequate and realistic research budget. We have referenced and sourced the cost of similar bodies, but it clearly caveated that by saying that it could vary significantly. You would not get an awful lot of research for £30,000, would you? It would depend on what research we are carrying out. It could be looking at existing research in the field, when it comes to the issue of cancers and firefighters. There is already a strong body of research that the FBU have commissioned, so when it came to that particular body of work, it could be relying on existing research. That would cover more than the cost of interrogating existing research. However, as I said, I go back to the point that I made earlier, the council independently would set its own research and work plan and negotiate with the Government on that basis as to what they felt their costs in a particular year would be. I accept the point that the financial memorandum and your figures only have to cover this particular bill. However, I am just wondering if the council was set up, and we have already mentioned how women are being disadvantaged in the present system, industrial injuries such as farming with cancer, stress for teachers and all those things are missed out at the moment. However, what happens if the council is set up and recommends that all of those things should be included, but then there is no money in the Scottish budget to pay any extra benefit? We are still stuck with whatever it is, £84 million or thereabouts. What would happen then? The council purely makes recommendations that they do not control the Scottish Government's budget. It is for the Scottish Government to decide whether to accept the recommendations or not and then for the Government to decide whether to find that funding. Governments make choices on priorities every single day of the week and it would be up to the Government of the day to decide whether to accept the recommendations or not based on costs. The council purely would investigate, commission the research and make recommendations for the Government to decide on those and how they were funded. There certainly was an expectation from the trade unions that there would be an expansion. That almost inevitably leads to an expansion of the benefits paid. Is there any point in having the council if it makes a range of recommendations and the Government says no to them? No, but similarly with SCOSS. SCOSS is there to make recommendations on social security provisions and it is for the Government to accept them or not on the basis of the cost. You will have seen SCOSS make recommendations that the Government has refused on the basis of cost. There is already a headroom in the budget. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that the budget is likely to fall from £78 million to £74 million, if I am remembering rightly. That is because of the current system, the way that it is set up. As I said, it essentially supports men who have worked in the heavy industry in the 60s and 70s. Now, as those men are sadly passing away, entitlement is dropping off, the budget is falling year on year because of that and because we have not updated the list of prescription or entitlement, that will not change, the budget will continue to fall. There is already a headroom in the budget to make changes, but it is not for the council to decide on the Government budget. It has no role in setting the Government's annual budget. The Government of the day will make decisions based on the argument that the council makes and political pressure, which trade unions and other campaign organisations will apply every single year when it comes to the budget day that their priorities should be reflected over any other. It will be for the Government of the day and the council cannot tie the hands of whichever Government when it comes to setting their budget. On the question of timing of setting all of this up, the Government seems clear that stage 1 is coming along quite soon, and you have said rightly that stage 1 is coming along quite soon, but stage 1 will be purely transferring the payment from the UK level to the Scottish level. There will be no changes for the first few years, and then after a few years, maybe the Scottish system will change. If that is the timescale that we are looking at, is it worth spending money on a council at this point? The cabinet secretary said last week that she did not know what the new benefit would look like. Now, if the cabinet secretary herself does not know what the new benefit will look like, then I would say that she, the Government needs expert advice, which is what this council does, puts that council in place in advance of devolution. I think that council with the expertise and lived experience that it has is best placed to tell Government what the new benefit should look like. We are not just devolving industrial energy's disablement benefit and introducing it like for like. The Government is changing the name, and I would expect— Is it not just the case that, to start with, for the first few years, it will only be the name that has changed? That will be the choice of Government. The Government can choose to change. The Government can choose not to change. That is not for anyone else other than the Government or the Parliament to decide. It is proposed that the council is given powers to request information from a very wide range of organisations. Could you perhaps justify why such extensive information-seeking powers are being proposed? We modelled the information-requiring powers on the Freedom of Information Scotland Act. We felt that that was a good place to start. We also listed some other organisations as well. I think that it is really important to give the council the teeth to go after the information to fill the data gaps that currently exist to support the work that it would do. However, that being said, I would hope that it would have good work in relationships with the types of organisations that are contained within the Freedom of Information Scotland Act to get that information voluntarily and that they would not have to go down in the route of requiring information. However, that was the thinking initially behind the provisions in the bill that was modelled on that act that we felt worked well. However, I know that the member has worked in that field and that that might be updated at some point in the future. Indeed, I had lodged a final proposal this morning, but that is obviously a different discussion. However, in the Freedom of Information legislation, there is the ability to designate further bodies. Would you envisage that there would be provision to perhaps extend bodies with experience? I would think about that in advance that the landscape of public bodies changes almost on a yearly basis with every Government, so we have regularly put making powers within the bill so that ministers can designate additional bodies as they are created. I am now going to invite in Bob Doris, and that will be the last of the set of questions that I will take in a complete word for scrutiny. SIAC has established as a body corporate with a duty to audit its own accounts, so that is what is proposed. I could not have told you this, but in researching for your piece of legislation, it is apparently unusual for advisers at NDPBs, so other bodies do not do it that way, but the body will. Why the difference? It goes back to how the legislation was drafted, and I guess the closest comparator when we were drafting the legislation was the creation of SCOSS. We mirrored a lot of the provisions that applied to the creation of SCOSS, but I appreciate that, since that has been introduced, there is legislation proposed to change the status of SCOSS that SCOSS has given evidence that perhaps that is overly burdensome. Open to amendment at stage 2, if we get that far, on changing some of the reporting requirements given the new body of evidence that we have received from SCOSS. If I ask you that question again, Mr Griffin, I am going to avoid the acronym and just say non-departmental public bodies, it is much easier to say than putting those letters together, thank you for putting that on the record. The bill includes minimum time scales for scrutiny and requirements to consult regardless of whether regulations are substantial or minor and technical, so I am just wondering why you think that that is proportionate. SCOSS does not have those requirements on it. Those minimum times are four months, a one-month lead in and three months after that as well. I am also conscious that we are not quite sure what the new benefits will look like, we are not sure what the eligibility criteria will look like, we are not even sure what types of regulations might be seen from time to time, we are kind of all a little bit in the dark, Mr Griffin. Why those minimum requirements might it be quite burdensome if any new body has to move a fleet of foot and quickly? You mentioned earlier that you tried to mirror this as much as possible on SCOSS, but SCOSS does that in a different way, so I was wondering why there is a difference there. That was reflecting some of SCOSS evidence that I have been given to previous committees where they have, I do not know if I have complained the right word, but I have maybe raised concerns about the notice periods that they get from government and the time they have to report on regulations. It was reflecting on some of the early work of SCOSS that perhaps a greater lead in time was needed when it comes to that. However, we have been careful to make sure that we include provision in the legislation that says that if any regulation made by government is considered to be urgent, it waives the responsibility to consult or the timescales that are in place. I felt that, as drafted, it was reflecting some of the issues with the work and practice that SCOSS had raised but still given the flexibility to be, like you say, a fleet of foot if the government felt that regulations needed to be introduced on an urgent basis. I think that that is helpful. Finally, the members clearly mentioned SCOSS a lot and I completely understand why Mr Griffin would do that. I think that he would consider himself fiercely independent of government as well. Earlier in my line of questioning, I tried to separate out a non-statutory advisory group advising government in relation to what the new benefits should look like and a statutory body that would then give recommendations to government about groups, individuals and conditions that would qualify for that benefit. One suggestion that we heard was that SCOSS does not have the expertise to do that, but a subgroup contained within SCOSS could have that and that might have the advantage of not setting up a new body. It would be statutory, it would be independent but it might be less costly. Is that something that you are giving consideration to? We did, but considering the nature of the entitlement that we are looking at is to give workers who have been injured or become ill at their work support through the social security system. I think that it is important that those workers who have lived experience are given permanence that they have a statutory underpinning that they cannot simply be disbandied as a sub-committee of SCOSS whenever they felt the need that they were protected. If that was put in statute, I suppose that my frustration is that I want to give this piece of legislation a good will, but I need to make sure that I am looking at all the potential options of the best way to do this. That is one of those potential options. I am just wondering if that subgroup was specified in Trenching Statute, Independent and Cudopory, not your desired outcome but might that be one outcome that would still be progressive? It would take primary legislation in the same way that the bill would. So, a lot longer and pushing a lot closer up to the deadline that the Government have to take over responsibility for that benefit. However, you would need to see a mirror of the provisions of this bill in terms of the membership, in terms of the balance of employers and employees and making sure that that has lived experience. I guess that you are still looking at primary legislation to implement that. I am not sure how much financial savings there would be from creating a subgroup with essentially the same purpose and function and probably take a longer time to get to the same point where we could potentially be in passing this legislation. Last, I shall be helpful. I am not sure either. I am just trying to make sure that the committee is looking at all the potential options and clearly we are presented with one specific option, but I really appreciate the evidence that you have given this morning. Okay, so that concludes the evidence session and I thank you all for attending. The committee's next step will be to report to the Scottish Parliament in the coming weeks, so I now briefly suspend the meeting until I allow for the setup of the next agenda item. Welcome back. Next this morning is the consideration of an affirmative statutory instrument, the social security information sharing Scotland amendment regulations 2024. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. I welcome to the meeting Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice. I also welcome her officials Camilo Arredondo, Solicitor and Kelly Donohoe, Crosscutting Benefits Policy Official Scottish Government. Thank you for joining us today. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited in the upcoming agenda items to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not in the debate that follows. I am now going to invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement. The primary focus of social security Scotland is to ensure people receive the assistance that they are entitled to putting the person first and treating them with fairness, dignity and respect in line with the key principles of the social security Scotland charter. However, the Scottish Government recognises that, in undertaking this role, social security Scotland engages with some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland. Inevitably, this will lead to instances where it becomes apparent that a person may be at risk of harm and to adequately support people in this situation, we must have a clear and robust process in place. As such, I am keeping with our commitment to support the wellbeing of the people we engage with, a public consultation launched in March 2022 seeking views on creating a specific legal gateway for social security Scotland to make referrals concerning risk of harm to the relevant authorities. The consultation response has demonstrated overall support for this proposal. It is important to make a distinction between cases where a person may be at risk of harm and those where there is an immediate threat or risk to life. Situations where immediate threat or endangerment to life are observed are reported to Police Scotland under the common law duty of care. Those regulations instead cover the sharing of information where a person is at risk of harm, with harm depending on the sharing variously being defined to include significant neglect, physical, mental or emotional harm or being likely to cause self-harm. Child and adult protection services within local authorities are governed by legislation, which is underpinned by Scottish Government national guidance for child protection and a code of practice for adult support and protection. Those allow referrals to be made by Government agencies and third sector organisations who engage with vulnerable people and who may have cause to refer concerns of harm. In July 2022, the code of practice was updated to include Social Security Scotland as one of those agencies, recognising the agency as a key partner with a role to play in supporting vulnerable people. Such referrals where a risk of harm has been identified are currently being made by Social Security Scotland under an interim process while those regulations are being considered. The agency has a safeguarding team staffed by qualified health and social care professionals who review all concerns raised and where appropriate make referrals using a gateway in health legislation. However, this legislation only covers sharing related to harm to physical and mental and does not cover financial abuse. Those regulations now enable sharing of information relating to financial abuse where this caused harm. Further more, for the purposes of transparency, I consider it appropriate to create a bespoke and explicit legal gateway to cover safeguarding referrals from the agency. Additionally, during the course of drafting officials identified that where a person is an adult within capacity under the Adults Within Capacity Scotland Act 2000 and has a power of attorney, a legal guardian or is subject to an appropriate order, the public guardian has authority to investigate concerns of financial or property abuse. Drafting therefore includes referrals to the office of the public guardian where this is suspected. The process of preparing those regulations has involved significant engagement with relevant parties, including the information commissioner's office, local authorities, health and social care officials, information governance policy leads, social work leads and data protection officials. The regulations make provision for social security Scotland to only make referrals of concern off a risk of harm. That is to ensure no interference with the investigating powers or decision making process of local authorities. It remains for local authorities to make risk assessments and to evaluate additional help required by the individual. For the burdens of doubt, the sharing provided for by those regulations will ensure that referral will have no impact on the assessment of a person's application for assistance. Only information relevant to the risk of harm observed will be shared. Consent from the individual being referred will be sought in most instances, but I have included provisions to refer cases where consent cannot reasonably be obtained. No information concerning a referral of harm will be held on a person's file relating to their application for assistance, and the referral will be stored in a separate restricted access file in line with data protection laws. The aim of those regulations is to support vulnerable people who are identified as being at risk of harm by referring them to the appropriate authority for help and support. That, as I am sure the committee will agree, is a positive action for the people who need it most. I am now going to move on to questions. Our questions will be directed to you, but you are of course welcome to invite any official to respond, should you wish to do so. I am going to invite Rose McAllan. What training and guidance is in place to ensure that data sharing is proportionate, and just for clarity, I know that you have alluded to this in your opening statement, but can you give us a more detailed idea of what your thinking proportionate is? All staff have mandated to data protection training, which is refreshed annually. Staff training on identifying vulnerable people at risk of harm has been delivered alongside guidance and a process that ensures that staff can raise concerns quickly and effectively. All concerns identified are discussed with the line manager, and then forward to the safeguarding team, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. That dedicated safeguarding team, as I said, is comprised of experienced professionals who are responsible for considering and reporting the referrals to the appropriate authority. This team is overseen by the deputy director for health and social care and the chief medical advisor, so that experience and knowledge is very much informed by the proportionality of information sharing. That is a process that has many levels, checks and balances to it, to ensure that all staff are trained. However, the information is shared sensitively within the agency and particularly towards the safeguarding team, which is comprised of a great deal of experience. I suspect that the regulations are designed to have real quality changes of practice, which make a difference to vulnerable individuals. What kind of changes in practice do you think might happen? How would that be monitored? At present, the concerns of harm, as I mentioned in my original remarks, are being referred to local authorities through the 1978 act, but that does not cover, as I mentioned, scenarios of financial harm or financial abuse, so that is a very important aspect that develops. However, as well as filling those gaps, it absolutely maintains our commitment to support some of the most vulnerable people that we engage with, so our ability to put that in a very clear, transparent fashion is also very important, even though we have had an interim process in place. On the aspects that are being monitored, that is very, very important, given the sensitivity of the information and the importance that the agency and the Government overall have in ensuring that we are dealing with that sensitively, appropriately and thoroughly. We have a new system of records to the core statistics that is being developed, clearly given the sensitivity of the nature. As I mentioned in my original remarks, that is not held in the main system for all staff to see, but it is held sensitively for only those who are dealing with those issues to be able to see that, and they will be able to monitor that and report up to the executive team as required. That is really helpful, cabinet secretary. I appeared distracted during your reply, because I wanted to check the name of a project, and you will see that that is not very professional. I will tell you why I was looking at my phone, cabinet secretary, because I invited a project to Parliament last week called Financially Included in the name of just escapement, and they deal with the economic abuse of women and the support of women to escape that economic abuse and put their finances back on track after having suffered that. I was very interested to hear what you said about that kind of abuse and exploitation. Is there any more you can say about how that could help women in particular just now on the record, or perhaps you could contact the committee and go conscious that 16 days of activism against gender-based violence and economic abuse is a key part of that, and if that addresses some of that, it should be quite nice to get some of that on the record this morning. I have apologies for that distraction there, but I just wanted to check and add my details right up at the question that I was about to ask, cabinet secretary. Siddorff, I just thought that I'd lost you halfway through my answer, but that's fine. I think that I've actually met and visited the officers of the charity that you speak about. I noticed that you'd had at an event and had hoped to come down to meet them again, and I was very impressed by the work that they do. I'm very pleased to see that being recognised within the Parliament as well. While I was on that visit, we spoke in great detail about the video concerns that we should all have around abuse being seen in the widest sense, and that include aspects around financial abuse. That's why we're very clear in my opening remarks about the need for us to recognise all abuse, including financial. That clearly is a concern for many different democratics. Clearly, the committee will be aware that there are concerns raised, particularly perhaps with older clients and financial abuse towards them, but you quite rightly mentioned, Mr Doris, the aspects around domestic abuse and financial control being part of that. I would very much hope that that would be something that would be able to assist those women in those types of situations, if agency staff ever came across that. I wonder if you could say anything about how clients should be informed that their information might be used in that kind of way. One of the reasons for having those regulations is to make sure that we're not working on the interim measures that we spoke about, but we are being very transparent about what's in place. Clearly, we have data protection and privacy notice statements that are attached on the Gov.Scot website, and that makes clear that we will share information, and it includes mention of safeguarding, so that clearly states the fact that information will be shared in very specific circumstances where there are safeguarding concerns. Clearly, as all committee members will be aware, the sharing of information is exceptionally sensitive. There has to be a great deal of care to make sure that that's done lawfully. That's why those statements are made as people go through application processes, where it's, of course, not possible to ask a client's consent for their information to be shared. That's still allowed for that to happen, but it's important that we do that because, as we've just mentioned, in the discussion with Mr Doris, there may be coercion, and there may be aspects where a client is not able to give their consent at that time. We are still obliged to ensure that we are sharing that information with all the care and sensitivity that committee would expect the agency to have at that point. I have to say that my reaction is very positive to that, because I think that there is a problem out there that we need to address. Can you say anything about how it might interact with power of attorney? In that case, would it be the person who holds the power of attorney who would be informed or consulted, but, of course, there's a risk that they are the ones who are carrying out the abuse? I'll perhaps bring in one of my officials, if you'd like to. Yes, it's actually the client. I have to imagine in the case where the power of attorney—just for clarification—would the power of attorney potentially be the person committing the abuse against the client? Frankly, I think that that happens because there's very little check on people with power of attorney, but in a sense that's a separate issue. It could be, it could be either. In most circumstances, the provisions in the regulations include where the power of attorney is the person committing the abuse against the individual, in which case that would also be one of the points for referral. If it was financial abuse or property abuse that the power of attorney was committing or alleged to be committing against the client, that would be a referral to the public guardian under the new provisions. If it was neglect or physical and emotional abuse that the power of attorney was alleged to be committing against the client, that would be a referral to the local authority under the new provisions. If it was a suspicion of someone else committing abuse against the individual, can we know if that would be—we wouldn't seek consent from the power of attorney to be able to do that, although they stand in the shoes of the client? Yes. The power of attorney is regulated under the Adults of the Capacity Scotland act, which in turn has overseen body of the office for the public guardian. There's a route to sharing with the public guardian in the case of—in all cases, where the power of attorney is involved with a client, whether they're the person accused of a financial abuse or in the case where there is a power of attorney and there is someone else potentially causing the harm that would require the referral. The exact intricacies of who would be informed depend on the case in hand, but there are means of referring to the office of the public guardian and the local authority within the regulations. Those would provide the individual situations depending on the exact circumstances. It would be a method of getting that information to a relevant authority who would then carry out further investigations and take any further actions as appropriate. Those regulations are really essentially a power to share with the relevant authority. It would be for that relevant authority then to use its own legislation and its own powers to carry out the investigation in more detail depending on what is required, if that makes sense. I am now going to bring in Katie Clark. The regulations apply to a person with whom they, Social Security Scotland, have come into contact. Who other than clients would Social Security come into contact with and how would they be informed about their information being used? Perhaps it might be best to use an example in those aspects, if you can imagine a situation in which an application is being made for child disability payment. Through that you have had contact with a parent or carer. A member of our local delivery staff might be out there and have genuine concerns about not necessarily the child but the parent or carer, mental health concerns or whatever that might be, a fear of domestic abuse. It is that type of area in which it is very important that, when we talk about dignity, fairness and respect, it is not just about the client. It is about applying that to everybody who the agency becomes in contact to. In that case, that would be something in which that local delivery member of staff would be able to come back and go through the processes that we have talked about to be able to assist the carer, the parent that may be in difficulty, even though they are not technically the client. Perhaps that type of example can bring out why it is very important to look at the situation that presents itself to that member of staff as they are going through a case. Is there anything more you would say about how that information would be used, how they would be informed? What would the processes be? Would it be similar to what you have previously outlined? Indeed, it would be the same type of process. Of course, there is an attempt to achieve consent, but if that consent for the reasons that we have gone into already would not be appropriate or would not be able to be given, then that can still be done. I believe that Rose McAll wanted to come in. Apologies, Rose, but if you would like to come in now, thanks. Thank you. My apologies, cabinet secretary. I want to go back to Mr Mason's question regarding how our clients are informed. From your initial answer, it was that everybody sort of signs up to that initial agreement that there will be information sharing. I think that a lot of people in circumstances of stress will agree to a lot of things without fully understanding what that actually means. In the case where there can be no explicit consent because of the circumstances that are already put out there, how does that individual know that that is happening in the background in effect? Perhaps they will not know that that safeguarding concern has been raised and delivered to the local authority or the office of the public guardian, and then, as Cymru pointed out, it would be up to those organisations to then deal with that in the manner that they would usually do. Again, it is very specific about allowing an agency member of staff to be able to ensure that they have any concerns that they have dealt with in an appropriate process within the agency, and then there is the legal ability for that to be handed over to the relevant authority to then use their own powers, their own usual investigating manners, et cetera, to be able to look into that, and then that would be for those authorities to be able to determine what to do with that information and how to be able to deal with the individual concerned. Okay, again, excuse my ignorance on this, but we could have a situation where the first thing the client knows is somebody from social work turns up at the door. In the case where the agency believes that that is the only way that that can be done, then yes, because they may, for example, fear that they will be making the harm worse and may be allowing a perpetrator of abuse to have more power, more control or more avenues for abuse because of the way that information is handled. So, there is a sensitivity in this about, yes, dealing with the information, obtaining consent, but also being very careful about how you deal with that information in that you could actually make an exceptionally difficult situation a lot worse if it's not done sensitively. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, thanks very much. I'm now going to invite Paul O'Kane. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to cabinet secretary. I just, I think we've probably covered some of this detail, but are there other situations in where explicit consent wouldn't be given and that information would be shared and obviously thinking again in terms of perhaps some of the adult or child protection legislation that is in existence and some of the interventions that often have to be made with other relevant authorities where someone wouldn't explicitly give their consent, but in terms of order to protect the public, that has to be done. Yeah, so another example that might be perhaps helpful is that consent is not required where a person lacks capacity to act. So, for example, around referrals to the public guardian where people are covered by the Adults for Incapacity Act, I think I've mentioned that before, they cannot give consent, so that's one of the areas in that. The others we've probably touched on in previous answers, but, as I said, the regulations do provide exemptions to allow for that sharing of information, specifically where it's viewed that there's reasonable cost to suspect that the individual is at risk of harm, and that's the important aspect that this always comes back to, so hopefully that gives another example of how this would be dealt with. Okay, thanks very much. I'm now going to invite Marie McNair in, and that will conclude our question. Thanks. Thanks, convener. I believe my question has been covered, and the cabinet secretary's open. Okay, thanks very much. So, I'm going to move on to agenda item 4, which agenda item 4 is the formal consideration of motion S6M-11172, that the social justice and social security committee recommends that the social security information sharing Scotland amendment regulations 2024 draft be approved. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and to move this motion. I now invite contributions from members. I invite John Mason to come in. Thanks, convener. Just briefly, I think this is definitely a step in the right direction. I think there is a problem here with potentially financial abuse, and I think anything we can do to tighten up and protect people is to be very welcomed. Okay, would anyone else like to come in? Ross? Thank you. Totally behind the understanding behind this, and I think it's very important. I will always have a concern that the individual and the client, in a lot of cases, is circumvented in certain ways. That will always be a concern to me, but I accept wholeheartedly what's trying to be moved forward here, and I think it's very important that we do that. There will always be a little question mark in the back of my mind that the individual still needs to be at the heart of everything that we do. I now invite the cabinet secretary to sum up and respond to the debate. Thank you, convener. Very little to add. I would just respond to Ross McCall's point in that the set of regulations is an attempt to make sure that the individual remains at the heart of everything that we do, because it is a threat to harm on that individual, is why we would take this, which we recognise as a very serious step of using these regulations. I hope that I can reassure her that the intent of it is to make sure that we are protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of which, just because of the circumstances, may not be able to give their explicit consent, but it is very much based on protection of those individuals that we seek to make those regulations today. The question is that motion S6M-11172, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be approved. Are we all agreed? The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course, and I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve a draft of the report for publication. I thank the cabinet secretary and the officials as well, and that concludes our public business. We will now move into private to consider the remaining items on the agenda.