 Welcome to the 28th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received no apologies for this meeting. Our first item of business for today is a decision to take agenda items 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? Our next item is the final evidence session of our inquiry into addressing child poverty through parental employment. Previously, we have held evidence sessions on childcare, education, employability, family-friendly working and transport. Today, we are going to hear from the Scottish Government on some of these themes, as well as social security rules and governance. I welcome to the meeting Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Natalie Donn, Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise. Natalie will be joining us shortly. Officials supporting them are Matthew Farrell, Head of Strategy, Finance and Performance, Julie Humphries, Deputy Director of Child Poverty and Financial Well-Bean, Anne Mackenzie, Unit Head of Child Poverty and Policy Unit of the Scottish Government. Who are joining us in the room? I welcome Graeme Dey, Minister for Higher and Further Education and Jane Duffy, Unit Head of Post-School Qualifications of the Scottish Government. They are all joining us remotely. I thank you for joining us today, Cabinet Secretary. I believe that you would like to start with a short opening statement. I am grateful to the committee for inviting myself and my ministerial colleagues along to give evidence today. Tackling poverty and protecting people from harm is one of the three critical and interdependent missions for the Government, as the First Minister stated last week. It is clear that economic growth goes hand-in-hand with tackling poverty. A programme for government commits to increasing the pay of up to 100,000 social care and childcare staff to rolling out universal free-skill meals for all pupils in primary 6 and 7, starting with those children in the seat of the Scottish child payment and introducing a pilot for the removal of ScotRail peak-time fares. Driving forward action at greater pace and scale to meet our ambitious targets remains at the heart of the work across all portfolios. However, the harm inflicted by the UK Government's austerity-driven policies and the on-going cost of the union crisis is making our job considerably harder. If the UK Government reversed key welfare reforms that were introduced in 2015, that would help lift 70,000 people out of poverty this year, including 30,000 children, and put £780 million back in the pockets of low-income households. Best Start Bright Futures outlines the wide-ranging actions that this Government and our partners will take to reduce child poverty in Scotland. Increasing incomes from work and earnings is an important aspect of our overall approach. That is why we remain committed to scaling the reach and effectiveness of our devolved employability services for low-income parents to enter, sustain and progress with employment, and have made £108 million available for the delivery of employability services this year. We have also set clear priorities for reform of post-school education to deliver a lifelong education research and skills system that enables everyone to fulfil their potential. It is deeply frustrating that employment law remains a reserved matter in the hands of the Conservative Government, a view shared by trade unions across the UK, which this week backed calls for the employment law to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Despite that, we have set out a number of wide-ranging actions in our refreshed fair work action plan, which was published in December last year, which aimed to tackle labour market inequalities, and we are committed to working with businesses to address Scotland's labour market participation challenges, starting with a focus on health and the needs of parents, particularly those in the six priority groups to help to reduce child poverty. We know that high-quality, affordable and accessible childcare plays a critical role in supporting employment and the economy. Scotland already has the most generous childcare offer anywhere in the UK, supporting families and helping to give children the best possible start in life. Our programme for government sets out ambitious commitments to delivering a significant expansion of targeted childcare provision, focused on tackling child poverty and supporting more parents to take up or sustain employment. We also understand that a sustainable exit from poverty will never be just about securing and retaining a job, and that is why we are taking much wider action to tackle poverty. That includes continued investment to deliver more affordable homes, our commitment to transforming how family support is delivered, with a focus on shifting towards early intervention and prevention, supported by the whole family wellbeing fund, and our continued investment in the likes of our game-changing Scottish child payment, which has put more than £350 million into the pockets of low-income families since the payment launched in February 2021. The way that actions are delivered are key to the planned success. The creation of the tackling child poverty programme board, supplemented by the formation of a new ministerial group on delivery of best start bright futures, will ensure robust governance and co-ordinated implementation. We are delivering in the most challenging circumstances with our block grant funding, 4.8 per cent lower in real terms than it was in 2021-22 at the time that this budget was set. Over the past five financial years, we have mitigated £711 million worth of Tory cuts, including the bedroom tax, the freezing local housing allowance and the benefit cap, through activities such as decresionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund. Our action is making a difference, modelling estimates, that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative and absolute poverty this year as a result of the Government's policies, with poverty levels 9 per cent lower than they would have been otherwise. That includes lifting an estimated 50,000 children out of relative poverty through the Scottish child payment, but we know that there is more to do. We will continue to do everything within the scope of the powers and the limited budget that we have to tackle poverty and support those in greatest need, strengthening that support where we can. I very much welcome the committee's inquiries, the opportunity for my ministerial colleagues and I to answer your questions and, of course, to your conclusions and recommendations in due course. We will now start by focusing on employability. We have Graeme Dey joining us remotely, so I am going to start with theme 2, and I am going to bring in Jeremy. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and good morning, minister and two, or your team, it's good to have you here today. I wonder if I can address my first question perhaps to Mr Dey. When will the Scottish Government deliver its lifelong learning offer, and how will it ensure that lifelong learning is accessible, particularly to low-income parents? First of all, I thank the committee for allowing me to contribute from Stolaway, where I am visiting the local college. I think that in the context of this is a working progress, there is no doubt about that, but I think that we have made significant progress and the reform agenda, which we are embarking upon, will afford us further opportunity to build on that. Mr Balfour will be aware of the increasing levels of financial support that we have been providing. We have recently increased to under-graduate support by £900 and 11 per cent plus increase to the maximum, but it is in FE for £23.24. We are now considering how we prioritise our programme for government commitment to reform student support in the context of the fixed budget and very challenging financial circumstances. From that point of view, that is an on-going exercise, as is looking overall at what we do to deliver best for the people who need the most support in order to access the post-schools education system. I want to come back a wee bit, but you started your opening statement by saying that a lot of progress has been made, and then you talked about two payments. What other progress has been made in the last couple of years, would you say? I think, Mr Balfour, I'm sure you would recognise the progress that's been made and improving things through the widening access programme, hitting our target as early as we did, but we absolutely don't rest in our laurels. We are working very closely with our partners at FE and HE to see what more we can do to improve access to both sectors for people from the poorest backgrounds. One of the commitments made within the SNP manifesto at the last election was to introduce a special support payment so that students who are in receipt of benefits do not lose out because they are in receipt of or entitled to student support. When do you think that manifesto commitment will be delivered? I was already touched upon, Mr Balfour, that is something that we are currently looking at, and it's how we prioritise that commitment. I'm sure that you will recognise the very challenging financial circumstance that we are in, but that is something that we are working on. I don't want to be a wee bit vague for people who are listening. We are working on it, and I'm sure that can be used for lots of policies. Have you any indication of when that manifesto commitment will be delivered, which you've promised to make? In the context of this parliamentary term, it was the commitment that was made, and that's what we're working towards. I'm sorry, I can't be more specific. I'm not trying to be typical or vague in any way. I'm being as open with you as I can. It is something that we're looking at currently, but we are in an incredibly challenging financial set of circumstances. If that is going to be introduced, will that require regulations, or can it be done within the existing powers that you have at the moment? Can I bring in Jane Duffey, for sure, on that to give you the detail, if I may? One of the factors that we have to consider in this is working with DWP and making sure that we're doing everything within our devolved competency and working with them so that we don't trip anything up in terms of the benefits that students are already offering. There are discussions with DWP next week, and we're hoping to finalise the details and just check that our proposals don't go against their rules and don't go against our devolved competency. We are checking to see with DWP that it's deliverable for the academic year 24-25, and we are hoping to make an announcement on that by the end of this year, so I hope that that helps. That's very helpful. Can I just one final clarification on that? If it is possible and the negotiations go well with DWP, would it be delivered by DWP or would it be delivered by the new Scottish Security Agency? I think that we're still finalising those details to make sure which is the best route to do it and which one we're able to deliver efficiently and quickly, but we'll be able to give more details on that as soon as possible. Thank you to the minister for attending remotely. This concludes our discussion on the theme of employability, sorry, education and training. Thank you again and thanks to your officials as well. We'll now briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a panel change before we move on to the next theme. Welcome back and I'd like to welcome Natalie Donne, minister for children, young people and keeping the promise. I would like to invite the theme child care and I'm going to bring in Paul. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning to the panel and to the minister. Perhaps just thinking about the current childcare offer and then the plans that were announced in terms of looking to expansion, to what extent does the Government expect the childcare policy to reduce child poverty in time to meet the 2030 targets that have been set through the child poverty act? Thank you very much for the question. High quality early learning childcare clearly has a positive impact on all children's outcomes and I think that the evidence shows that it has a greater positive impact on children living in poverty. It can also support parents' work, train or study and I know that the committee have heard that during evidence and it can have a direct impact on the drivers of child poverty through supporting household incomes. In terms of our current offer and previous modelling published by IPPR Scotland estimated that 600 hours funded ELC in Scotland lifted over 10,000 adults and children out of poverty. They know that the expansion to 1140 hours still will have an even bigger impact and obviously as Mr O'Kane has referred to our programme for government setting out how we will go even further to that. Under the existing 1140 offer families paid for this themselves. It would cost them around £5,000 per child per year and that is a huge amount of money. Independent research shows that 97% of parents are satisfied with the quality of funded ELC and there is a range of on-going work focused on delivering a robust and accurate evidence base and evaluation of the impact of 1140 hours itself including an economic evaluation of the expansion. The baseline phases of the Scottish study of ELC were published in 2019 to 2020 and the fourth phase is on track to begin data collection in October. That will give us a clearer idea of the impact that our current offer is having and obviously that will be further looked at as the programme is expanded. I am interested in that analysis because I think that we have had a lot of discussion in committee about the need to have good data and to analyse exactly what has happened in terms of 1140 expansion. I am particularly interested in one-and-two-year-olds, so obviously looking particularly at care experience one-and-two-year-olds and one-and-two-year-olds in households where people are not in work. I wonder if the minister can say something about to what depth will that research go into that one-and-two-year-old offer to better inform how we move forward? I might refer to my official for that kind of in-depth answer. Work has already commenced on understanding the impact of the early on in childcare offer on families and on children. In terms of the depth in which we have published details, we can provide that to the committee separately about the elements that we will look at and how we will try to understand how that is impacting on families across Scotland. We can provide that to the committee. I do not have details that I can provide with you here today, but what we are looking at is how does it impact on the key determinants of child poverty, what does it do for families? We published quite significant detail on how we would look to take forward childcare in Scotland last year. The strategic childcare plan that was published in October 2022 set out not just what we were hoping to do over the course of the term but also the way that the outcomes were intended to be achieved and how we would hope to work with partners in the sector to deliver that. That set out quickly an intention to work with families and with the existing childcare sector providers to best understand what type of provision would make the greatest impact on all the age groups that it currently covers. The commitments that were announced in the programme for government just last week set out a plan where we will introduce a number of early adopting communities. That work will look in depth at what options are best for those age groups. We know that the type of childcare that is suitable for three and four-year-olds is very different to the type of childcare that is required for younger age groups. Those early adopting communities will look into that in great detail to understand how they should be delivered so that a targeted approach can be taken both in terms of the different ages but also in the evidence-needing local areas across Scotland. I am conscious of the time, so I can remind members when they are asking questions to be as clear and concise and succinct as possible to allow all members to come in if they have any supplementaries as well. I am going to invite Bob Doris in. I am very ambitious plans to expand free childcare in Scotland. It is really to be welcomed, but there is obviously a key challenge in how we sufficiently expand the childcare workforce to meet that increased supply of high-quality childcare. What are the challenges but more importantly, what is the Scottish Government's strategy for dealing with those challenges? I am very switched on to the challenges. Again, I know that the committee has heard evidence on that, and it has also been raised with me in various meetings that I have held with key stakeholders and organisations. In the programme for government, the member will be aware that the Scottish Government is committing to increasing pay to £12 an hour for early learning and childcare professionals working in the PVI sector, who are delivering early learning-funded provision. That is a really important step. We will also expand the existing recruitment and retention pilots for childminders to grow this part of the workforce by 1,000 more by 26 to 27. Those two actions coupled together are critical steps towards addressing some of the issues around recruitment and retention that we are seeing. I am also involved in further work and will also work closely with our partners, particularly the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Social Services Council, to consider a robust regulatory and qualifications framework for what school-aged childcare should look like. Obviously, the pilot areas have already been mentioned in terms of determining that. The work in the pilot areas recognises that the school-aged childcare sector needs a varied workforce to meet the differing needs of children and families. We also have work going on with COSLA on the findings of the joint Scottish Government and COSLA review of sustainable rates. Again, it is something that has been raised with me in various different meetings. I am sure that the member has switched on to that, and that will be published later in the year. We will determine what actions we are taking as a result of that. It is important for steps just now, but there is still further work under raise. I want to ask any follow-up questions because of time, but the sustainable rates are vitally important. I sat up and told the summer on education committee that that is something that they are very alive to, but you put it on the record. Thank you for coming to talk to us today. I am going to comment on this. We have had Barnett consequentials for rural that did not make it to rural. We have had Barnett consequentials for swimming pools that did not quite make it to swimming pools. You can understand my concern, so I am really important to know that Barnett consequentials coming from the UK Government for childcare expansion. Can I have some guarantee that funding will definitely go to childcare expansion, knowing how important it is for us to move this forward? Thank you for the question. I do not have to tell the member the difficult public spending environment that we find ourselves in, and I completely appreciate the member's concerns. We are currently investing more than £1 billion in delivering childcare in 23 and 24, and as we have discussed this morning, we are announcing plans for further expansion, so it would absolutely be vital that we see funding continue to that. On investment in childcare, the member will be aware that budgets are set out through the budget process, and I would not be able to foresee your comment on that at this moment in time. I appreciate again where the member is coming from. All the consequentials that are given to the Scottish Government are used, so if the member wishes to see more money going into childcare, the simple fact is that it will have to come from somewhere else, and that will have to be taken into account as well. The consequentials are not sitting there unused. We have already invested in childcare, as Ms Dawn has said, but the money has to come from somewhere if the member is going to suggest that more should be going into childcare. May I just come back? I really appreciate the cabinet secretary coming back with that, and I understand that. However, we have specific Barnett consequentials for childcare coming through because of the expansion programme in Westminster, and I am just wondering if that was all going to be allocated, and it was really to make sure that it was all being put across. I appreciate where the cabinet secretary is coming back, and I appreciate the points that are made, and I accept that there has been money that has been made available for childcare, but that should be a simple process. It is a simple process during the budget process, and if the member wishes, when she sees the budget, when it is produced, for money to be moved elsewhere, and if she is not satisfied with what is in childcare, then it needs to come from somewhere else. I simply state the fact that, if the member wishes to use consequentials in a different way, I would suggest that her party has to produce a balanced budget that would suggest where that would come from. I am now going to invite Bob Doddison. Just a brief supplementary question. That would be really helpful, cabinet secretary, when we do our budget scrutiny. There will, of course, be barren at consequentials, but the three or four yield offer in England is 570 hours childcare in Scotland's 1,140, so I suspect that there is a significant additional investment already being made in Scotland compared to England. It would be quite helpful if we could get some pound signs around that, some figures around that, so when we do our budget scrutiny, we can see what the inputs are in Scotland for childcare provision compared to the rest of the UK, so that we can make informed decisions during our budget process. My understanding is that, if Ms Donnell correct me if I am wrong or that committee members will focus on the rest of the order in England, it is on working parents. If we are being asked to replicate what is happening down south, that would suggest us taking away the offer that we have already for people who are not in work, which would be of a great concern to the Government. Thank you very much. That concludes our discussion on the themes of childcare, and I thank the minister and her official for coming along today. I will now briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a panel change before we move on to the next theme. Welcome back. We will now continue our evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Consider the Themes of Employability and Fair Family Friendly Working. I welcome Neil Gray, Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, and Eden Gricewood, interim director, economic strategy and Scottish Government. Thank you for attending today. I understand that you will also answer some questions under the policy coherence theme later. I will invite members to ask questions in turn. I presume that Neil Gray might be the appropriate Cabinet Secretary to direct this question. I want to ask about employability. As you know, employability programmes have other priority groups as well as parents. How do you ensure that parents become a high priority for all delivery partners of no one left behind? I thank Katie Clark for that question and good morning colleagues. It is good to be back at my former committee. I recognise some faces around the table this morning. Yes, I am absolutely right that employability programmes have parental employability as a key target. Obviously, we work with our partners to ensure that that remains the case in terms of the work that they are doing. I will take Eden in to provide a bit more detail on that in a second. So far, it has been doing relatively well. We know that a quarter of all those who have been involved in the programmes go on to work and a further quarter go on to a further positive destination, including further education or training. We are pleased with that. There is obviously more work to do to make sure that that data can be contextualised, but it is obviously a key priority for us in terms of addressing the child poverty issues that the committee has been focused on, and that we continue to make sure that we are offering all the support that we possibly can with the resources that we have and local government has in order to support parents who often have been, in those cases, in the programmes that we have, been furthest from the employment market. I will take Eden. I do not know if he wants to supplement any of that. Yes, I am happy to. In terms of existing funding under no one left behind, there is joint working with COSLA and the joint partnership working agreement to focus efforts on child poverty as a shared mission, a shared target. That feeds through into prioritisation on the ground. More explicitly, there is the parental employment support money, which has been ramped up significantly this year. That is targeted explicitly on parents, both in work and out of work, in terms of raising incomes for that group. Two thirds of children in poverty are in families where someone works. Will employability programmes support more working families, or do you expect that other policies will be more relevant for tackling poverty in working families? The cabinet secretary would like to answer that. Yes, we are working with parents to try to ensure that they are getting access to further skills or training to be able to get them further on in the labour market. Katie Carcass is right to point to the other policies that we have around bringing up people's incomes. Obviously, we have the highest proportion of workers in Scotland, compared to anywhere else in the UK that are paid at least the real living wage, currently sitting at 91 per cent. We do not rest on those laurels. Obviously, we are working with the living wage campaign, poverty alliance and others to try to make sure that that continues to be ramped up. We are also working with our public sector partners to ensure that we are introducing, as we did on 1 July, conditionality to our public sector procurement funding, to ensure that we have the payment of the real living wage and access to greater worker voice being part of that conditionality. Alongside the employability programmes that we have, we are also taking action in other ways to ensure that, where we can—obviously, we do not have full responsibility—we do not have employment law powers, that we are taking the actions that we can within the devolved settlement to ensure that we are driving up people's pay. We will be coming on to procurement and conditionality later on. I am not sure which Cabinet Secretary this would best be directed to, because it probably crosses over, but I am aware that the UK Government now provides childcare costs as part of universal credit. I would note that that is a capped provision under universal credit. I am interested to know the relationship between that and the parental transition fund, which envidges to be £15 million. Asking that question, I think that it was the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice replied to an IPQ just yesterday in relation to that, citing that perhaps limits to devolved powers interacting with the UK tax and benefit system means that that will still be delivered in some way, but not as originally envisaged. I think that the committee would quite welcome more details of what that means in practice and I suppose what happens to that £15 million. Thank you. I will perhaps start and then Neil Gray can follow in with some more detail. We have been looking very carefully at the parental transition fund and we are very keen to move forward with that, but, as has been stated, there was a question that was answered very recently, which showed that, despite our work with stakeholders and others to see what can be done around this area, given the devolved settlement, given the implications and the interactions with the tax and benefit system, it became very clear that it was not going to be possible to deliver the parental transition fund as we had originally envisaged. That is clearly very disappointing, but I am satisfied that we have worked with stakeholders to test that to the limits. Therefore, we need to find other ways to be able to do that within the powers that we have. Very conscious with all of those things, we never want to do anything that jeopardises somebody's current benefit entitlement because of money that we may be putting through in a fund like that. Given those challenges, we will look to see what more can be done in other ways. I would add that we welcome the changes that have been made on universal credit that were announced by the chancellor. Those were welcome changes. There are still real challenges around that, around the awareness of that and how it is working practically. It is something that we are keeping a very close eye on. Clearly, it is something that we as a Government and stakeholders have been asking for for some time. However, now that we are into that implementation stage, we need to see whether it is genuinely making the difference that we had hoped it would. I am sure that Neil will want to say a bit more about some of that. My only part to add is the question that Mr Doris raised around where that funding has gone. It has been redeployed in order to ensure that the First Minister's commitment not just to double but to treble the fuel and security fund could be realised in this year. That is where some of this year's budget allocation went to. That is very helpful. I want to come back to Shirley-Anne Somerville very briefly, convener. I think that part of what you were saying in answer to my cabinet secretary was that there may have been discussions with UK officials about how, if that £15 million was redeployed, there would be many unintended consequences and parents would it lose out? You have been very diplomatic in relation to how fruitful or otherwise those discussions have been. I get that there is a respectful relationship there at an official level between the two Governments, but can you say any more about what those barriers were and what you have tried to do to resolve them? We work very closely, despite our many differences with the UK Government on policy issues, the area around devolved social security as a joint programme. We need to work very carefully. That is just a simple matter of fact about where the powers lie within devolution and what we can do without having consequences on reserved issues. It is a statement of fact. I think that we have all worked very hard to see where the boundaries could be pushed, but no one wants to get into a position in which we are endangering someone's benefits. It has run its course, I am afraid, as a concept, but clearly the principle behind it was about supporting parents. For example, we already have tried to do what we can in those areas. Job start payment, the member will be well aware, came from the time on social security committee around the work that we undertook on that. We do what we can within the powers that we have, but there are limits to that, and then it is about making sure that what we have can be used most effectively, and that is where it goes into the neo-graze area around employability and further support that we can do. I would like to bring in Jeremy, but if I can just remind you to be as brief as possible. I just wonder whether, with the cabinet secretary, we have a power to create new benefits under the power. What has that looked at as a way of being introduced what you wanted to do, but just simply doing it via a new benefit? It is an interesting point. Mr Balfour's vast experience on the social security committee will know that the job start payment was something that we had to do with a different way of using our powers for exactly some of the limitations that I talked about. Clearly, the concern is how long that takes because it requires legislation within Westminster, so even if we were to find an agreement on a way forward on that, it would take a considerable amount of time for that legislation to be able to go through. We saw that through job start payment and some of the challenges that were involved around the establishment of job start payment. So, when you are faced with those types of barriers, I think that it is imperative that the Government looks at what could be done quicker. That is why we have moved to see what more can be done to support parents into employment through the employability work that Neil Gray has already discussed. It is not that it is ruled out for the future, but given the urgency of this issue, I am certainly not content to wait. Therefore, we have not done work to see what would be done on that. It is more about what we can do now rather than some theoretical point in the future, but it is something that could, of course, be looked at. Just very quickly, I am confused by the answer there. Why would it need Westminster legislation? Why couldn't we just pass legislation here in the Scottish Parliament to introduce a new benefit which would then supplement that income that you will want to pass on to people? I am not quite sure why we need Westminster approval. I am giving an example of the job start payment. When we set up that, it did require Westminster legislation to go through to give us the powers to do that. We could set up another benefit theoretically. It still has implications for reserved benefits, even if we decide to do something ourselves. Those implications will still remain. That is why, even if we have the powers, even if we went forward for that, the challenges about how it interacts with the UK benefits would still exist. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. You tell me how the Scottish Government enabling flexible working throughout the public sector, particularly for those whose jobs cannot be done from home. I think that that will be for me. I thank Mr Dorn for that question. Obviously, we have a challenge here in that, as I said previously, employment law is a reserved area of responsibility. We welcome the fact that the UK Government came forward with the fair work bill, which helps to ensure that there is a greater consistency of work that the Scottish Government had been pushing forward for some time before that and some of the conditionality that we had in our contracts, where we were looking for people to be able to offer fair work from day 1 of employment and flexible working from day 1. That is now a requestable right under the flexible working bill. Obviously, we want that to go further and we continue to work to impress upon the UK Government of the need to do that, not least because of the changing working practices that have been accelerated post Covid, where Mr Dornan is able to join us remotely, which is really good, because it means that we are able to hear from him where, otherwise, in other circumstances, we may not have. It is the same for other people who have challenging personal situations that mean that they may not be able to work in person but are able to contribute remotely, for instance. They may have childcare or other caring responsibilities that they need to either or would like to either compress hours or work on a more flexible basis. We very much understand the need for greater flexibility in working. We have been working with employers through the summer since I have come into post and previously with previous ministers on how we can do more to encourage that, but ultimately the responsibility to legislate on that is for the UK Government and not for us, but we are certainly very much committed to ensuring that we have as flexible a working environment as possible across Scotland. Can I ask you further how you would see the user procurement to help encourage that flexible and family-friendly working? I thank Mr Dornan. Obviously, we have already come forward with conditionality and public procurement, and I have spoken in response to Katie Clark on some of that in practical terms about paying the real living wage, as well as offering greater work or voice. We keep under review our conditionality regime to ensure that we are being as proportionate as possible but also driving the strongest possible outcomes. We have also provided significant funding to the likes of flexibility works and others to help to ensure that businesses are aware of the benefits of providing flexible workplaces but also the practical things that they can do in order to support their employees in that process. I would be happy to bring Aiden in if there is anything further that I would need to add to that, anything that I have missed. I would also say that on top of the money and the funding that is being put forward to help private sector employees, I encourage them to use flexible work and practices and set out the benefits. I would also flag as a public sector quite a lot of work being done by major public sector organisations too in this space, sometimes that necessity in terms of making sure that you can get the workforce that you need but also the principles of fair work first being applied. NHS has been a particular example where a lot of work has been taken forward so they have got a supporting work-life balance, workforce policies and a lot of work across the NHS system now in terms of guidelines on helping to encourage more flexible working practices and some practical things there as well. The last thing that I would say to Mr Dornan is that the programme for government also committed us to piloting a four-day working week in the public sector. It is not necessarily a policy commitment in terms of whether that would be the right or the wrong area to pursue but it is important that we pilot, get the information as to how supportive or otherwise that is for people, how that works practically and we will come forward with more detail and due course on how that will operate. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I will now focus on social security rules as well as governance, policy coherence and evaluating policy impact. I invite Marie McNair. Thank you, convener and good morning, cabinet secretary and your officials. I know from my constituents that the Scottish child payment is a big help with such a difficult time for many during this cost of living crisis and it is a massive investment in Jordan but understandably there are obviously calls for us to increase it. Can you advise the Scottish Government's position on increasing the payment, cabinet secretary? Thank you. Clearly the Scottish child payment has made a difference. We are hearing that directly from stakeholders and also some of the evidence that I quoted in my introductory remarks around the importance of it. It is very clear that there are calls for it to be further increased and I do appreciate where those calls for coming from. I think that it is important to have a bit of context. However, I remember when the Scottish child payment was initially launched, the campaigners were asking for £5 per week per eligible child and we are now at £25 per week per eligible child. I hope that that does show to committee the very serious considerations that are given across government to see what can be done to increase it. The challenge, and committee has heard it before in other answers previously this morning, is the challenges around the financial situation that we find ourselves in and the context. As the First Minister has made clear, we will look to see what we can do on the Scottish child payment and, indeed, on any other anti-poverty measures to see what more can be done on that but it will always have to be done of course within the financial context that we are in. We will consider it very seriously in the run-up to the next budget along with the other asks. There are many that people would wish us to take forward on those issues but it will have to be done within the financial reality of which we are in. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I get that budgets are tight and under pressure. Can you assure committee, though, that the Scottish Government will never introduce a cap or two-child limit on the Scottish child payment? Absolutely not. That is one of the areas that has not even been considered when we look to introduce the Scottish child payment but whether that should be done because it is inherently an unjust way of delivering a benefit. Members will know from their constituency mailbags that there are constituents. Life circumstances can change in the blink of an eye and to be able to suggest that we should use the benefit system to in some way punish people who have third, fourth more children than that is deeply disappointing, particularly when we see the number of families with more children that are in poverty. That is exactly why they are one of our priority areas to look at. We would never even consider that, given the impact that it has on families right across Scotland. The way universal credit treats income means that claimants can quickly lose entitlement and obviously you see as a passport benefit for the Scottish child payment. Do you believe that a taper or a run-on should be considered for the Scottish child payment to stop entitlement being lost? That very much does come down to the legislative background of how the Scottish child payment was set up. I remind members that that was established in 18 months. It was the quickest delivery of a benefit that has ever happened anywhere in the UK. Again, that showed the importance that the Government placed on that at this time. To do that, it was necessary to deliver it as a top-up to current reserved benefits. You need to be, for example, in receipt of universal credit to be able to receive the Scottish child payment. It is therefore not possible, given the legislative underpinning of the Scottish child payment, to allow payment of the Scottish child payment to someone who is not in receipt of, for example, universal credit. It is not something that is possible given the way that the Scottish child payment was set up. I hope that I have explained to members why we set it up in the way that we did. There are plans to make the conditionality regime worse with disabled people now on the radar, and yet the two main Westminster parties remain wedi to sanctions. In mitigation, the Scottish Government changed the Scottish welfare fund guidelines to allow crisis grants to those who are sanctioned. Do you think that the Scottish Government and councils are doing enough to promote the assistance that is available? I know that, certainly in my own mailbox, I had to refer to the scheme. The number of individuals who are being sanctioned is of great concern. Particularly when you look at the numbers pre-pandemic, during-pandemic, post-pandemic, I am happy to provide information for the sake of time to committee on the level of sanctions that are currently impacting on people. Given the fact that we are greatly concerned as a Government about the impact of sanctions on people, it is imperative that there is something in place, like the Scottish welfare fund, to be able to assist people with that. That is exactly why the Scottish Government remains committed to that welfare fund. It is delivered by local authorities. They are responsible for ensuring the promotion of that to people. It is something that we clearly work with them on, and we consider always with them what more can be done to ensure that people are aware of that, because I recognise the member's point about the type of individuals that can be impacted by sanctions are, again, some of the areas that are in the priority groups that we have identified within the best start-break futures. It is a concern when anyone is sanctioned, but to see that people are getting hit the hardest are some of the most vulnerable in our societies of even greater concern. We will certainly welcome that further information to the committee. Just a brief supplementary on uptake of the Scottish child payment, cabinet secretary, recall, I asked the First Minister about the concern that 60,000 families might miss out in terms of payments, and he gave that absolute guarantee that work has been undertaken to make sure that we reach as many families as possible. Does the cabinet secretary want to update the committee on progress of that work? It is a very important issue to ensure that we not only have the benefit in place, but that people know about the benefit and are encouraged and assisted to be able to apply for that. I am happy to provide the committee with the most recent levels of uptake, which, from memory, shows that the number in receipt of Scottish child payment is now greater than the Scottish Fiscal Commission's forecasts of what it thought. I hope that that demonstrates to the member the further work that the Government has done on that. However, as you have heard from Mr Gray, we do not rest in our laurels. We know that there are more people out there in this example that requires Scottish child payment. That is why we take very seriously the work that local delivery does within Social Security Scotland to be able to assist people with benefit applications. That is why we have the continuing commitment to provide support for welfare and advice to ensure that people are supported. Critically, that is made as simple as possible. However, we are always looking for more ways to be able to increase benefit uptake and very happy to work with the committee if there are suggestions about what more we can do on that. I share Mr Ruckeyn's concerns about that and his enthusiasm to make sure that the Government is pressed as much as possible on it. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will be aware, because I made those calls in the chamber previously, that if we are looking at increasing the Scottish child payment, I cannot identify where that cash would come from. Those are the battles that you are grappling with in a budgetary environment. However, a summer supplement of the Scottish child payment in June towards the summer holidays would be a real focused benefit for a lot of families that really struggle for those six and a half weeks with the kids at home and not at school. That is something that I have asked to be considered previously. I have a seven-year-old and a two-year-old. Kids grow pretty quickly. I am fortunate that I can clothe my children, but the school clothing grant is really important for many as well. I know that it has been uplifted in recent years, but the idea of a second supplement to the clothing grant at a later time in the academic year is also two calls for funding, Cabinet Secretary. I get that. I suppose that the point that I am trying to get to, convener, is that we have to make sure that the limited funds that we do have and that we do spend it, we spend it in a focused and effective way. Those are two suggestions that I have made. Are they still under consideration? I will add Mr Doris's request to the long list of suggestions about how I can spend money that currently is already fully committed within the social justice portfolio and across Government, but I take very seriously the points that he raises around that. We are keen, as a Government, to ensure that we are supporting families at some of the most difficult financial times, but that is exactly why we have the best start foods, for example. Of course, the committee will be aware that we are suggesting changes to income levels 4. That is why we have the best start pregnancy and baby payment, the nursery and the schoolage child payment, to recognise that. Of course, as he mentioned, the school clothing grant is being uplifted by inflation, but I recognise that there are always calls for us to do more on that. We will work very carefully with the committee and with others about the prioritisation, because with a number of calls it requires us all to think about how we prioritise the many ways that we could further assist families, which I absolutely appreciate. It is a really difficult time for many people. I am now going to invite Ross McCall. It is very important to me that active change is made. I really want to highlight this, because we have this employment offer, and it is to support 1,200 parents to achieve a 2 percentage point reduction in child poverty by 2026, I believe. How is the impact of the employment offer being evaluated, given that it includes other services such as childcare and transport, as well as employability? What assurances can you give that the target timeframe will actually be met, given that it is such an important subject of matter? Thank you very much. I thank Ross McCall for that question. It is an important commitment, but not least because of what Shirley-Anne Somerville was touching on there around the heavy lifting that has been done on the social security side already to reduce child poverty. Through the various measures that we have taken across government, we are pleased with the fact that 90,000 children in Scotland have been taken out of poverty in large part through the Scottish child payment, but through other measures as well, including our work around employability and ensuring that we are driving up fair work practices. We have a constant evaluation of our employability programmes, making sure that they are tailored in an effective way as possible, and making sure that the transition that there is from the previous to the new is about making sure that we can respond to the local need that is being delivered there. The target is around 12,000. The spice briefing sets out the number that has already been taken through and supported. We are looking at, I think, it is approaching 11,000 that have been supported across the two programmes. As I have already said, a quarter are moving into employment and a further quarter are moving into positive destinations, including for their education or training. However, it is an important consideration for us around how we can make sure that we are tailoring it, both for those with long-term health conditions and disabilities, but also for parents to ensure, as target groups, that for us reaching our child poverty targets that that is as effective as possible. We are making sure that the data that we collect from that is as effective and wide-ranging as possible to ensure that we can carry out that effective monitoring of those programmes. However, it demonstrates the fact that addressing child poverty is not just for the social security system alone. We have to be looking at wider interventions, which is why we have come forward with the programmes that we have. However, it is incumbent upon the other drivers of poverty that are coming away from Scotland, the decisions that are being taken on our behalf at UK Government level, to be scrutinised as well, because we have already heard the impact that has been had on families across Scotland, the decision to have a social security cap and two-child limit is having an incredible impact on families. What we are trying to do is mitigate the difficulties that that is posing. It would be much better if we had a responsibility taken at source of those decisions and changes made so that we are able to see those targets met. I will come back on a couple of points if I may. It is purely just because as much as I accept entirely the remit is about child poverty and parental employment, which is exactly what we are trying to do. Of course, I accept wholeheartedly the child poverty aspect, but the parental employment, as much as we need to monitor that, we need to make sure that there is a long-term process. You talked about positive destinations, but we look at positive destinations in education and that can be over a three to six month period. It is really about long-term sustainability and are we tracking that properly? Are we sure that getting parents back into employment will mean that that is a positive move for a long-term process? And do we have the ability to be able to monitor that properly and come back so that we know that we are actually doing what we are meant to be doing on the ground? Yes, I appreciate that. I will again bring Aiding Gricewood in to supplement the information that I am able to impart. I go back to the importance of the interaction with the UK Government because many of those that interact with the Scottish Government's employability schemes are signposted through the job-centre network. Ensuring that we have a good interaction and a good relationship there is very important and also making sure that there is a supportive environment and a supportive system at UK level to ensure that people feel able to come and interact with the job-centre network is critically important. In terms of our tracking and monitoring, yes, we look at three six 12-month junctures to ensure that we are understanding where people are in their journey and that is where the information that the statistics have already given comes from. But we are always looking at what more we can do working with our partners in local government who deliver many of those programmes, as well as community and voluntary sector colleagues, to ensure that we are taking as much information as possible. As Ross McCall suggests, we are monitoring and evaluating those investments to ensure that they are as effective as possible. I do not know if Eden wants to add to anything, but I have missed. Yes, just to supplement what the cabinet secretary said on the evaluation framework, there has been a lot of time and effort put into that. We are developing a shared measurement framework that is used by all partners so that they can do that tracking and some statistics that the cabinet secretary mentioned were experimental statistics. This is stuff that we are developing as we go along and improving as we go along. The 12,000 figure was based on modelling work, but that was based on assumptions at the time. However, we want to improve that as we go along, informed by the results that are coming from the various evaluation frameworks that are put in place. It is a stretched target and purposefully so. As time goes on, we want to make sure that that framework informs good practice both in terms of that quantitative evidence that is set out. That is always challenging and picking the various elements of that, because the economic context is changing as well as the policy context all the time, too. However, there is also the quality of evidence. Just bringing the various local employment partnerships, they work closely together. We have got improvement service involved as well through COSLA, which is thinking about how we get that best practice shared between different partners so that it can be replicated in different areas and informed. I think that it is purposefully so that it is stretched in that respect. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I am now going to invite Paul Keane. Thank you very much, convener. I am interested to try and pool together a lot of our discussion this morning to look at the kind of cross-cutting nature of anti-poverty work across Government. How, in the view of cabinet secretaries, are we embedding those actions on child poverty across Government? I appreciate that that is a broad question, but it would be useful for committees to have a bit of an overview and then perhaps we can delve into any other detail. Sure. That is an important area. The fact that this is clearly a cross-cutting area of Government is demonstrated by how many ministers we have had along today, and indeed you could have had more. I am not suggesting that you do on behalf of my other minister, but we could have had more. It is a very serious point about how we ensure that we are co-ordinating the work and facilitating the implementation and, importantly, to ensure that we are prioritising work around child poverty within Government. For example, I will give a couple of examples and, if Mr O'Kane wishes for the detail, I can go into it. We have the programme board, which is at official level right across Government, that looks at the specifically best art bright futures and the key action points within that. That reports regularly on implementation, on challenges and, indeed, on opportunities where they arise to see what more can be done and when. I will also chair a ministerial group right across Government to ensure that, again, ministers have oversight. Our intention at the moment is for that to meet quarterly, and that goes on top of what the programme board is already looking at to, again, make sure that we are coming together. Of course, we expect that we have discussions when we meet bilaterally and when we meet in Cabinet around key areas, but that ability for us to take a step back and have real time right across ministerial portfolios to look at that is something that we are very keen to do. Of course, we have a number of evaluation strategies that look at what is happening, the impact of it and, again, further analysis about that require change in portfolios and some of the aspects around the programme board. I hope that that gives Mr O'Kane a flavour of what is going on, but, of course, if he wishes for the details myself and perhaps Julie can furnish him with that. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I am also interested in that, useful in terms of the Government. Obviously, the nature of this work will involve other agencies and local government as a strong partner. Local government is facing huge challenges, not least in terms of resource. Can the cabinet secretary say something about the Government's work on this agenda with local government? Of course, he raises, again, a very important point about that. That is exactly why this is one of the areas that we were very keen and that local government was very keen to have at the heart of the Verity House agreement, where we have that shared objective around tackling child poverty. There is a great deal of work that goes on within that scope, both Government to COSLA and Government secretary, with local authorities. Clearly, the committee will be aware of the requirements around local child poverty action reports, which are the local government responsibility for that, but this is just about local authorities. There are about many other aspects to this as well, but I do not know Julie if you want to provide any further details. Of course, one of the important things to note is that COSLA and SOLAS are both represented on the tackling child poverty programme board. We work very closely with them to ensure that we understand where their risks and opportunities are for delivery partners, so that we can help to work together to prioritise the huge amount of work that needs to go on across the public sector. One of the other things that it is worth noting, in addition to the local child poverty action reports that need to be done by local authorities and NHS boards jointly, is that we have the fairer Scotland duty, which is a key consideration across the public sector in terms of how to inform policies and how they will reduce inequalities and poverty in terms of how they are delivered. Local authorities and territorial health boards are covered by that as well, so we are trying to ensure that, at every layer, we are thinking about the impact of policies in terms of inequalities and how we will reduce them further. Supplement that as well. Obviously, the First Minister has said that this has been one of his areas of priority for Government within his prospectus. He held a child poverty round table that had representatives from all parties earlier in the summer and has tasked us as cabinet secretaries and ministers to go away and do our own tackling child poverty round tables with our stakeholder networks. I had a session with employers and others in my portfolio responsibility looking at areas that we could work together on, so that Government could do more or indeed our stakeholders could be doing more with our support, with a view to taking that back across different portfolios to a follow-up session that the First Minister will be leading. To ensure that we have that coherence across Government but also having it as a driving priority for all of us, whether it is a direct responsibility, as it is for Shirley-Anne, or whether we have additional responsibilities within our own portfolios that are linked to ensuring that we are tackling child poverty. That concludes all our questions. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials today. The committee will consider all the evidence heard and report in the near future as well. I will now briefly suspend the meeting before we move to the next agenda item with the cabinet secretary for social justice. Welcome back for our final item in public today. We will now discuss other priorities relevant to the committee. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for staying with us. I will now invite members to ask questions. I invite Katie Clark. In equality opportunity community new leadership, a fresh start, the First Minister stated that there would be some tough decisions to ensure that we target every pound we spend and invest in order to get the maximum value, ensuring that it reaches those most in need. How have those tough decisions affected the measures that are set out in the programme for government? Have you had to change or refocus priorities? The First Minister has made it very clear, as his cabinet secretary has done on regular occasions, that this is a challenging financial time and context that we are in. We need to take that very seriously as a Government. Our medium term financial strategy again set out some of those challenges as a result, for example, of sustained high inflation caused by the economic shocks that Scotland has faced. That inevitably has had an impact, so, yes, there will have to be tough decisions on that. An example of the context of which we are in, which I mentioned in my introductory remarks about the block grant funding being 4.8 per cent lower in real terms in 2021-22 than at the time that the budget was set. Clearly, there is an impact on national government as we look to it because of the mini-budget, because of Brexit and because of austerity that presents us with that challenge. What we are trying very hard to do and what the First Minister has laid out to stakeholders now that we have that context ahead of us is about how we can best use our resources. I have touched on some of the work that goes on within Government to ensure that we are analysing how we are using the finances that we have in the right way through the best art bright futures programme board, the ministerial group and so on to constantly check in that what we are doing is using the money in the most effective way possible. That will be something that will be on all cabinet secretaries' minds as we move forward in the budget process to see what stakeholders are asking us to do and what we can do within the budget. That will require us to take tough decisions right across Government. Clearly, I cannot go into those today, as we are at the very foothills of the budget process for next year, but that context will be live with us throughout that process. How do you go about assessing the potential impact of policies in order to ensure that resources are focused on those policies that are likely to have the biggest impact? How are you going to go about that? Some of the work, again, I give examples of this, and if committee requires further details, we can go into that. Some of the examples around that are, of course, around some of the impact assessments that are undertaken when policies are being developed, and we work very closely with stakeholders as we do so. It is also very important that we have the analysis and modelling that supports best start-break futures to challenge ourselves to see what the impact that is happening through our policies and therefore to challenge ourselves about what more we can do, whether the money is being used to the best opportunity available. I would be clear also that that modelling has to take account of what is impacting from elsewhere outwith the Scottish Government's powers that also impact on child poverty levels, for example, but that modelling is very important. A kind of evidence-based approach to that is critical, and if I can just touch on social security as an example, convener, of what we do clearly when we are looking at social security policies, there is a great deal of work that goes into the development of those policies with those with lived experience, as well as stakeholders, to ensure that we are delivering the best possible benefit in the best possible way that can reach the maximum number of people. We touched on the issue of take-up earlier on, which is clearly something that we are very committed to, which is why we have a benefit take-up strategy unlike the UK Government, which does not. Will you give consideration as to how much of that work can be shared with the committee so that we can assess whether we think that you have come to the right conclusions? I think that that is one of the areas that we are keen to try and work on. I think that that benefits Government as well, because I have no doubt—we have done a little bit of it today—we will do more of it as we look at budget scrutiny. The many asks that come to Government and the many challenges that Government has about delivering on those asks are not just financial but sometimes practical, about how long it takes for a policy to be implemented if it requires primary legislation or secondary legislation, etc., or, indeed, if it requires changes to the social security system that we have within the agency. There are practical considerations as well, so it is very thoughtful to that point. There is a great deal that is already published. I would think of it, happy, Julie, if you want to come in a little bit more on that, because the work that we do annually around that is really important. When we published Best Art Bright Futures, we had an underpinning evaluation strategy, which we also published. One of the key components of that is the cumulative impact assessment of all of the policies that Government put in place and what that means in terms of the impact. Alongside the annual report that we published on Best Art Bright Futures in June this year, we updated that cumulative impact assessment, and that draws on a huge amount of data from across Government in terms of the policies that we are putting in place and what impact they are having in terms of the six priority family groups in particular. I am now going to invite Bob Dorris. I am reassured, cabinet secretary, that you have taken an evidence-based approach to monitoring all of this. I am sure that you will do that as part of my calls that I can actually fund. Of course, cabinet secretary, for a summer supplement Scottish child payment, it is not to say that that should happen, but to make sure that that is put into that matrix, along with everything else, in case that is the best value for delivering the outcomes that we want to see. However, how do we monitor the need, I suppose, is the question. What would your latest assessment be on the impact, for instance, of the cost of living crisis on families that are struggling? Of course, that is a snapshot in time, but how do we monitor that more generally on an on-going basis, given the cost of living crisis that we are currently experiencing? I mentioned, cabinet secretary, that the modelling that is done around the 90,000 children that have been lifted out of poverty because of Scottish Government policies is a very important aspect that we have. To put that in context again of the impact on the Scottish Government budget of delivering such policies, clearly we have allocated almost £3 billion last year and this year to support policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible from the cost of living crisis. We recognise that that is something that is a very important aspect of the Government's work. That is a significant investment. It is the right thing to do, but, of course, everything that we do in this area means that we are not doing something somewhere else. I will give a particular example of that if I can, convener, around the £127 million that we use to mitigate specific UK Government welfare policies. I think that it was Mr Doris himself who suggested that we should be viewing the Scottish child payment as a mitigation measure as well in one of our recent debates, which is over £400 million because, quite frankly, if universal credit was at a sufficient level, then there may be no need for the Scottish Government to continuously be supporting children to the extent that we are. The mitigation is clearly a very important factor that we need to do, but it is not without its implications for other parts of the budget. I am happy to go into any more detail that the committee may wish about that, which is almost £3 billion, should that be of use to the committee either now or in writing. I suspect that my eagerness to lobby my own Government in the public session of committee lost the focus of what my question should have been, so I apologise to convener that I will maybe ask that some more. I suppose that the question at heart was how do we monitor on an on-going basis the impact of the cost of living crisis on families that may be struggling, so what process would the Government carry out around that? Of course, we would be keen to know as a committee what more you think is a priority to do. The monitoring that we have already discussed for best art by futures will pick up the impacts of that, which is exactly why, despite the fact that the Scottish Government is investing, that is almost £3 billion. Clearly, that would be having more of an impact if we were not in a position of the high inflation, of the UK Government welfare policies and of other external factors that are impacting on people. The work that is done within that modelling will pick up the fact that, yes, the Scottish Government is making an impact, but clearly we would be making more of an impact if there was not a more difficult financial context. I hope that that explains to committee in the time that I have available, but I am happy to provide more information about how that modelling is done in writing, if that would assist perhaps. I think that the committee would very much welcome that, so thank you. I am now going to invite Jeremy in. Thank you, convener. I want to take you back to the first question that was asked by my colleague. In regard to the information that we have, I think that we all want the information so that we can assess how it is going. One of the disappointments was the letter that we received over the summer from David Wallace, the chief executive of Social Security Scotland, who told us that they are not monitoring at all the time allocation from when someone puts an application in for new benefits to when that application has been processed. Is that an issue with the design system that is made by the Scottish Government, or is that an issue with Social Security Scotland not using the system properly? Are you concerned about that? If so, what are you doing about it? If the committee will forgive me, I am not exactly sure about the specific reference that Mr Wallace made in the letter. Clearly, there is analysis that goes on within the agency around how long it takes to process a case. It may not be from the specific time frames that Mr Balfour is looking for, but I would be happy to refer back to the evidence session to see the exact question that was asked, the letter that was provided around that and provide the information. However, I take it very seriously. As I know, the agency does around processing times, about how long that takes. We know that there is more to do on that issue. I meet with the agency regularly to discuss that and discuss the changes that have been made to improve that. The aspects around processing time are actually published. The processing time is published within official statistics. If you will forgive me, Mr Balfour, I will take a further look at the reference in particular that you have made and refer back to Mr Balfour if I need to provide further clarification on that point. I just come in there and confirm that we are aware of your request. Jeremy, about the letter in question, and it will come up in our work programme for the committee to discuss that letter in the next few weeks. I thank the cabinet secretary for that offer as well, and I will just invite Jeremy Balfour back in. I wonder if we can move on to one of the other areas within your very wide portfolio on matter homelessness. We are seeing levels of homelessness going up and the use of temporary accommodation. I wonder how important is temporary accommodation in regard to a short-term answer for that, and is the Government working to provide more temporary accommodation, particularly in hotspots such as Lovian and Glasgow? That is an area of great concern, the levels of homelessness and the levels of families, in particular that temporary accommodation is a concern. That is why the Government had established a temporary accommodation task and finish group, which set up some actions for government to take. We have responded to that. I give some examples of that. Around £60 million available this year to support national acquisition plan to ensure that we are working with social landlords to deliver a new programme of stock management, because we see that working very successfully in particular local authorities. It is not something that is being used to the same extent across the 32. Every council will have their own stock management process and policies, but it is an example of local and national government working together to share good practice about where that has clearly made an impact. Obviously, we will continue with the affordable housing supply programme. We are very much looking at working with particular local authorities that have hotspots that Mr Balfour has mentioned, Edinburgh is one of the key examples of that, where we are working with the local authority and asking them about the specific solutions that they would wish to see in place to support them. Clearly, again, we then have to work in the financial context that we are all in, but there is something that we are doing around national and then working with particular local authorities where there is either good practice or specific housing needs that need to be looked at. The housing minister is meeting with housing conveners and many others in local authorities to take that particular work forward with each local authority that requires that. I am grateful for that and perhaps updates would be helpful as we go along. Had there been any analysis done of the change in regard to the rental market with the emergency legislation that was brought in last year, is there still the same amount of temporary accommodation available, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow, or are we seeing landlords moving away from this by selling their property? Has there been any work done to analyse that? I am not aware of any concerns around the level of temporary accommodation and the impact that Mr Balfour suggests that our work on rent caps will have. I am happy to liaise with Mr Harvie and Mr McClellan on the issue to see whether there are any further updates that are required. Clearly, it is very important that we take action to support people in the private rented sector. The issue of high rents is something that does not just affect Scotland, but it happens to affect those throughout the UK. It is very important that we take that very seriously, but we also have to take very seriously any impact that it has on the size of the private rented sector and on landlords. That is why the Minister of Housing meets regularly with private landlords, representative bodies and others to ensure that he really, very clearly hears any concerns and suggestions that they may have. I hope that we all have a shared interest and responsibility in providing support to those in the private rented sector from exceptionally high-rent level increases. Industrial, industrial and industrial disabled benefit has pretty much been left unreformed by the major Westminster parties, even though it came into effect in 1948. It is usual that it is left to this Parliament to lead in positive reforms. When are you likely to publish a consultation on the new employment injury assistance scheme? This is something that I am giving active consideration to, but the member is quite right to point to the challenges. This is literally still a paper-based system sitting in a large warehouse where it is not set up to—even if we wanted to lift and shift Scottish cases from the paper-based system and take them up to Scotland. The fact that we are looking at a system that has not been touched and is quite archaic in the way that it is currently administered makes it a real challenge for it to come up here. Committee will be well aware and rightly question me on the costs of the devolution programme for social security. There is inevitably more cost to being able to provide a benefit up here when we are not able, in any way, to perform to do it from a lift and shift from a digitally-based programme down south. That presents us with great challenges. We need to be cognisant of the cost of devolving and what that would mean. That is why I am looking carefully at how that can be done. We will have to look at the cost not just of the benefit of itself but the implementation and how people will want to do that. There are a number of ways in which that can be done. As I say, it is not without cost. I am giving consideration to not being able to provide the committee with a date when we would go live with that consultation at this point. The previous minister for social security gave a commitment to groups with knowledge and experience and had a meeting with the minister and the Climbing at Asbestos group with constituency to be involved in the design of the new benefit. Can you give a commitment that that will be acted on? I will be very happy to carry on that work once the consultation in particular goes live. I hope that there is a good track record of the Government working with those most directly impacted by benefits to help to shape the focus of the benefit. That will obviously include people that currently receive it or those who may perceive barriers to them receiving that type of benefit. However, I am happy to reaffirm that commitment that my colleague made previously. That concludes all of our questions this morning to the cabinet secretary. I thank the cabinet secretary for attending our meeting today and her officials as well. That concludes our public business. Next week, we will take evidence on the carers assistance, carers support payment, Scotland regulations 2023 and, on the 24th and 25th, we will be looking at the budget as well. We will now move into private to consider the remaining items on the agenda.