 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion number 1511, in the name of Alex Rowley, on the cost of saying goodbye, burial and cremation charges in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Alex Rowley to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin by thanking all those members of this Parliament who signed my motion that allowed for this debate to take place today. Last year, I attended an event one evening in the Garden Lobby that was bringing together many elderly forum groups from across Scotland. As I spoke to many in attendance, I asked them what were the big issues for pensioners in Scotland. I have to say to my surprise the issue of the cost of funerals came up time and time again. A few months later, I attended another similar event where the then Cabinet Secretary, Alex Neil, spoke and in his speech he announced a review of funeral costs in Scotland to a very warm welcome and a very warm reception from those in the room. I am pleased that Alex Neil is here this afternoon to participate in the debate and I want to acknowledge the work that he did to kick off a review and steer the work in the direction that I believe has made good progress. I have brought forward the motion on the back of Citizens Advice Scotland report that highlighted the latest increases for cemetery and cremation charges across Scotland. The on average increase this year of 8 per cent for a burial and 11 per cent for cremation. I do remember that I highlighted this issue when I was an opposition councillor in Fife council because the increase in local charges at that time over the five years were quite horrific and yet Fife remains one of the lower cost areas for burial and cremation in Scotland. At the time, there was no doubt in my mind that the hikes and charges were directly linked to the cuts in council budgets. As we saw from the publication earlier this week from Spice and the University of Glasgow and Herot Walk University, cuts in public services disproportionately hit the poorest and those on the lowest incomes. That is also true for service charges where people do not have a choice, have to access a service and yet the costs continually go up. I would of course acknowledge that some councils have had to make significant investment but the key point that I would ask we consider is can it be right that those least able to pay are expected to bear the brunt of the cost to fund the future investment of cemeteries and crematoriums? Future capital investment must be met from general funding as burial and cremation should, in my view, be considered a public service. As well as acknowledging the role of Alec Neill in taking those issues forward, I would also acknowledge the very important work of Citizens Advice Scotland in highlighting the levels of funeral poverty in Scotland and the work that they have done to offer solutions. It is worth taking time to emphasise what funeral costs can mean. For those on the state pension, it would take seven and a half months off their pension income to pay for the average funeral. For those on job seekers allowance, it would take 12 months off benefit to pay for the average funeral. Around 10 per cent of people will struggle to pay for the cost of a funeral for which they are responsible. The average debt that is taken on by people in Scotland for funerals is £1,573, according to Royal London, which states that this debt is expected to rise in the coming years. The increasing costs of funerals has resulted in the gap between the contribution from the social fund funeral payment and the actual retail funeral cost, more than Dublin, from 2004 to 2015, leaving claimants with an average shortfall of over £2,000. As the working group has said, if an individual is unable to pay the cost of a funeral, there are two possible outcomes. Either they take on a level of debt that may create the stress that can interfere with the grieving process, or they seek to reduce the expense and provide less of a funeral, in which case guilt and stigma may interfere with the grieving. It is also a fact that the current DWP grant is described by Royal London as weak and flawed. Of the 66,000 applications to the fund in 2012-13, only 53 per cent were successful. Families can end up in a lot of debt where they have borrowed, thinking they will get support and then they are refused. Control over this part of social security will be with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, and while some elements of the new powers coming to Scotland will take time to set up, I am hoping that the social fund funeral expense payment can be transferred sooner rather than later so that we can design a better system here in Scotland to support people when in need. I note that the Government paper published last week to create a fairer Scotland highlights funeral poverty as the last action point, action point 50, where they state that we will improve the current system of funeral payments so that it helps more people, is more predictable and provides help more quickly. This is welcome, I support this, and I hope that the Government can now put a timetable on when these powers will be transferred. The review by John Burrell in Fraser Sutherland has set out the detail of what needs to be done, and Citizens Advice Scotland has published further work on the social security powers so that we are well placed to move this issue forward. One of the first experiences of understanding poverty for me was when, as a child, I was in a graveyard and came across an area with no headstones and was told that this was an area of the popper's graves. At the weekend, I watched the film I, Daniel Blake, and heard the term used the popper's slot at the crematorium. I had thought that we had made progress and no one would be described as a popper in 21st century Scotland. Let us agree today that we will bring forward a timetable, build on the good work that is being done and sort this issue out once and for all. As I have indicated previously to your office, I apologise to the chamber for being unable to stay for the full debate. I would like to start by congratulating Alec Rowley on securing today's debate and joining with him and other members in welcoming Citizens Advice's report. I would also like to pay tribute to the work that Alec Neil did in this area before his work was rudely interrupted by the First Minister's reshuffle. I also want to draw members' attention to the fact that I was recently co-elected as a co-convener of the Parliament's cross-party group on funerals and bereavement and look forward to the group looking at these issues and the issues raised today in the motion. As a Lothian's MSP, I was particularly concerned with the report's finding that Edinburgh City in my region is the most expensive place in Scotland for a burial, with charges increasing another 4 per cent between 2015 and 2016 to reach £2,253. This is a very large amount of money for any individual or family to find, let alone those on low incomes or on benefit, and doesn't take into account funeral directors' fees or all the other expenses involved with the funeral. It can add to the stress that families feel at this already anxious and difficult time. I have already raised with ministers through written parliamentary questions concerns of Edinburgh constituents who are understandably alarmed at the high burial cost. Way above the Scottish average, as Alex Rowley has mentioned, of £1,363, they are struggling to understand the differences in the basic burial costs across Scotland, which vary by as much as £1,500 between local councils. I think that we need to know more from local authorities about the reasons behind this variation, and I hope that these discussions can take place through the Scottish Government's working group on funeral poverty at an early stage. Those disparities for charging for cremations in local authority crematoria also vary, although the difference is less marked than for actual burials. Given that cremation fees are around 50 per cent cheaper for those who decide on burials, we need to recognise that further burial charges rises in areas where those are already high, runs the alarming risk of putting pressure on older residents across Scotland and their families to rethink their future. The UK Government's funeral payment scheme has been of great assistance to many constituents on low incomes, facing funeral costs. I look forward to the Scottish Government developing a successor scheme, as has already been mentioned in the chamber before, and I recognise the work that is on going by the Government in this area. I am also very much conscious of the concerns that have been expressed about the lack of awareness around the current scheme, and I know that ministers will want to reflect on that as they develop the new benefit, and I hope that we can hear of that early on to be able to make sure that that gets out across Scotland. It is important to those on low income to know what support is available. I also wonder what action ministers can take to promote affordable funeral prepayment plans among people on low incomes, as those can protect family members from rising funeral costs. To conclude, I again would like to welcome today's debate, which I hope will help inform the Scottish Government's thinking and work on funeral poverty and help address the genuine and legitimate concerns that have been raised by our constituents. I hope that by working together we can find a way of addressing the growing issue and that funeral poverty in Scotland will be something that we can put behind us. It was Nancy Mitford, the red sheep of the Mitford family, and the author of the extraordinary work, The American Way of Death, a book that, over 50 years ago, exposed the shameless, profiteering exploitation of families at a time of great distress and vulnerability, the time of bereavement. It was Nancy Mitford who said, you may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty. I hope that, when it comes to ending fuel poverty in this country, we can do both. I am delighted that Alex Rowley has tabled this motion for debate. Timing is everything in politics and this motion is timed to perfection because it comes at the very point that this Parliament has been handed responsibility for state funeral payments. It comes at the very point that the Government is consulting on a new future for social security in Scotland and, at the very point, the newly passed Burial and Cremation Act is being enacted with a new regulatory regime established and new inspectors appointed. It comes at the very point, too, that the Government is considering its budget for next year. I do not make this observation simply regarding the £4 million spent on state funeral payments in Scotland last year, although I would like to see provision for that rise. I say in the context of the forthcoming local government financial settlement in Scotland, too, because we know that local government in Scotland is responsible for setting most burial and cremation charges. I have to report that I attended the Parliament's cross-party group for older people age and ageing last week, where this subject came up. Some of the pensioners representatives, such as my old friend Jimmy Miller from the GMB Union's retired members association, were quite rightly taking issue with the enormous differences in these burial and cremation charges from local authority to local authority across Scotland. In my view, there should be greater parity. However, the Scottish Government representative at the cross-party group said that this was a matter of local political choice, which is contentious and incomplete, because it is also a matter of national political choice. Deputy Presiding Officer, put simply, you cannot freeze the council tax for nine years and expect local charges not to go up. If you compare the current costs of cremation across Scotland as Citizens Advice Scotland has compared them, then it is clear that eight out of the ten least expensive cremation charges are in crematoria owned and run by Scotland's local councils. Eight out of the ten most expensive cremation charges in Scotland are in crematoria owned and run by the private sector. I say to the Scottish Government that we need a first settlement for Scottish local government this year in order that these burial and cremation charges disproportionately levied on the elderly are coming down not going up. Let me also say this to the minister and I think I hope that she'll agree with me on this that we don't simply need palliative welfare proposals to alleviate funeral poverty, we need a serious and decisive alteration of the balance of power, a structural change in our society if we are to truly tackle funeral poverty. Poverty is not simply about not having any wealth, it is also about not having any power either, the one reinforcing the other. If I can conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, by saying that I do think it's important that this Parliament says loud and clear that we will redouble our efforts to make funeral poverty history, we will construct a social security system which is designed to support people literally from the cradle to the grave and designed to end what R.H. Tony famously described as the religion of inequality which persists in this country and that we will recommit ourselves to dignity, to the universal values of humanity and to the goal of equality, the goal that drove many of us into politics in the first place. Ruth Maguire, followed by Graham Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Alec Rowley on securing this debate on the cost of saying goodbye and I share colleagues' concerns about funeral poverty and the number of constituents who have difficulty in raising the money they need to pay to bury a loved one. Losing a loved one is hard enough without any added burden and I think that we could probably all agree that everyone deserves a funeral that's meaningful to the bereaved, affordable and doesn't leave someone facing financial hardship. Crucially, for me, it allows people to get on with the grieving process without financial distress. As Alec Rowley mentioned in opening, the Citizens Advice report lays out that 2016 has seen the basic costs of burial fees, not including undertaker charges, increased by on average 8 per cent. Although local authorities should recognise the impact that rising costs have on how they contribute to funeral poverty, we have to acknowledge that the money that they raise is being invested back in local facilities and services. Of course, the cost of burial or cremation is not the only factor that contributes to funeral poverty. There are also the funeral director's fees and additional expenditure such as flowers, notices in the paper, catering for the wake and many, many other things that add up. Crucially has been touched on with all poverty about the level of personal finance available and the level of assistance available to those who cannot pay. One such manner of assistance available is the DWP funeral payment. The issues around which have been pretty well rehearsed. This benefit is being devolved to us here in Scotland and I think that we should endeavour to simplify it and promote it when it comes. But even before it is transferred, it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that the low uptake is tackled. We know that approximately 4,000 people receive a funeral payment in Scotland and the Scottish Government estimates that up to 16,000 people are in need and could apply for that benefit of all those entitled to make claims where reached. It is not a particularly comfortable topic to discuss or plan for and perhaps that is something else that we need to get better at. Maybe we need to try and encourage more open and honest conversations about dying, death and bereavement. If we can increase awareness about funerals and funeral costs then maybe those who are in a position to can plan their finances and more importantly everyone who is entitled to assistance will know how to get it so that when the time comes as it will to all of us to bury a loved one the focus can be on a meaningful send off and not on money worries. Can I also thank Alec Rowley for bringing this to the chamber? As you know, Deputy Presiding Officer, last week I spoke in a member's debate about the condition of Scotland's mortuaries. Like the subject for today's discussion, it is something that I have not given a great deal of thought to until now. But as a councillor in South Lanarkshire and I declare an interest here and that I still sit as one, I have voted on budgets which increase the cost of burials and cremations. It is quite easy to do but until you are faced with having to meet that cost after death of a loved one then it is obviously not personal. The Citizens Advice report highlights the huge disparities in the cost of dying between different parts of Scotland. It is a rather grim postcode lottery. If a relative dies here in Edinburgh and you want to bury them here, you are going to be hit for £2,200. The highest in Scotland. My own council is also among the most expensive £1,900. Yet in the Western Isles that price is £701. Still a lot to find but the cheapest there is. It is quite a difference. The story with cremations is much the same. Highland is the most expensive area, £849. By comparison, a cremation in Inverclyde is £552. However you look at it, saying goodbye in Scotland is not cheap. It isn't. So it is no surprise then that people do struggle to pay those bills. It is no surprise that we have the poverty around saying goodbye that Alex Rowley has mentioned. I must be honest and say I didn't even realise we had privately run crematoriums. I see no reason why we shouldn't but their costs are on average higher than council ones. The motion calls for more to be done to address rising costs. It doesn't say what should be done but Alex Rowley has helpfully given some ideas there and the Scottish Government working group which is set up I hope can come up with more. Councils investing in crematorium or graveyards will want to claw back some of that investment and tighter and tighter local authority budgets are definitely a factor as Alex Rowley has said. All councils have had to find colossal savings as the Government puts the squeeze on them. Tough decisions have had to be made by councillors and even with the ability to increase council tax from next year that will continue. Really it's up to the Scottish Government to look at its funding for local government and make it more of a priority. Councils deliver so many of the services that really matter to people and yet they've been hit year after year by the central grant settlement being cut. If we want to limit price rises for burials, cremations and indeed other services then we have to help councils. One positive thing to come from this debate is it has shone a light on the issue of costs and I think that's been very useful. So as I said at the start few of us will give it any thought until we have to but it is a lesson to all of us to plan ahead and I do hope that something good comes from this. I really thank Alex Rowley once again for bringing it. I have Alex Neil followed by Monica Lennon. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer on kind. I congratulate Alex Rowley on securing this debate and say that I fully support everything that he said in his introductory speech. I say that this is an issue that requires a comprehensive response in terms of how we deal with the situation because there's no doubt at all that funeral poverty is a blight on our communities whether people live in urban areas or in rural areas and there are sometimes different pressures in each. The report that was produced by the Scottish Government, commissioned by myself, made a whole series of very worthwhile recommendations and I would recommend the Government to pursue those and not always be following them to the letter but certainly in terms of the spirit in which they are presented. For my money there are four priorities that we need to tackle. The first one is in relation to the bereavement allowance when it is devolved to this Parliament. As Richard Leonard said, the total budget is around £4 million to £5 million but those who are in receipt of the allowance, which has been frozen for quite a number of years, will only get enough to pay for one third of the funeral costs if you look at the average of funeral costs in today's world. Clearly, the allowance needs to be upgraded to allow it to pay for a much larger percentage of total funeral costs. Secondly, we need to look at other ways of supporting people financially because we need to look at the eligibility criteria but there will be some people who might not quite make the eligibility criteria but might need some form of other type of financial assistance such as a loan finance without going to a loan shark. All those things need to be looked at and I think that there is an ideal opportunity here given the small amounts of money involved. There is a need to increase the overall budget significantly but even a 100 per cent increase would only cost something of the order of £4 million a year but it would make a significant dent in the issue of funeral poverty. Secondly, I believe that we have got to pursue the recommendations in terms of the licensing of funeral directors because there is no doubt at all that this is an industry that needs more regulation, not less. There are too many cowboys coming into this industry and there are too many scams in the industry and they need to be sorted. Although some of that responsibility resides still with Westminster, there are things that we can do in this Parliament in order to tackle that problem. I hope that the minister will not be taken in by the monopoly groups who control some of the membership organisations of funeral directors. They should listen to what funeral directors across the board are saying and not just the two big boys who control a large share of the market. The third point is that I am all in favour of cutting the cost of funerals but there is a danger if we go down the route as they have in Cardiff and it has got some things to recommend it of council contract funerals for £1,000. Why should poor people have inferior funerals to everyone else? They should have the same rights as everyone else to a decent funeral and, quite frankly, it would be very difficult to get a decent funeral for £1,000 at today's prices. The fourth priority is in relation to local authority charges. Although I absolutely recognise the financial pressures on our councils and the need for them to raise additional revenue, too many of them see this as a bit of a cash cow. If you take my own local authority that I represent in North Lanarkshire Council, it has increased fees by 39 per cent in one year. That is totally unacceptable. It is not just about the charges but we should be looking at a discount system whereby someone who is living in poverty, someone who is struggling, might be able to get some kind of discount from the local authority to help them cover the cost. That is an area where we can really, really make a difference and I would urge the minister to take a radical comprehensive approach and to have us ready so that when the bereavement allowance is finally devolved, we are able to make a quick announcement about how we are going to increase that significantly both in terms of the money and the eligibility to help deal with the real problem of funeral poverty that we have in this country. The last of the open speeches is Monica Lennon. I, too, welcome the opportunity to be able to speak in this important members' debate today on a topic that touches the lives of us all and I am grateful to Alex Rowley for putting forward the motion. I would also like to add my thanks to Citizens Advice Scotland for putting together their compelling research and their report, The Cost of Saying Goodbye 2016. Saying goodbye to loved ones is something that we all have to deal with at some point in our lives. It is something that is never easy and when this emotionally stressful time is compounded by the anxiety of ever rising funeral costs, it can quickly become overwhelming. The work that Citizens Advice Scotland has compiled on the rising costs of funerals over the last few years is nothing short of shocking. During my recent visit to the Citizens Advice Bureau in East Kilbride in the central Scotland region, I represent, I was concerned to hear the issues of funeral poverty and debt were being raised with advisers. In one case, a client attended the bureau looking to receive advice about assistance with the costs of the funeral of their child. As both the client and their partner were employed and living in rented accommodation, they had no entitlement to any Government assistance with the costs of the funeral. They had no savings and no way to pay the costs of the funeral up front and were left with no alternative but to take it alone to pay the costs of the funeral in advance. Understandably, that caused a great deal of stress for the family involved and would have caused great financial hardship. As the parents advised the cab, you never think that you will have to bury your child. The family were being thrown into complete turmoil both emotionally and financially due to the worst situation imaginable, one that they had absolutely no control over. Through the parents discussion with the cab, it came to light that one of the parents was ex-service personnel and through an application to the Armed Services Advice project and Armed Services charity was thankfully able to cover the costs of the funeral. For those in a similar situation who are not able to find a financial solution, the consequences can be bleak. No-one should have to get themselves into debt as a result of having to pay for the funeral of a loved one. The wide variation in the costs of the funeral, depending on your geographical location and levels of income, is deeply troubling. As Graham Simpson alluded to earlier, the postcode lottery that people face is nothing less than grim. As Scottish Labour's spokeswoman for inequalities, I find it extremely concerning that we can have such a disparity in funeral costs across the country. For the ability to have a dignified funeral is a right for all. Alex Rowley's motion also rightly makes reference to the fact that rising costs of funerals levelled by councils are due to a range of reasons from significant new investment in burial sites and crematoriums to increasingly constrained council budgets. I echo Richard Leonard when he talks about the need for a fair settlement across local government. Basic burial costs are also only part of the total cost of a funeral, as Ruth Maguire has stated, with many additional costs such as flowers, celebrant fees and death notices adding to the stress and making the cost even more difficult to meet for many families. I have learned from personal experience following the death of my dad last year just how overwhelming it can be when so many choices need to be made in a very short space of time. It is clear that we need to do more to address the rising funeral costs, debts and funeral poverty that we are hearing about. I know that there is agreement from colleagues across the chamber about the importance to do so. I hope that we can reach agreement that it is important that the Government look again at the issue of funeral poverty and to work with parties right across the chamber to explore in detail the recommendations of the cash review from earlier this year during the lifetime of this Parliament. I now call June Freeman to close the debate around about seven minutes, please minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I not only welcome the opportunity to close this debate but also thank the member for bringing it to the chamber to say that I support not only his concern and many of the issues raised by other speakers but I also support the motion that he has brought before us. For families who are mourning the loss of a loved one to be faced with mounting debt and distress because of the cost of a funeral is not only unacceptable but it seems to me at times also cruel. Members have referred to the report that was commissioned by the Scottish Government from John Burrow, the chair of the Scottish working group on funeral poverty and Citizens Advice Scotland, which was published earlier this year. That report recommended action across a number of sectors and for our part as Scottish Government we are progressing activities to support people to plan ahead for their own funerals and discuss that with relatives to influence relevant sectors to create a downward pressure on funeral costs and I'll return to that. To put in place a more effective safety net in the form of a Scottish funeral payment when the powers are transferred to us from the DWP. Of course as Richard Leonard rightly pointed out, the approach to funeral poverty needs to sit alongside our analysis and understanding of the situation with respect to poverty and work across Scotland on both poverty and inequalities. I have to say that of course that situation is not assisted by the UK Government's persistence in its ideological clinging to the economics of austerity and the welfare cut upon welfare cut that it imposes on those least able to manage. Our approach to funeral poverty also sits alongside our work to develop a modern and comprehensive legislative framework for burial and cremation in Scotland. The Certification of Death Scotland Act 2011 allowed us in May of 2015 to remove the doctors fee from cremation costs, resulting in a saving of £170 for bereaved families. The Burial and Cremation Scotland Act 2016 contains provision for the reuse of burial layers, which will reduce pressure on burial ground capacity in the longer term, requires local authorities to publish and display their fees online so that they are easily accessible and powers to introduce inspection schemes for directors. Although I have made note of Mr Neil's point with respect to the regulation of funeral directors, I should take this opportunity to thank him for his work on which we have such a strong foundation. Our work on palliative and end-of-life care, supporting greater public and personal discussion of bereavement, death, dying and care at the end of life, chimes very well with what Ms Maguire said about our general reluctance as individuals and as a society to discuss openly that one fact that we all know we will have to address ourselves at some point. We are also exploring as a Government options around a Scottish funeral bond to help people to save and plan ahead financially for their funeral. At the same time, as members have noted, we are preparing to take over the DWP's funeral payment. As for our wider work on social security powers, we have undertaken engagement with people and organisations across Scotland. In that, we have heard of much that is wrong with the current system. We have established our Funal Poverty and Funal Payment Reference Group, which includes funeral director organisations, bereavement services, advice services and local authority representatives. There are a number of failings with the DWP's current funeral payment. It is complex in its eligibility criteria. It asks intrusive and unnecessary questions about family circumstances. It sits on a range of complicated rules, making it unclear what you are entitled to and the current value of the DWP's funeral payment does not cover all of the costs, leaving many in debt. It is also exacerbated by very slow processing times. Mr Rowley asked, I think, fairly about the timetable that we might pursue on the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament in regard to this particular benefit. The consultation that we held, which lasted three months and included this benefit, ended only on Monday. It would be, I think, quite wrong, for me as a minister, to pre-empt the analysis of that consultation in terms of identifying which areas we want to change, the improvements that we want to make or even the timetable at this point of the benefits that we will take responsibility for. I take his point about using our capacity in areas of benefit responsibility, where perhaps the benefit affects fewer numbers of people to try to take those areas over earlier. We are working at the moment to identify what our timetable process might be. I hope that we will be able to bring members up to date with that, certainly in the coming months. It is, of course, made more complex because the DWP system across all of the benefits that we will take responsibility for is itself complex simply in retrieving the basic data that we need to know who it is that we are talking about and which individuals receive some of the benefits that we will take responsibility for. I am mindful of the point. I hope that Mr Rowley will take the assurance that we are actively looking at what our timetable of progress in taking over responsibility for the individual benefits will be over the lifetime of this Parliament. I also have to say that there is another benefit, if you like, area of financial support called the bereavement payment, which still sits with the UK Government. It does seem to me a pity that that remains the case because it is an area in this comprehensive response that we would want to adopt to the whole question of poverty that we will not be able to take responsibility for and use in the work that we are taking forward. Both the application and the success rates for the DWP benefits are low, as has already been mentioned. We know that only around 4,000 people a year receive a funeral payment in Scotland. While the DWP fails to publish accurate statistics, we estimate that the reality is that up to 16,000 bereave people in Scotland would be eligible. This is a failure of the system, as it currently stands, for low-income families. When the funding is transferred to Scotland, this point is critically important. It will be based on the spend in Scotland during the year before the transfer. That 4,000 figure that we have just mentioned of those who have received the benefit compared to our estimate of 16,000. We know that the resources that are transferred to the Scottish Government will not come anywhere close to make the current need or our desire to increase the reach of the benefit to all those who are eligible. For this reason and to help those who do not qualify for a benefit, we need to act also on rising funeral costs. We are looking in particular not only to local authorities but also to funeral directors to work with us, because they too bear our responsibility in those rising costs. We have set up a number of round tables led by the cabinet secretary. We have worked with local authorities on the shared agenda. We know that local authorities are considering their approach in terms of their own charges and want to work with us on that. On 16 November, the cabinet secretary will host a summit that will look to bring together all the work in addition to the DWP and the changes that we might make into a more comprehensive package about how we deal with the matter. I am conscious that I have gone on. There is a lot to say, and my apologies for that. I hope that members take our assurance that we take the matter very seriously. There is clearly cross-party support in terms of what we might do to tackle it. I look forward to those conversations with my colleagues across the chamber. I hope that Mr Rowley and others will take my response as assurance that we are not only looking at what we do in terms of the benefit payment but at the wider discussions that we need to have to properly address the issue.