 atdlu'r eitem of businesses portfolio questions on communities, social security and the qualities. We begin with question number one, from Jeremy Balfour. To ask the cabinet secretary, of Scottish government, what action it will take to support the national campaign to raise awareness of disability and reduce stigma in the light of a recent report by disability agenda Scotland. I welcome the publication of Disability Agenda Scotland's report, and last week we published a Fairer Scotland for disabled people in which we committed to delivering a one Scotland campaign in 2017 to reduce stigma. The focus of the awareness campaign will be on employment, which was also a key theme in Disability Agenda Scotland's report. I thank the minister for her response. Currently only 43.8 per cent of individuals with disabilities in Scotland are employed compared to 72.3 per cent of a wider population. Employment rates have actually fallen in recent years among some disabled groups. The dashboard acknowledges that disabled people still do not feel equal, and there are nice words and documents that aim to improve further matters are simply not happening. That is simply not good enough. Can the minister confirm what the Scottish Government will do to get employers to treat disabled people as they do with a wider population? In the disability delivery plan that I just mentioned, we are making a commitment to reduce the employment gap in Scotland by one half and to consult with public agencies and local authorities to set a target for public sector employment. I fully intend that we will do a great deal better than the UK Government, where the recent all-party parliamentary group report on disability highlights that it will take the UK Government till 2065 to meet its target of halving the employment gap for disabled people if they go at their current slow pace—a bit like welfare benefits. We will, in addition, work with employers in Scotland to ensure that they take advantage of the UK access to work fund, making sure that disabled people seeking employment are aware of that fund and are assisted and advised on how to make application to it. It agrees with me that one way to reduce stigma experienced by those with disability is for the Tory Westminster Government to treat people with dignity and respect, to not threaten to reduce their incomes by slashing disability benefits, and to stop imposing draconian benefit sanctions on some of the most vulnerable in our society. I agree. I find it very disappointing that our colleagues to my left—although clearly not their politically—consist on groaning every time we mention exactly the damage that the UK Government is doing. Indeed, let me quote another report, the National Audit Office, which pointed out that the sanctions regime has cost £285 million while still producing only a saving of £132 million. It also suggests that its analysis points out that the DWP's sanctions approach has very weak evidence to support it. Any notion that sanctions reducing benefits encourage people into employment, as opposed to what we know for a fact, which is that the increased poverty among those individuals is, of course, false. Our colleagues in the Scottish Tory party can continue to try and support and promote that policy by the UK Government, but it is dismantling by the minute, and the public is becoming very well aware of that. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the Audit Scotland report titled Local Government in Scotland Financial Overview for 2015-16. The Scottish Government considers the Audit Scotland report to be a fair assessment of the financial position of local authorities in Scotland. The report highlights the pressures that councils, like other parts of the public sector, face, but also identifies that, despite those pressures, councils are continuing to deliver improvements to services and that the pressures are approximately the same as the reduction in the Scottish Government's total budget over the period 2010-11 to 2016-17. The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at helping councils to meet future pressures. We welcome the report and would expect all local authorities and councillors to consider and take any necessary action to implement its recommendations. Maurice Corry I thank the minister for her reply. The crucial detail in the report was that councils are starting to use their reserves to fund services. 13 did so in 2015-16 and more will do so in the next few years. That cannot continue. Audit Scotland says that, I quote, they are concerned about council's slow progress in delivering services differently rather than relying on incremental savings to existing models of service delivery. Does the minister agree that the current situation is unsustainable and what specific actions will the Scottish Government take to help councils to have that sense of ambition that Audit Scotland says is necessary to adapt? The Accounts Commission, in terms of the overall financial health of local government, came to the view that it was generally good. They did reflect that there was a slight increase in the overall reserves within the gift of local authorities with a reduction in overall debt. Nonetheless, the report identified significant challenges that lie ahead and the need for local authorities to consider how they work to deal with the challenges ahead. That underlines the importance of public sector reform. It is no secret that this Government and, indeed, COSLA are of a shared view that how we do business will have to be different and that we will have to continue on this journey to reform public services to make the public pound go further, to improve outcomes for communities and to ensure that communities are more involved in decision making and the allocation of resources. Would the cabinet secretary agree that the reduction in real-terms funding of councils since 2010-11, which is proportionately the same cut in the Scottish Government's total budget over the same period, is due to the continuation of the UK Tory Government's failed austerity agenda? I agree with that. It is clear that local government has been treated fairly, despite the cuts to the Scottish budget from the UK Government. Local government finance settlements were maintained in Scotland on a like-for-like basis over the period 2012-16, with extra money for new responsibilities and taken into account the addition of £250 million to support the integration of health and social care. The overall reduction in 2016-17 funding equates to less than 1 per cent of local government's total estimated expenditure in 2016-17. Alex Rowley I think that we are right to point out that failed Tory austerity is damaging Scotland. Regardless of who is to blame, I would argue that the Government of this proportionately cuts local government. I think that the big question that local government workers are asking that people across Scotland are asking is what this Parliament is going to do about it. We saw this week that the president of the Scottish Parliament, David O'Neill, warned that up to 7,000 jobs could go £500 million. Given that the cabinet secretary has a brief that covers inequality, poverty and all the work that she and her ministers are trying to do, has she or will she agree to have an impact assessment carried out of the cuts that are going to take place across local government and who will be impacted from those cuts? Of course, there is an equality impact assessment done on the Government's budget as a whole, but the crucial thing that we have to recognise is that local government has had the same reduction in its funding as has been imposed on the Scottish Government by Westminster. I am glad that Mr Rowley, unlike our colleagues to the left, recognises the impact of Westminster austerity, because the impact of Westminster austerity is not just in a reduction of financial resources to this place, and therefore to our partners in local government. It also has other impacts, because I am conscious for local government in particular that they will have as a result of austerity an increased demand on their services. Of course, it is the Government that is having to continue to where possible mitigate against the very worst aspects of austerity such as welfare reform. 3. Edward Mountain Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Cozzler. Ministers regularly meet with Cozzler to discuss a wide range of issues as part of our commitment to working in partnership with local government to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland. I last met with councillor Anil on 1 December, and my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution met with the Cozzler group leaders on Tuesday 6 December as part of the series of meetings to discuss the spending review and the forthcoming 2017-18 local government finance settlement. Edward Mountain I thank the minister for that reply. Two weeks ago, it is reported that Cozzler is withdrawn from negotiations over the increase of local taxes used for central policy aims. That followed Cozzler's view, and I quote, that there is a clear and honourable link between taxes raised from local households being spent on local services. This has been a Scottish tradition for generations. The Scottish Government will destroy that link. Does the minister agree with Cozzler or does she believe that they are wrong? I certainly do not agree with Mr Mountain and his characterisation of the situation. As I said in my original answer to Mr Mountain, my colleague Derek Mackay met with the Cozzler group leaders this week to discuss the forthcoming financial settlement. Mr Mackay has repeatedly put on record, as have other ministers, that, for example, all council tax collected by each local authority will remain with each local authority and that any additional revenues that they raise from the unfreason of the council tax that again will remain with local authorities. To ask the Scottish Government when it last received an update from Cozzler or the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers regarding the enforcement of minimum standards for Gypsy Traveller sites. There is no requirement for Cozzler or the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers to update the Government on progress towards meeting the minimum standards for Gypsy Traveller sites. However, the Scottish Government has met with Cozzler and allocl officials to discuss issues around sites, including site quality, and we will continue to do so. Across Scotland, there are numerous examples of minimum standards still not being enforced at Gypsy Traveller sites since the Scottish Government published its guidance in May 2015. For example, Dunhauggan Gypsy Traveller site near Loch Gilped, a site that I have visited, despite residents raising numerous concerns over lack of basic provisions for years, no action has been taken and no progress has been made to improve their very poor living conditions. The Dunhauggan site lacks adequate lighting, the road is still in an extremely poor condition and the site has no bus stop. It is clear that the current enforcement strategy is failing as the concerns of residents are being ignored and improvements have been minimal at best at many sites. Will the minister take responsibility and control of the situation and implement an inspection programme of all Gypsy Traveller sites in Scotland to ensure that Gypsy Travellers do not have to continue to live in substandard conditions on sites that are failing to provide basic provisions and failing to meet minimum standards? I thank Mary Fee for her question. If I can reassure her by saying that Kevin Stewart's housing minister has written to her girl in view with reference to the sites that she mentioned in terms of the broader work that the Government is doing, we will review progress towards implementing the standards with site tenants, site providers and other key stakeholders during 2017. We have said that we expect sites to meet the standards by 30 June 2018 and we are also considering linking the guidance to the Scottish social housing charter, which we consulted on recently, and that appears to have been well received. Obviously, the purpose of the Scottish social housing charter is to improve the quality of services that are received by all members of the community, and that will give some opportunities for clearer statements and clearer clarity in terms of what tenants, including the Gypsy Traveller communities, are entitled to expect. I hope that, including the site standards in the charter, it indicates the seriousness of which the Government takes the issue of poor standards on Gypsy Traveller sites. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank Mary Fee for raising this particular question as a previous member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. That was always high in our agenda, and, in particular, the relationship between local authorities, local communities and Gypsy Traveller sites. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure on-going cohesion with local communities, local authorities and Gypsy Traveller sites? That is an area that the Scottish Government works closely with COSLA on. It is a joint aim of the Government and COSLA to ensure cohesion between Gypsy Travellers and the settled community. There are a number of aspects to that, including the revised guidance on unauthorised sites, which will set out responsibilities for the Gypsy Traveller community and local authorities. It is important that we also emphasise the contribution that Scotland's Gypsy Traveller communities has made to our national life, and we will include that in the strategic programme of work, which we will publish during 2017. We are working to better identify better practice in community cohesion work using the results to inform better collaborative approaches with our partners right across the public and third sector. Finally, Presiding Officer, we will also explore ways to support public bodies in implementing the foster and good relations element of the public sector equality duties with regard to race equality and community cohesion. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to amending the descriptors for the activity that is moving around that are used to assess personal independence payments. We have, as the member knows, carried out an extensive consultation exercise to help inform our approach to social security in Scotland, and we will publish our report on the consultation responses early in the new year. Those consultation responses will help to inform the work of the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group, which we will be establishing, and that group will provide recommendations and guidance to ministers on eligibility criteria, assessments and disabilities, and the conditions that should be given an automatic or a lifetime award. Thank the minister for that answer. As the minister may be aware, presently the descriptor requires people to stand and then move more than one metre, but not more than 20 metres. Either aided or unaided to be considered for the mobility scheme and other support. That descriptor at present is causing a loss of provision to many people in my constituency. Can I therefore ask what further changes the Government intends to make to deliver a fairer, people-centric social security system, rather than what the Tories are doing in our communities when we have the power to do so? I can assure the member that I am aware of the change that has been made in terms of that descriptor, not only in my work as a minister but, as a constituency MSP, I have had many constituents come to me and explain in detail the significant distress and subsequent hardship that that has caused to them. We have been clear from the outset that our social security system will be an investment that we collectively make in ourselves and in each other, and that the system will have embedded throughout its operation the key principles of dignity, fairness and respect. We have also been very clear that, to get that right, we need to build the system from the ground up. To continue our commitment in that regard, to build the system on the foundation of both real-lived experience and expertise, in January we will launch the recruitment exercise for 2,000 volunteers to join our experience panels. Those volunteers will be drawn from individuals who currently receive one or more of the 11 benefits that will be devolved to the Scottish Government, and they will work with us long-term to help us to make the right improvements and the changes that are needed to every aspect and detail of how our system will work, including where assessments are done. Let me also be clear, though, that it is our view that the approach that we will take will ensure fewer assessments, improved decision making, greater lifetime and long-term awards, and all of that based on evidence, as opposed to what appears too often to be the case as a subjective opinion. Mark Griffin Can I ask the minister if she is considering the removal of the private sector from a new Scottish disability assessment process, and that those assessments be purely run by a public sector agency? Of course, that question about how assessments would be done where we think that they are necessary is part of that consultation exercise. It would be contradictory of me to argue that we build a system from the ground up and we listen to what people tell us to now make a decision about how we would conduct assessments in advance of that consultation exercise and those 500 responses being properly analysed and us being able to see what those consultation responses say to us. We have in Scotland a public sector provider who has some input into the assessment process, but we will make the decisions about what the assessments should be and how many of those we think we would actually need and how they would be conducted, primarily on the basis of the evidence that we receive but also in the building from the ground up exercise that I have already mentioned and will, of course, inform Parliament in due course of the approach that we intend to take. The Scottish Government, as of next year, will have legislative power over a number of benefits, including those associated with extra costs of living with a disability. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to further devolving disability benefits at local level, either to health boards, local authorities or new partnerships, to allow for personalised care packages? Of course, as Ms Wells knows, the next key step that we have to take is to bring a draft bill to this Parliament before next summer in order to create the legislative platform that we need in order to deliver benefits. In terms of how and in what manner those benefits are then delivered and who might do that, I think that I have answered on previous occasions that is part of the optional appraisal work that is currently going on to determine or to bring options to ministers about exactly the shape and nature of the new social security agency for Scotland. As that exercise reaches its conclusions in the early part of next year, we will be taking decisions on that basis and, of course, informing Parliament. I do not accept, however, that personalisation of care and an approach that is based on the principles of dignity, fairness and respect is either a localised system or a nationalised system. I do not have that binary approach to this matter and I look forward to receiving the options that come to me from the stage 2 option appraisal and considering what is the best mix that we could use to take forward in a way that is efficient for our public finances and ensures that the maximum amount of our expenditure goes on the benefits themselves. John Mason Thank you to ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Glasgow City Council regarding the hostel for homeless men, the Bellgrove hotel. Minister Kevin Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer. Homelessness services are the responsibility of local authorities and addressing the needs of the residents of the Bellgrove hotel is therefore a matter for Glasgow City Council. However, we are aware of the concerns around the Bellgrove hotel. My predecessor met the leadership of Glasgow City Council to discuss the issue. Since being appointed as minister, I have taken an interest in the issues associated with the Bellgrove, and I have asked officials to continue to engage with the council on the Scottish Government's behalf. Discussions have focused particularly on strategically reviewing Glasgow's homelessness services. I know that that is an issue that Mr Mason has taken a close interest in, and I think that he will agree with me that the best interest of the Bellgrove's residents can only be met as part of a wider approach that helps to address issues such as rough sleeping and the provision of homelessness services for those with the most complex needs in Glasgow. John Mason I thank the minister for his reply. He will be aware, I expect, that the BBC did a documentary in this in the year 2000, and, effectively, nothing has happened of any real substance since then. There is no real inspection regime for the Bellgrove hotel. Would the minister consider strengthening the powers of the care inspectorate to require them to inspect establishments like this? John Mason Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am willing to consider if there is a future role for the care inspectorate in the regulation of institutions like the Bellgrove. However, the Bellgrove hotel is licensed as a house in multiple occupation, and Glasgow City Council has used the HMO licensing framework to require some improvements in the condition of the hotel. The priority, of course, is to ensure the wellbeing of the residents of the Bellgrove hotel and that their needs and wishes are considered. It is not typical of other homeless accommodation in Scotland, and this case involves very complex issues. I can assure Mr Mason that I will continue to keep a close eye on that. I met representatives of Glasgow homeless network this morning, and he can be assured that I will continue to look at all aspects of homelessness in rough sleeping in Glasgow. Jackie Baillie To ask the Scottish Government when it will set a new target to eradicate fuel poverty. Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills We will consult on a new fuel poverty strategy, including a new fuel poverty target next year. That will first involve the commissioning of an independent review of the fuel poverty definition, as recommended by the Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group, so we ensure that we are setting the correct policy objectives and have the correct basis for targeting resources and measuring progress. We also remain committed to our ambition of eradicating fuel poverty. Jackie Baillie The cabinet secretary will be aware of a small but welcome drop in fuel poverty, but there are still 738,000 people, one in five of the population of Scotland, having to choose between heating and eating. Setting a target to eradicate fuel poverty remains essential. I press her on when she will bring forward the strategy that will contain that target. Can the cabinet secretary also tell me whether she will be reviewing the winter fuel payment and winter fuel allowance as part of that process? We have to ensure that there is a synergy between what we do in social security and the work that we do in fuel poverty. Of course, more than 100 recommendations in the reports from the two independent working groups—the one on the overall strategy and the one on rural fuel poverty—is well. I say to Jackie Baillie that, although the latest statistics show a welcome decrease of nearly 100,000 fewer households in fuel poverty, none the less, as she articulated, that means that 748,000 households continue to be fuel poor and that 203,000 households are in extreme fuel poverty. We need to progress the work at a pace. It has to be done properly. In my original answer, I outlined work that has to be done over the course of next year. Mr Stewart, prior to Christmas, will meet the fuel poverty forum next week to discuss the work that is done by the working groups. We will respond to the work that is done by the working groups and give our response at the beginning of next year. In the first half of next year, the work to look at the definition of fuel poverty will have to commence and be completed. The next stage, later on in the year, is to introduce the strategy for consultation prior to the warm homes bill being introduced in year 2. If there is more detail that Ms Baillie would like or appreciate, I am happy to meet her. The Scottish Government's budget next week gives it the opportunity to allocate some of the very generous allocation of £800 million extra in capital from the United Kingdom Government that has been passed on to it from the autumn statement to be spent on energy efficiency measures to help to tackle fuel poverty. Will it do so? Fuel poverty or addressing fuel poverty and investing in measures to tackle fuel poverty has always been a priority of this Government. It is the same that that has not always been replicated by the UK Government, who, if we remember, in June 2015 ceased the Green Deal scheme without any warning and that, of course, removed £15 million in consequentials. As a Government, we have not demured from the importance of investment from 2009 onwards. We have invested £650 million in our programme for government. We have the additional commitment of a further £0.5 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. However, we have to remember that the biggest driver of fuel poverty in terms of whether it decreases or increases is the price of domestic fuel. Fuel poverty in Scotland would be around 8 per cent as opposed to 30 per cent if it was not for the inflation-busting increases in domestic fuel. It is a pity that the UK Government has not done more to tackle the rising costs of fuel. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether money raised by local authorities should be kept in that area. All the money raised by local authorities through the council tax non-domestic rates or locally set fees and charges is kept in their communities unless they choose to spend it elsewhere. Since the SNP came to power, local authorities have been strangled by a Government intent on centralisation. That council tax grab is a further example of that. The Government is happy to talk about community empowerment. For years, the SNP has bleated on about the democratic deficit in the UK. Perhaps it should look at the erosion and the increasing deficit of local democracy and accountability. On that basis, can I ask the minister whether the Government intends to centralise any more local authority spending? Mr Carson obviously did not listen to the answer that I gave him. He talks of a council tax grab. The Scottish Government has been clear that all money raised through the council tax will remain in the local authority area that it is collected in. Just like in 2011, we allowed all local authorities to keep their non-domestic rates and, of course, locally raised fees and charges are also kept by local authorities. Mr Carson should pay due attention to the answers that he has given initially before coming up with a supplementary, which is way off the mark. Does the minister agree with the Resolution Foundation when it stated that the SNP's tax increase would raise revenue in a progressive manner with the tax rise falling harder on higher income households? Will the minister expand on how all local authorities receive their fair share of funding through a needs-based formula? I thank Mr Mason for that question. On his first point, I agree with the Resolution Foundation as our reforms to the council tax will protect household incomes, make local taxation fairer and ensure that local authorities continue to be properly funded while being more accountable. On the second point that Mr Mason makes, the needs-based formula takes into account population bandings, levels of deprivation, remoteness, including the extra cost of providing services to our island communities and road links. That formula is kept under constant review jointly with COSLA to ensure that it is as fair as it can possibly be. To ask the Scottish Government how many people in Scotland it estimates would be impacted by the UK Government reducing employment and support allowance to claimants placed in the work related activity group. The Scottish Government is, of course, very disappointed that the Chancellor did not take the opportunity to reverse his proposals to cut employment and support allowance in his recent autumn statement. That is despite the House of Commons passing a motion calling for a pause in the proposed cut and the DWP's estimate that it will affect around 500,000 families across the UK. Those affected will see their support reduced from £102.15 per week to £73.10 when the cut is introduced in April 2017 for new claimants. Unfortunately, employment support allowance is and will continue to remain fully reserved to the UK Government. Does the minister agree with me that a cut of £30 a week for people who are unable to work, firstly, lacks any evidence base that it will move disabled people into work, secondly, will act as a real disincentive to disabled people trying to get back into work, and lastly, will only produce further hardship for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions? The cut that Mr McPherson refers to is, of course, a 28 per cent reduction in the support for disabled people. That from a Government that tells us that it wants to help disabled people move into employment and, indeed, have that employment gap. It is hardly surprising that the report that I referred to earlier pointed out just how long it will take the UK Government to meet the target that it claims to want to meet but are doing so much to prevent themselves from even getting there. There is no evidence whatsoever that cutting benefits or imposing sanctions assist people or incentivises them into employment. Indeed, the Sheffield Hallam evidence that the Social Security Committee has recently read and others, including in the national audit's office's report, all indicate that it is to the contrary that cutting benefits and imposing sanctions further drive people into poverty and that in itself makes it very difficult for those individuals to then have the means by which to seek employment and to sustain employment. Cutting further, what limited benefits there are to support them in that exercise seems to me utterly contradictory to the UK Government's claimed approach, but it really is no surprising when one thinks about the ideology that they operate from. Dean Lockhart Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I ask the Minister now that the Scottish Government has the top-up powers in this area, when will the Scottish Government tell us precisely how and when it will use those powers? I have to say that that was nothing if not predictable. If the chap is over here and we just paused for a moment, I will reply. We have made very clear the steps that we have to go through in order to deliver the benefits that will be devolved to us. We have also made clear in our manifesto in which we were elected under and are now indeed the Government of Scotland, where we will use the top-up powers and where we will introduce new benefits. To do anything in addition, of course, is a matter of political choices in a circumstance where the Scottish budget itself is significantly reduced by just under around 10 per cent over a number of years. I also make the point that what my colleagues on the left are arguing for is that people in Scotland should pay twice—once, because the UK Government is choosing to make political choices that attack the most vulnerable, and secondly, in order to mitigate against that choice. We are already spending £100 million a year just to stand still and to mitigate against the worst effects of what their Government is doing, and they continue to defend. I really think that it will behoves them to argue that we should do more than that when, really, their sites should be trained on their own Government to get them to stop the policies that they are pursuing. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking in response to the findings of the independent review of the Scottish planning system. Since the independent panel's report was published, we have undertaken a rigorous programme of work, including extensive stakeholder discussions and research. We are using that work to develop a package of reform, including legislative change, as well as wider actions that can be taken forward ahead of a planning bill. Does the Scottish Government accept that there should be a focus on re-using brownfield sites as one way of boosting house building in Scotland? The Scottish Government will look at a number of things over the piece when it comes to the planning review. We have invited more than 100 people to participate in six themed working groups. We have commissioned research into infrastructure charging mechanisms, enforcement, 3D visualisations and barriers to engagement. We have also launched a consultation on raising planning fees. We will look at all aspects of planning, and I hope that many people will engage during the course of the consultation, which will begin in early January. I am sure that during the course of that consultation there will be discussions about the use of brownfield sites. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the Westminster reduction in the benefit cap will have on disabled people and households in Scotland. The Scottish Government has voiced serious concerns about the impact of the new lower benefit cap to the UK Government. The benefit cap is and will remain of course reserved to the UK Government. The DWP estimates that the cap reduction will affect around 5,000 households in Scotland. However, a recent chartered Institute of Housing report estimated the number that is affected in Scotland to be higher, with around 6,700 households containing more than 20,000 children. Although claimants of personal independence payment, disability living allowance and employment and support allowance support groups are excluded from the cap, those that are placed in the work-related activity group of the ESA may be subjected to it. James Jordan I thank the minister for that answer. During a recent visit to shelter on the day the reduction of the welfare cap became effective, in fact, I witnessed a 7 per cent increase in the volumes of calls that shelter received that morning. Does the minister believe that the imposition of welfare cuts imposed by the UK Government will put people at further risk of homelessness? I do. What we have had even in the short space of this afternoon is a catalogue of cut after cut by the UK Government on those least responsible for the current state of the UK economy and least able to meet the demands placed on them. There is a clear risk of homelessness as households struggle to make ends meet. We know that rent arrears are increasing, both as a result of the cuts to funding for temporary accommodation and as universal credit is rolled out. That places many households at a heightened risk of homelessness. We are working with COSLA and others to consider how temporary accommodation is provided in order to address those issues, and we will continue to raise our concerns about the impact of welfare cuts with the UK Government. That concludes portfolio questions. We are now going to move to the next amount of business, which is a debate in the name of Fergus Ewing on sea fisheries. We will take a few moments to change seats.