 Hywy salmonon Everyone and welcome to the fourth meeting of the social justice and social security committee. Our first item of business today is a decision to take item 6 in private. Are we all agreed? brilliant, thank you. We are all agreed. Next this morning is consideration of two statutory instruments the social security upgrading miscellaneous amendment Scotland Regulations 2023 and the social security uprating Scotland order 2023. At our last committee meeting, we took evidence from the Scottish Commission on Social Security on their recommendations for the 2023 uprating regulations, and the Scottish Government's response to their report. I welcome Ben Macpherson MSP, Minister for Social Security and Local Government, and I also welcome officials. Joining us in the room, we have Simon Coutt, head of the cross-cutting policy unit, and Camilo Arredondo, solicitor, and I hope that I have pronounced your name correctly. Joining us remotely, we have Dominic Mellon, economic advisor, social security analysis, forecasting and evaluation branch for the Scottish Government. A few quick points to mention about the format of the meeting before we begin. For officials attending remotely, please allow our broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you start to speak if the minister wishes to bring you in. For members attending remotely, please wait until I say your name before speaking, and colleagues in the room should indicate to myself or the clerk if they wish to come in and ask a supplementary question. Members online just use the chat box or the WhatsApp. The instruments are laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve them before they come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited in upcoming agenda items to consider motions to approve each of the instruments separately. I remind everyone that Scottish Government officials can speak under this item, but not in the debate that follows. I will now invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues. I welcome this opportunity to assist the committee in its consideration of the draft Social Security Uprating Order 2023 and the draft Social Security Uprating Scotland-Michelinius amendments regulations 2023. The draft Social Security Uprating Order 2023 provides for the uprating of benefits administered in Scotland by the Department of Work and Pensions, and the draft Social Security Uprating Scotland-Michelinius amendments regulations 2023 provide for the uprating of devolved benefits administered by the Scottish Government. The laid instruments provide a 10.1 per cent increase in support, covering all devolved benefits, excluding the Scottish child payment for which uprating was included in the 25 per cent in-year increase. That means that we are uprating all those benefits where there is a statutory requirement for us to do so and have additionally chosen to uprate those for which there is no statutory requirement for ministers to do so. As the committee is aware, we took that decision to increase the Scottish child payment from £20 to £25 per week in November 2022, a 25 per cent increase. Now the eligibility has been extended to under 16-year-olds. That will benefit more than 300,000 children across Scotland in the financial year 23-24. The Scottish Government analysis estimates that this payment could reduce the relative child poverty rate in Scotland by five percentage points in 23-24, lifting around 50,000 children out of relative poverty. We have taken those decisions on uprating in recognition of the difficulties facing people in Scotland during the on-going cost-of-living crisis, which has seen inflation rates reach a 40-year high over recent months. That means that, subject to parliamentary approval, those new rates will come into force in April 2023, the rates in the regulations before us. I thank the committee for its scrutiny and consideration of those uprating instruments and urge colleagues to welcome and support them. We will now move on to questions from members. Our questions will be directed to you, but you are of course welcome to invite any official to respond. On theme 1, I will move to James Dornan online. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, minister. A number of stakeholders have welcomed the operating as a minimum-required action, but have called for increased payments to be increased further in order to address the cost of inflation, etc. Can you tell us, given this cost-of-living crisis, is this time for a review of the adequacy of the benefit payment levels? I will ask you another question along similar lines. I also recognise the difficulty that we have in increasing payments, given that we live within a fixed budget. Those are such important questions and, of course, get to the heart of our considerations as a Government and as a society as to how Government can help people in these times. That is why we have done a great deal within our limited powers and relatively fixed budgets to support those on the lowest incomes. For example, in 2324, we are committing £776 million above the level of funding forecast to be received from the UK Government through block grant adjustments. A significant amount of additional investment in social security benefits from the Scottish Government. As the instrument is set out, we have chosen to increase the value of benefits where operating is not a statutory requirement in recognition of the difficulties faced by many due to the increased cost of living. We have also provided an enhanced operating of 6 per cent to a range of devolved benefits in 2022. The last financial year, despite the fact that the September CPI rate at that time was 3.1 per cent, so we gave a significant uplift in the last financial year, as well as doing so in this. Of course, we have increased the Scottish child payment from £10 to £20 per week in April 2022, which was an increase of 100 per cent. Of course, we have increased it again from £20 to £25 from November 2022. That is a significant amount of additional support. Those choices all represent increases to the value of benefits beyond the statutory operating requirements, as I have emphasised. Compared with UK equivalents, as well as the Scottish child payment, our other payments are already more generous than those available in the UK social security system. For example, best start grant pregnancy and baby payment is currently £642.35, compared with £500 for sure start maternity grant, the UK equivalent. That is a difference of £142.35. In Scotland, we have the best start grant pregnancy and baby payment for subsequent children currently at £321.20, which is no UK equivalent. The three Scottish best start food payments are also more generous in value than the rest of the UK healthy start equivalents. Through our seven benefits that are not available elsewhere in the UK and our benefits that I have just outlined, where there is a UK equivalent but we are being more generous and paying more, we are looking in the round to do as much as we can to provide that additional support within a largely fixed budget and, of course, with limited power. Okay, can I come back? Absolutely, James Carrion, if you have further questions. Thank you. I have a question around the high cost of food and energy as it is just now, but do you think that £4.95 is an adequate rate for best start foods and £55.05 is an adequate rate for winter heating payment, given what you just told us about being greater than it is in the rest of the UK or does not exist in the rest of the UK? In terms of best start foods, there is no statutory requirement to upgrade best start foods, but despite that, we increased best start foods in August 2021 from £4.25 to £4.50 a week rise, which provides a weekly payment that is more generous than other parts of the UK, as I have already said. Once it has been upgraded in April, it should provide £19.80 every four weeks throughout pregnancy and £39.60 every four weeks from birth until a child turns one to support breastfeeding mothers or help with the costs of providing first infant formula milk and then £19.80 every four weeks from age one until the child turns three. Many recipients of best start foods will benefit from our other five family payments, which include the Scottish child payment and the three best start grants. Our five family payments could already be worth around £10,000 by the time an eligible family's child turns six compared to around £1,800 for eligible families in England and Wales, so really significant additional support. Over £20,000 by the time an eligible child is 16. With an expanded range of qualifying benefits compared with the UK healthy voucher scheme, best start foods also offers more choice by including a wider range of healthy foods for families to purchase. Members may have also seen that in recent weeks the Scottish Government has been trying to raise awareness of best start foods and encouraging people to check their cards, to check if they are eligible and to utilise that support, because we really want people to get the benefit of it. As members will be aware, winter heating payment has just been introduced this winter. We have discussed it, of course, at this committee. For the first time, we will provide a stable, reliable payment that will help around 400,000 low-income households and individuals with their heating expenses each winter. As I have said before, our new benefit is an investment of over £20 million each year, more than double the £8.3 million on average provided by the DWP in the last seven years. During that same seven-year period, on average, 185,000 people received support through the UK Government's cold weather payments in comparison to our new benefit, which, as I have said, will provide support to around 400,000 people. As has been highlighted in my opening remarks, we will operate winter heating payment by 10.1 per cent should Parliament pass the regulations before us. That will provide additional support next winter. Members may have seen the clarification yesterday that winter heating payment is being paid out as we speak. That is something that we should all welcome. Thank you very much, minister. I suspect that everybody who is to say that will be welcoming it. Before I finish, can you, as a minister in your position, guarantee to us that you will be arguing your case with the finance secretary, whoever that may be in the future, that this is a priority whenever anyone becomes available in the Scottish Government? Certainly, as ministers in the social justice portfolio, we press the case for additional support for social security through discussions with our colleagues who are finance ministers, particularly if new resource emerges through the process of consequentials or reconsiderations in-year around budget spend. I should say as well that finance ministers are very committed to the social justice position with a shared determination as a Government and national mission to tackle poverty. That has been demonstrated by the fact that the Deputy First Minister and acting finance secretary has committed £428 million to operating in the next financial year and, of course, the £442 million for the Scottish child payment. We will continue to discuss in Government collaboratively and with that shared determination to tackle poverty what more financial resource can be allocated to social security. As a Government, we are absolutely focused on doing what we can to support people generally and particularly in these challenging times. Thank you, convener, and good morning to ministers and your officials. The 44 per cent of carers are in poverty—about 40 per cent of them have said that they are struggling to make ends meet. They cannot afford essentials. 49 per cent are struggling to afford the cost of food. 37 per cent are in debt as a consequence of caring. The number of carers that have cut back on essentials since 2021 has almost doubled. Has the minister considered at this juncture doubling the carers allowance supplement? That is an important issue. Of course, it is not related to the regulations before us directly, but the carers allowance supplement will be upgraded by 10.1 per cent overall, in line with other benefits. I am confused. How does it not relate? The question about doubling the carers allowance supplement in the next financial year and considerations about getting to that juncture in the next period—sorry, Pam Duncan-Glancy, I thought that you were talking about the additional carers allowance supplement, so please excuse me. Of course, there is a relevancy, and I apologise for that. The additional carers allowance supplement is something that we were proud to introduce from 2018. It was the right thing to do. It was the first thing that was done by Social Security Scotland, by the minister at that time. It has provided a significant amount of additional support to carers, which is something that we are determined to provide. There has been additional carers allowance supplement through that period, which I was considering in the beginning of the answer, which has provided additional support in the year of the pandemic and in the winter of 2021. How we continue to support carers is demonstrated in the fact that we are increasing the carers allowance supplement or wanting to in the regs and asking Parliament to support us in that. We are now moving to a position in which we will be transferring into carers support payment. I draw members' attention to the remarks that I made in Parliament in the debate just a number of weeks ago about that, and I will, as I said in that debate, be shortly publishing the response to the consultation on carers support payment and the issues that are raised about how we provide additional support. Like all the benefits that we are responsible for, we are looking to provide additional support. Of course, the carers allowance supplement and its increase by 10.1 per cent in those regulations are part of that, but we are, as members, not in a situation where we have to balance the budget across the Scottish Government as a whole. Given that we are providing £776 million of additional support above what we have received from the UK Government from the block grant adjustment, given that we are providing new benefits that are not available elsewhere in the UK, including the carers allowance supplement, I think that this Government demonstrates on a consistent basis that we are seeking to provide additional financial support where and when we can. We have just passed a budget as a Parliament in this week. The financial situation is incredibly challenging. Finding additional support is difficult, but where we are able to secure additional support, like the £428 million that is committed to the operating that we are considering today across the board, we are seeking to step up and do that. Thank you. I appreciate that. My understanding is that of that £400 million, about £28 million is coming from your budget and the rest is, I believe, coming from Barnett consequentials. I do recognise that. That is, if I may just speak on that point, convener, and thank you, Pam Duncan Glancy. Of course, there is that aspect of the £428 million that is operating with regard to benefits that we are making a commitment to operate where there is not a statutory to do so, but you have to also remember that there is additional social security that is not provided elsewhere in the UK, such as the £442 million for the Scottish child payment. Let's just keep that in mind in terms of the wider perspective. I appreciate that. It will probably come as no surprise to anyone to hear me say that there are other revenue raising options that the Government has, if it were to choose to consider doing things like doubling the carers line supplement. To move on from that, we know that the inflation rate for people on low incomes is higher for people on other incomes and that they spend about 46 per cent of their income on things like food and energy, which is why that is the case. Did the Government explore other options when considering the uprating? What impact does it think that the current uprating will have given families on low incomes, which is a number of the benefits that you have already highlighted in support? The minister has already spoken about today to target those groups. Of course, the considerations around those on low incomes are at the heart of everything that we are doing with our social security system. The additional benefits that we provide to households that are not available elsewhere in the UK are absolutely targeted at those low-income households. The Scottish child payment, having that impact for over 300,000 children, all of which are receiving reserved benefits, which then allow them to access the Scottish child payment, are related to the fact that they are in low-income households. There is that additional support—that £442 million for the Scottish child payment—in terms of the considerations around how we take matters into account with regard to what measures we consider when we are thinking about how to make sure that we are being responsive to low-income households when deciding uprating policy, Scottish Government analysis and the analysis that work for us. I will perhaps bring Dominic in shortly to say any more on this if he wishes to undertake an annual review of the potential inflation metrics to uprate benefits. The CPI has been consistently used to uprate benefits by both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, the DWP, as it is a leading measure of inflation that is used by the Office of National Statistics. It holds national statistics status and there are CPI forecasts that are published regularly by the Office of Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England. We are aware of recent developments by the ONS and other stakeholders to develop supplementary price metrics to reflect that the price rises in the economy do not affect all households equally, which is at the heart of your question. For example, the ONS now publishes CPI rates by income deaths. Scottish Government analysis and analysis uses those additional price indexes extensively in internal analysis and briefing of ministers. However, the ONS advised that those types of price indexes are experimental and caution against their use for anything other than research purposes at this juncture. We are focused on providing additional support to low-income households, which is why we provide the additional benefits that we do, the seven benefits that are not available elsewhere in the UK, and we keep in mind how we measure operating policy and how best to do that. Dominic, I do not know if you want to see any more on that. Thank you, minister. I would just add that, as you see, we are very aware of these alternative supplementary price indices. We do use those as extensively in our work, as you say, in how we brief ministers. We do take our steer from the ONS and the UK Statistics Authority and how we use those metrics to spend taxpayer money. Ultimately, that is where we take our steer from. We will continue to use those, but, as the minister said, we defer to the national statistics, the CPI, in our overall operating approach. Thank you. I appreciate that. I have one further question on that. We know that an inclusion Scotland has made representations to the effect that disabled people's energy costs have doubled and that it has suggested that a number of disabled people access the winter heating payment that the minister has previously mentioned. On that basis, it has suggested that that payment will also be increased. In fact, in their briefing, they said that it has been doubled. What was your response to their request? I cannot recall the specific request and correspondence that was potentially issued in response to that. However, we consider, particularly in those times, with the high cost of energy, what additional support can be provided. That is why, for example, the creation and then paying for the payment during the last years of the child winter heating assistance has, of course, been so important in having that additional support for those households. Colleagues will be aware and remember that, when we took through the regulations on the winter heating payment, I talked about the fact that we have deliberately drafted those regulations in order to provide flexibility for the Government in the future should it wish to pay either a higher amount or an additional payment of the winter heating payment. Of course, that is contingent on the financial resources that are available, which, of course, gets back to the thrust of the challenge, which is how we provide more support in a situation in which we have a largely fixed budget and limited powers. There will always be calls on the Scottish Government to do more, but it is also important to recognise, acknowledge and emphasise that, collectively, as a Parliament, we are delivering more support for people in Scotland that is available elsewhere in the UK, and we are doing that with determination and dedication to help people and to make Scotland a more socially just place. We absolutely appreciate the needs that people have and that there are demands for us to do more, but I also hope that committee and members across the political spectrum appreciate that, in good faith, the Scottish Government is trying to do as much as it can with its resources, like the £428 million for the operating that we are considering today, like the £442 million for the Scottish child payment that is not available elsewhere, like additional benefits such as child winter heating assistance. Thank you. I'll stop there for just now. Thank you, Pam. I'll now move to questions from Paul McLeanon. Thanks, convener. It's kind of moving on to the eighth theme too, minister, and welcome to you and your officials. It's kind of talking about the operating and, obviously, it's just an approximate measure, and it's where the single reference month is used. I'm just wondering if you can say a little bit more on the advantages and disadvantages of that, and probably I know that the Scottish Government's keeping policy under review, year-end, about what consideration has been given to the future, when you talk about the volatility of inflation in the last year. I've got another question kind of related to that. Thanks, Mr McLeanon. It's important to note that September CPI, as I've said, is a measure of price increases over the preceding 12 months to September, and not a measure of inflation during September alone. Devolve Scottish benefits will therefore be upgraded in April 2023, with the September 22 12-month CPI rate representing the overall change in prices faced by consumers over the year 2 September 2022. As I said in my answer to Pam Duncan Glancy, this is a leading measure of inflation that is published each month by the Office of National Statistics and is a national statistic. Officials assess alternative uprating options each year, including the use of a CPI rate closer to the time-uprating will take effect. However, the September CPI rate was considered the most appropriate inflation period to use to upgrade benefits in April 2023. The September CPI rate is published in October, due to the time lag between the period that is covered by the data and its publication, using a later 12-month rate, or, for example, an average rate, over 22-23. It would introduce administrative challenges around setting the Scottish Government budget, which, of course, is published in December and then implementing rate changes to benefits thereafter. It is also preferable to use out-turn statistics to forecast as a reflective inflation that households have experienced to date, rather than predictions of inflation, which are inherently uncertain. We have realised that, particularly in recent times. On your next question, I will answer to Pam Duncan Glancy's question before talking about obviously inflation in low-income households and obviously the proportion in low-income households, for example, on the about energy and food costs, which have been exceptionally high this year, are obviously proven to be an issue. Again, inflation has been forecast to come down this year and so on, but food inflation is still high and energy costs are still high. You mentioned it in about the analysis of this. It is still almost just for—it is not really in the process yet. I am just wondering what the future plans are for next year or the year after that, and about that specific work into low-income households and how that impacts on that. As you said, that probably needs to work in conjunction with the UK Government, but I wonder what your thoughts were on that in the next few years. Unless you want me to tell what I have laid out to Pam Duncan Glancy, but just to emphasise that the Scottish Government and our analysts take annual review of the potential inflation metrics to use to upgrade benefits into consideration, so we review that annually. Just to emphasise what we are doing for low-income households, I talked about the £442 million that we have allocated in our largely fixed budget for the Scottish child payment. As I emphasised in an answer to Mr Dornan that now that the Scottish child payment is paid at £25 per week per child, our five family payments could be worth around £10,000 by the time a child turns six compared to around £1,800 for eligible families in England and Wales, and then over £20,000 by the time a child turns 16. That is a really significant investment in helping low-income households, which is the right thing to do and why we are doing it and why we are determined to provide that support and be proactive about it. For subsequent children, those payments are worth £9,700 by the time a child turns six years old compared to around £1,300 in England and Wales. Of course, we would like people in England and Wales to get similar support, but we do not have determination over that, but here in Scotland that is the extra support that we are providing to low-income households. I know that approach was backed up strongly by the IFS when it mentioned that as well. Just one final question, convener, if that would be okay. One was really just kind of moving on to I suppose, in our fastest question, something about fiscal flexibilities and I don't know the discussions on going around with the UK Government and the Scottish Government around that. I don't know if there is any you want to say on that particular roundabout the operating budget and how the block grant is adjusted and so on around that. Is there something in these discussions that would benefit yourself in that regard? I note the member's interest in this area and I think that it is an important discussion around how we consider going forward from the pandemic, from the cost-of-living crisis, how the Scottish Government is equipped in the most effective manner in order to be able to respond to issues that require additional financial support for people, but also situations in which there needs to be that extra capacity within the Government's financial armory, so to speak, in order to help people. To me, that is more specifically a consideration for the Finance Committee and the Finance Minister, but it has an impact across— Tell me a comment from your own now. Absolutely, it has an effect across different policy areas and the argument for more borrowing powers for the Scottish Government becomes stronger all the time. The current fiscal framework arrangements clearly constrain the extent to which we can respond to the cost-of-living crisis and any crisis, because we need to operate within that largely fixed budget. Our ability to target funds to respond to any emerging crisis is therefore limited to reprioritising, as I emphasised to Pam Duncan Glancy, from within an existing budget. That is a significant limitation, that is the reality of it, and one that will rightly be pressing to UK ministers and the UK Government as part of the upcoming renegotiation on the fiscal framework. The current arrangements constrain borrowing and reserve powers limit the Scottish Government's abilities, so we are dependent on decisions made by the UK Government. That was the case during the pandemic. That has been the case during the cost-of-living crisis, whether we have been able to pay more. For example, the carers allowance additional supplement to pay more in 2021 because of additional resources being available. Additional flexibilities would allow the Scottish Government to mobilise and deploy funding in the most effective and efficient way to support our citizens. The fiscal framework review must ensure that the Scottish Government and the Parliament have the necessary fiscal flexibility to manage the risks that we face within our devolved responsibilities and to support economic recovery, as well as households who need it. In doing so, the review must ensure that the Government has the necessary levers to manage the budget effectively and to respond to pressures and risks. Social security is certainly part of those considerations, but I emphasise that, in the current arrangement, social security has certainly been prioritised to a large extent with that additional support that is being provided, which is £776 million above what we receive through the block grant adjustment. We will now move on to questions from Faisal Choudhury, who is joining us online. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Would there be any provision for future payments of the winter fuel payment to be paid closer to the start of winter rather than the end? I think that that is again an important question and one that we have discussed collectively in other sessions. I have said on several occasions that, when it comes to the winter heating payment, we will be reviewing in the months ahead the situation and how we consider whether payment in this period of the winter, in February and into March, is the right payment schedule for households. We will be engaging with a number of parties in order to consider what may be a better arrangement for the coming winter, so winter 23-24, and thereafter. I remind colleagues that considerations around when winter heating payment was able to be paid out this year were based on engagement that we had with stakeholders about when it would be a good time for them to receive the payment, so we did that engagement. There was also the reality of the fact that Social Security Scotland was activating Scottish Child Payment 2 in November. Scottish Child Payment 2 is the shorthand descriptor for the increase to £25 and the extension to under-16s. Social Security Scotland was undertaking that very significant new payment arrangement in November and paying out carers allowance supplement at that time and child winter heating assistance at that time. Importantly, as well as the matters that Social Security Scotland was contending with in that period at the end of last year, our colleagues in the DWP have also been under a lot of pressure with their cost of living payments, which is why they were only able to give us the data scan for winter heating payment on 31 January, rather than at the beginning of January, which is when the Scottish Government asked for it and wanted it. We were understanding of our colleagues in the DWP that they had a huge exercise to undertake to pay out their cost of living payments. We agreed the 31 January date as that was the date that they could deliver to. They delivered to that date. We received the data. The data was effectively processed by Social Security Scotland and payments have been going out in recent days. We will be going out as we speak and we will be undertaking this month in February and in March as well. Thank you very much, convener. I have a question on theme 2. Can I go on that one, or do you want to wait till? If you could hold off just now because I have a few supplementaries on the point that you just raised and then I will come back to you for you. Sorry, can I just clarify on that point then? Obviously, you had said that the Scottish Government has originally wanted to begin in January. In terms of going forward, will that be something that we are looking to? Obviously, we do not know what will be happening because you are talking about the Scottish child payment in November and the other issues in terms of the cost of living crisis with the DWP. Will there be scope to move that payment date forward in the coming year and that is something that you are yet? Absolutely, there is. We will undertake an evaluation now of when we would be the best time to pay the winter heating payment. The significant delivery, the significant additional delivery demand that the Scottish Government took on on 14 November when Scottish child payment really increased in terms of eligibility to under-16s. We all know the demand in that week on 14 November last year and the undertaking in terms of the programming and making sure that the systems were all set up and which they were very successfully and everything has worked very well with Scottish child payment. We will not have that significant additional capacity being added to Social Security Scotland in the year ahead. However, we will be reliant on a data scan from the DWP, so we will have to negotiate and agree collectively with the DWP on the date of scan for winter heating payment in the winter ahead. We will discuss that in good faith in a collaborative way with the DWP. That will be not necessarily impacted but certainly somewhat contingent on the demands that DWP is also wrestling with at that time. Of course, I encourage all members to emphasise to the DWP the prioritisation that MSPs place on good engagement between the DWP and Social Security Scotland, because that is important for all the people in Scotland. We have a few supplementaries just at that point, so I will go to Miles Briggs first. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Good morning to your officials as well. I wanted to ask on the back of these questions what assessment has been made of the impact of this light or delayed payment to people, especially in rural Scotland, and whether or not you have reached out to any fuel poverty charities who are working in this area to find out what impact this has had, especially for people off-grid? I am happy to take that away and write with more detail to the member. I would say that our engagement with stakeholders working in issues around fuel poverty has been as appropriate up until the creation of winter heating payment through the delivery, and we will certainly be interested in hearing from any stakeholders about any feedback that they may have around the issues that Mr Briggs has raised. As I have made committee aware, following some of our discussions on winter heating payment, I instructed Social Security Scotland to write to the local authorities in areas that have been historically the highest areas of people receiving cold weather payments in order to emphasise what other support is available and, for example, the fuel and security fund. There is appropriate engagement and open to more engagement. I thank Mr Briggs for raising the issue and I am happy to take that away if he would like any further details on that that we may be able to provide following this supplementary question. That would be helpful. The point that you raised, I welcome the fact and I think that I raised it in the chamber that you have written to councils to make sure that they are highlighting. Do you know if that has been undertaken to make sure that people have been highlighted what support is available? The letter went from the chief executive rather than from my office, so we can check what responses Social Security Scotland has had, but, of course, we can urge councils to do things that we cannot in this regard instruct them to do so, but I would consider that, in good faith, I am sure that councils are and have undertaken necessary and helpful proactive engagement with those in their communities, as they consistently do. I am struggling a bit, if I am honest, because the child payment was announced a few years back. An eligibility for that payment was clearly to be from 0 to 16. I appreciate that it was rolled out initially to under-sixes and then to over-sixes on 14 November last year, but that is something that the Government should have been planning for. I am not sure that I accept that it is fair to say that Social Security Scotland was overstretched because of a surprise payment, because it is not really a surprise. Surely it would have been in the making. I take the point about this year not having that same pressure, but, again, there are other benefits that are not rolled out yet in Social Security Scotland. Are we just going to keep seeing pressure on timescales because it feels like there is not much planning for that? My final question—I suppose that those are points or a question about the planning—is when did you ask the DWP for the data? When the minister appeared at committee before Christmas, my understanding was that if the data had been shared by 31 January, the payments would have been rolled out in a timely fashion as preferred. But when did the Scottish Government ask them to give them at the beginning of January? There were discussions late in 2022, and throughout 2022, which concluded in late 2022 around the data scan. There had been a consistent ambition from the Scottish Government once we settled on the February commencement of payments, and I have always said that it is the commencement of payments from February. Once we settled on that position, we had discussed in 2022 with DWP, and that had been largely official about a determination that we had hoped and planned on receiving the data early in January. However, DWP, because of the pressures with the cost of living payments, was unable to meet that position, but we then agreed 31 January. I refute strongly the accusations that there is not adequate planning in social security, and I am happy to commit to my senior officials who work in programming agency and policy to come and speak to the committee. The planning of the delivery of social security benefits in Scotland has been extremely professionally and remarkably delivered and considered working in a hybrid system where we have to engage with the DWP and where we are still developing a new service that is performing well and you have seen the feedback from clients from people who have used the service and how positive it is. The amount of new clients in a short period of time and new people applying for benefits that made their applications for Scottish child payment in that November week was a significant increase in client activity and demand on the service. There was a huge amount of planning that went into that November date, and that is why it has been so successful. That required additional recruitment, obviously digital development, and significant wider programming to ensure that everything is effective. With Scottish child payment, I have been significantly issued and I will be able to provide further updates to Parliament on that in due course, but I refute strongly any accusation that Scottish child payment extension was not properly planned. It was very well planned and it has been very well executed. It has helped thousands of people who would not have got that support if it was not for the Scottish Government initiative. It is not available elsewhere in the UK, so I just have to be very strong about that. Before I ask my question, I declare an interest in the fact that I am on the high rate of PIP, so I have a financial benefit from one of the benefits that we are talking about today. Can I go back to the comment that you made that is now going to be reviewed for winter payment? Clearly, the information that is being shared between the Scottish Government and DWP, the sooner that can happen, the better. I wondered how quickly that review would take place and how it would be reported. On the latter point about how it would be reported, I am happy to update the committee on that in due course as soon as I can. I have already instructed my officials to consider the timing of the benefit next winter. I think that we might return to this in one of my questions to you, but I wonder if we are looking before summer, after summer or at least some kind of timescale we can be looking at to look out for this information. The priority for the Scottish Government is to pay the winter heating payment, which is happening as we speak, and is all scheduled to be paid in this month and into next. We will make sure that those payments—remember, that data scan of £400,000 is the biggest data scan that the Scottish Government has received with regard to paying new benefits, Scottish Government benefits. It is a significant execution of a new benefit and an unprecedented in the history of Social Security Scotland receipt of a large data provision that we are then having to engage into our systems and pay out as quickly as possible. That is all happening very successfully. Once we have paid all those benefits out, we can then actively report and consider what to do in the winter ahead, so the winter 23-24. However, I have already instructed policy and programming officials to consider how we deliver the benefit in terms of timing for next winter. Of course, we need to engage with not just stakeholders but potentially our experience panels and make sure that we get appropriate feedback from people who have received the benefit and what impact it had this winter before we undertake considerations about when it would be as part of our considerations as to when it would be best to be paid in the winter ahead. I suppose that my Conservative minister that that can take months, so we are then into June-July. If you came to review that, you wanted to pay it say November-December, that gives DWP very little time to be able to pass that information on to you, so I am wondering have you at least highlighted the possibility with DWP at this stage that you might want to pay it in this calendar year and ask them when is the break date that they need, so say hypothetically we said we want to make the payment at the end of November, at the beginning of December, at what point does DWP need to know that so that they can provide the information, so rather than you saying we want to pay it in November and make that decision in July and DWP say well that's just not possible, we can't provide that quick enough. Have you got a date from DWP to say if you want to make the payment in November we need to know that by whatever date that is? Officials in the Scottish Government and DWP speak regularly with regard to Social Security and the points that you have raised are of course valid and important ones. I would say that the officials in the Scottish Government that are engaged in programming and policy on winter heating payment, I have instructed to already consider what we do next winter and that will include engagement with their DWP counterparts. In terms of their review, we will undertake that in an appropriate timescale but also in a timescale that allows us to make sure that we are discussing the outcome of those considerations internally with our colleagues in DWP and as necessary to Parliament as well. The way that you have set out how we engage with DWP, we have to work collaboratively on timelines and I spoke about that in the debate about the next phases of the programme. However, we also need to discuss in a manner that is considerate of both our needs and we will be engaging with DWP on the winter heating payment for next year once we have completed the payment of this year's winter heating payment. So, be assured that those discussions in order to make sure that we have both orderly and timious engagement with DWP ahead of next winter in order to pay it at the right time that is agreed by both parties in order to make sure that happens will be undertaken appropriately. Thank you very much minister. We will now move back to Foisal online. Thank you, convener. Can the data being used to calculate those figures be considered comprehensive when there is only a single reference month when analysing the financial pressure put on low-income households? We can see that there is only one month reference. I think that I have already covered that point in my responses to Pam Duncan Glancy and Paul McClellan. I do not have anything further to add on those issues. That is fine, thank you minister. Foisal, those points have already been covered. Obviously, you can check the official record for that. We will now move on to theme 3. We are running slightly behind, so if I could ask members and the minister to keep questions and answers relatively succinct and to the point, we will move back to Jeremy. Thank you. I think that you have covered some of this already, minister, so hopefully we can do it very quickly. I am just wondering, looking forward, clearly to some extent the funding mechanism creates an incentive to follow DWP operating policy. Do you see a potential where the Scottish Government may take a different view, so we may do a higher figure or we may do a lower figure? Also, do you see a variation between different benefits? Clearly, again, you have gone for the 10.1 across all the benefits. Could you see a day where maybe one benefit was uplifted more than another so that it is more targeted? How easy is that to do within the powers that you have? Of course, I talked briefly about where the obligations are for us to operate and where there is discretion. That is important to bear in mind. Under section 86B of the Social Security Act 2018, which we passed in this Parliament just a few years ago, child disability payment, adult disability payment and funeral support payment are obligated and the Scottish child payment is in order to operate within that. For the forthcoming care support payment, we will also consider that in the 2018 act. Under section 81 of the act, carers allowance supplement are the obligations in that. I think that the Scottish child payment is a good example because, of course, we have increased that above inflation, above that statutory requirement. That is a demonstration that there can be a deviation. There are the exclusively Scottish benefits where there is discretion to operate and we have chosen to do that more last financial year by 6 per cent instead of 3.1 for a number of them. This year, we have uprated by 10.1 per cent, even though there was not an obligation to do so. The flexibility that you query has already been undertaken in certain circumstances. My point is that I understand that there is a statutory duty because of the bill, but as we roll these benefits out and as we look at it, do you think that that is a helpful thing to have a statutory duty to have to do it or would you rather have a greater discretion so that you can look at each. As you say, there are certain benefits that we have to do by statute. Would it be helpful going forward as a kind of review as we see how the scheme works, but that was not a statutory duty? That Government had discretion around that to look at different payments of how we should go up or are you happy to keep that statutory? I will bring Camilo in in a minute, but the obligations under the Social Security Act 2018 I would not want to change in that I think it is right that, as we agreed as a Parliament, there is an obligation to operate those by CPI. Of course, in terms of the Scottish child payment, we have increased that above 10.1 per cent in this period. I do not know if you want to see any more Camilo about the obligations under the Act 2018. I suppose that, on the legalities of the duty that the member mentioned, there are two statutory duties, in particular the legislation that is before Parliament, which we are discussing today completely. The one that was mentioned by the minister in the Social Security Act 2018, section 86B, is an obligation, as the minister mentioned, to operate what is currently on the books is child disability payment, adult disability payment, funeral support payment and the Scottish child payment. That duty acts as a minimal floor, as the minister mentioned, discretion to operate over and above that already. The policy point on whether there is a desire to keep that duty is not really for me to answer, but I think that the minister has mentioned it already. That was always looking forward. I understand the legal behind it. I was wanting to see if you were happy with that minister as is. I am, yes. I have got normal questions. Thank you very much, Jeremy. I will now move to questions from our deck, beauty convener Emma Roddick, who has been waiting very patiently. Thank you convener and good morning minister and officials. As the minister has already mentioned, uprating has been extended beyond those benefits where uprating had to happen. We do have forecasts here from the SFC that there is a forecast of £776 million more being spent on social security than what is being received through the block grant. Could the minister expand more on, firstly, any developments on those figures, as well as the challenges of deviating from DWP spending and how the decision was made to go over and above that? To get to the heart of why those decisions have been made to go above is because the Scottish Government wants to use its powers over social security and its budgets to help as much as possible. It is a policy commitment that is at the heart of the Scottish Government's determination to make Scotland a better place and a fairer place. We see the mission to tackle poverty as a collective one for everyone in Scotland—the Government, business, Parliament, the third sector and wider civil society. Public sector is all of our collective responsibility. As part of that, the Government should utilise resource and power where it has it to make an impact. That is why the commitment that we are making in the regulations before us to operate not just those benefits where there is a statutory obligation to operate by CPI in the 2018 act, but also those where we have discretion is demonstrative of that commitment to provide additional support. Ministers across the Government, particularly in the social justice portfolio and the finance portfolio, had our discussions in order to make sure that we were able to utilise the resources that we have and allocate that resource of £428 million to provide that additional support. Of course, I referred to the fact that last year, we also operated our discretionary benefits, several of them, by a higher amount than CPI, in order to help people during the position of rising costs of living at that time. Of course, there is also the Scottish child payment, not just an additional benefit, but one where we have increased it by 150 per cent in year, as well as extended it hugely to over 300,000 children who are now eligible for it. Thinking more about the cost of living crisis and the fact that CPI is here, we are looking at a 10.1 per cent increase, which is quite significant. The context there is difficult to describe, as anything other than economic mismanagement has led us to this level of inflation. Is that figure higher than had been expected for this time? Is it higher than initially planned for? Of course, the effects of the trust government's decisions in the summer are borne out, in fact, of how much damage it caused to the UK economy and, therefore, the Scottish economy, the damage that it caused to the financial markets and the knock-on effect that that had on household costs and different costs from mortgages to, therefore, levels of rent, of course, which we took interventionist action on through legislation to the impact on the UK Government's ability to be able to respond in itself because of how the financial situation impacted their public finances. Undoubtedly, the actions of the UK Government in the last year have had an impact. That is just a matter of fact. Of course, there are external factors, such as the war in Ukraine, which is an important point of knowledge, but the effect of Brexit is an important fact technology in that as well. The level of inflation generally is something that we would not have anticipated last year at this level, although, of course, there are projections that are undertaken. However, the effects of what happened in the latter half of last year through political decision making—bad political decision making—definitely had an effect on where we are now, unfortunately. That is why we have responded with our powers and resources to provide additional support in Scotland, and we all know how much of a difference that is making in all of the constituencies that we represent. That is really helpful. I have one final question. Thinking about the difference between the block grant and what is being spent, should there be, in the minister's view, increased funding from the UK Government, particularly given the cost of living crisis and the rate of inflation, and should the Scottish Government budget be inflation-proofed? We have called for some time on the UK Government to provide additional support for low-income households. We have called for universal credit to be increased, and we, of course, argued strongly at the time that it should not have been reduced by £20, and now we are calling on it to be increased by £25, given the cost changes that have been since then. The facts are in that situation that we are in right now, where inflation is where it is at. The plain fact is that exceptional inflationary pressures mean that the largely fixed budget that we have available buys less. That is just the reality of the fiscal position that we are in, without the borrowing of flexibilities that we talked about in response to Mr McClellan. We have had to allocate and prioritise appropriately within that largely fixed arrangement. Of course, we have created a more progressive situation in Scotland through the tax powers that we have and the social security decisions that we have made. Of course, that was recognised in recent days by the IFS in its reporting. There is a significant amount of extra support available for families in Scotland because of the decisions that we have made, but the scale of the challenges, unlike anything that has been faced since the devolution of the Parliament, was recommenced in 1999. We are in very significant times, but in those times, through the powers that we have, through social security Scotland that we created, people are getting more support right now all across Scotland. That is making a difference, and that is really important. I was not going to, but we have had a very political argument that I do not think is necessary to put into context Scotland's true finances. I wondered whether the minister wanted to put on record the Barnett formula providing an additional £2,000 in Scotland, which is allowing us to take those decisions compared to other parts of the United Kingdom and global impact. I think that he very briefly talked about the war in Ukraine, which, on Friday, will be a year since that illegal invasion. I just wondered whether this is global impacts, and I am not pretending in any way cushioned by that, but reality also needs to be taken on board when we are talking about these things and fiscal positions, which sees our country spend £8 billion more, but the Barnett formula allows us to do that. Would he recognise that? I do not think that we have time today, convener, to go through the considerations around the Barnett formula. Of course, there have been numerous debates, and there is a continuing debate about the Barnett formula and the allocations through the fiscal framework. Scotland, as a collective through different taxation, pays in a very significant amount of money into the treasury through its resources that is not something to underestimate. In pure economic terms, there are £8 billion less than we spend? Well, I think that there are important considerations around the fact that the Barnett formula, of course, is a situation for considerations around the fiscal framework, but it is also a fact that Scotland has paid in a surplus of resources in years past into the UK treasury. We need to bear the wider considerations in mind when considering those points. However, I emphasise that Scotland is making political choices within its devolved settlement in order to provide additional support. We have also had to make decisions to mitigate against UK Government policy that is costly for Scotland, particularly aspects such as the bedroom tax, which costs tens of millions of pounds every year that we would rather not have to spend. It would be much better if we could get rid of that policy, for example. That is also the reality of the situation. I acknowledge the international situation and I would never pretend that the one Ukraine, the legal evasion, which we all wish did not happen and was not happening. Of course, I recognise the effect that that is having, but in the same way that that is a reality, Brexit is having an effect on the situation with regard to inflation and the strength of the UK economy, as is the repercussions of the decisions of the trust Government in that brief period of time. Pam, I know that you have a supplementary on this. I could ask you to keep it brief, because we are moving into things that are a much wider discussion than what we are focusing on in the committee this morning. On you go. I appreciate that. That was what my supplementary was about. We are going into things that are far wider than that. When we spent a bit of time talking about it from one perspective, it was fine to do so, but we are now told that it is not fine to do so from another. It is just to raise that and say that those things, if they matter, matter from a much broader perspective than what was raised. I can go straight into my next theme if that is helpful. As the minister and other members will be aware, the SSI that we are looking at today, or the Raises Carers Alliance, earnings limit to £139, which is any raise in the context of some of the figures that I have set out earlier on, is really helpful. In the Government's consultation on carers assistance, the proposed increase to the amount that carers could earn last receiving Scottish Carers assistance, which is still being delivered through the DWP on Agency Agreement, could be linked to £16 at the real living wage, which would be £174. Has the minister considered that figure as opposed to £139? Why hasn't he taken the opportunity to put more money in the pockets of unpaid carers who are really struggling right now? I thank Pam Duncan Glancy for the question. I am conscious that I have to respond formally to that consultation still. I would be grateful if we could consider those matters once I have formally responded to that consultation, because it is important in terms of the process that happens first. I am very happy to engage on those points thereafter. I appreciate that there is a live consultation, but does the minister accept that unpaid carers are really, really struggling? In any increase, it could be helpful. The figure that I have chosen is the one that you proposed in that consultation. I am not asking you to pre-empt the conclusions, but it is fair to assume that unpaid carers would accept that more money is needed. I am just asking whether or not that figure was considered. We also need to consider that case transfer needs to be undertaken when it comes to carers allowance and introducing our new benefit care support payment. Of course, we are undertaking that process of delivering carers support payment, which will be the next benefit that the Scottish Government delivers. The determination that we have to support carers is demonstrated in the carers allowance supplement, which we have paid since 2018, and the additional support that we have paid in 2021. We want to support carers within the financial restraints that we have as much as we can, and that is why the consultation on carers allowance and carers support payment is an important piece of work. That is why it includes a number of improvements that we hope to make from launch, completion of case transfer and then in due course. I look forward to discussing that with Parliament once the consultation responses have been published, because it is a really important new benefit that we want to make the difference that we can with it. Part of that is the level of payment and the amount that we are able to provide in support within the financial realities and constraints that the Government faces. I think that it is important to bear in mind that, just like with adult disability payment, there is a process of case transfer that needs to be completed—a very challenging process of case transfer—but once we are able to do that, hopefully as quickly as possible. That is certainly the intention to undertake case transfer as timidly as we can. After that, once everyone is in one system, we will be able to think collectively about what improvements can be made at that juncture in the financial constraints that we face. I appreciate that, and I understand the case transfer point. Of course, that is why the carers allowance is still being delivered by the DWP, so I get that. Can I ask the minister why he chose £139 and not £174.40? The fact that the eligibility criteria for our carers support payment when it launches will broadly mirror carers allowance until we have transferred everyone's awards. That is the reality, because we cannot have a two-tier system, just like we cannot have a two-tier system between adult disability payment and personal independence payment until case transfer is completed. Can I ask how there would be a two-tier system just now? My understanding is that all of the carers allowance is being paid by the UK Government, so there would be a difference. That two-tier would be one-tier in Scotland and one-tier in the rest of the UK, which I think we can all accept as a point of devolution. I do not understand that justification. Because within this financial year, we will start carers support payments, so there will be new applications. I have no further questions on that point. Thank you very much, Pam, and thank you Minister. That concludes our questions for that item. We will now move on to agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-07737, that the social justice and social security committee recommends that the social security upgrading miscellaneous amendments Scotland regulations 2023 be approved. I invite the minister to speak and move that motion. I now invite any further contributions from members. I now invite the minister to sum up and probably not respond to the debate. Thank colleagues for their important questions and I hope they support those regulations. Thank you. The question is that motion S6M-07737 in the name of Ben Macpherson MSP be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. We will move to agenda item 4, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-07738, that the social justice and social security committee recommends that the social security upgrading Scotland order 2023 be approved. Again, I would invite the minister to speak and move that motion. Formally moved. I will invite contributions from members. No. I would invite the minister to sum up. Thank you for your important questions on those regulations as well and I hope you will support them. The question is that motion S6M-07738 in the name of Ben Macpherson MSP be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you all. The committee will report on the outcome of both instruments in due course and I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve a draft of the report for publication. Thank you minister and thank you to your officials. I will now briefly suspend the meeting to allow for officials for the next agenda item to join us online. We are now going to consider our next agenda item, a legislative consent memorandum or LCM, on the UK Parliament's social security additional payments number two bill. I welcome back Ben Macpherson MSP, minister for social security and local government and I also welcome officials who are joining us remotely. Susan Sutar, reserved benefits policy manager and Kayleigh Blair solicitor both Scottish Government. Minister, I understand that you would like to make a short opening statement. Thank you convener and colleagues for the opportunity to discuss with you this legislative consent motion for the social security additional payments number two bill. That bill was introduced by the UK Government on 7 February to provide further payments to support people through the cost of living crisis, which is support that is extra and we welcome it. The help available includes £900 in extra costs of living payments for those on means-tested benefits, which will be paid in three stages over the financial year 23-24. Those in receipt of non-means-tested disability benefits include people who receive child disability payment and adult disability payment from Social Security Scotland, and they will receive a disability cost of living payment of £150. That payment will be made in summer 2023. Our analysis suggests that around 750,000 households in Scotland will receive the means-tested additional payment and around 680,000 individuals will receive the disability additional payment. It is the view of the UK Government that the provisions of their bill are reserved and they have therefore not requested the Scottish Parliament's consent to the bill. However, the view of the Scottish Government is that the bill relates to devolved matters. It is my view that the payments are provided to individuals who have a short-term need for financial support to avoid a risk to their wellbeing and that this can be legislated for within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That is why it is necessary to lodge a legislative consent motion, although the UK Government has not requested one. In doing so, we will ensure that the devolution settlement is properly respected and more importantly that a precedent for overriding the devolution settlement is not established. The alternative to a legislative consent motion would be to pass legislation in the Scottish Parliament to an extremely truncated timescale in order to match the UK Government's timetable and ensure that payments are made when introduced. The legislation would need to come into force by the end of March. The UK Government bill will apply to the entirety of the UK as a result, as my view, that introducing legislation in the Scottish Parliament is not necessary nor proportionate. Instead, the most prudent course of action is to provide legislative consent to the provisions within the UK bill and that will support the payments while ensuring that the devolution settlement is properly respected. I welcome the opportunity to take any questions as part of your consideration of this LCM. Thank you very much, minister. I will now invite questions from members and I will move first to Pam. Thank you, convener, and thank you for setting out the Government's position on the cost living payments in a legislative consent. If it is the view of the Scottish Government that it is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation to provide payments to people in Scotland as set out in the bill, why have they not done so? The course that we need to undertake first, as I have referenced before, is to make sure that we first undertake the delivery of adult disability payment, which was naturally rolled out on 29 August 2022, all across Scotland. Of course, undertaking complete the case transfer process of individuals on personal independence payment and disability living allowance for working-age adults in Scotland into adult disability payment is under way. We need to undertake that process once everyone is in social security, in the Scottish system. Considerations around the future are, of course, matters that we will all consider, which is also related to why we are consulting on adult disability payment and, of course, that consultation is currently life. I appreciate that answer. The question, though, is not so much about adult disability payment or benefits that are currently being delivered. It is about whether or not the Scottish Government believes that paying a one-off payment in times of hardship, as you have just described, is using clause 7. Why has the Scottish Government not done that? We need to undertake case transfer first. I do not understand how. The Scottish Government has data on who are on low incomes in Scotland. We have that through various mechanisms, including local authorities. If the Scottish Government believes that the legislation impinges on devolved legislation, then it is accepting that there is a responsibility in devolved legislation to make payments to people in times of hardship. My question is why, is not it? Of course, we provide additional support in Scotland that is not available elsewhere in the UK through our child winter heating assistance, which we introduced. The initiatives have been undertaken to provide extra support. The carers allowance supplement, which we talked about in relation to the last set of regulations. Of course, there are further considerations through future primary legislation that we will be able to consider what we wish or do not wish to do as a Parliament in terms of how we continue to develop Scotland's social security system. However, when it comes to adult disability payment, the focus has been on the safe and secure delivery of our new payment, which, as I said, was nationally introduced from 29 August and undertaking case transfer safely and securely. I appreciate that. The child winter heating assistance and the Scottish child payment and the benefits that you have referred to are all steady-state benefits. They are not benefits that are only paid because we are in a cost-of-living crisis, like the ones in the legislation that there is a legislative consent motion brought to. That is the point that I am getting at. Why, if it is in the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, why have they not given additional cost-of-living payments to these groups of people? That would require a piece of primary legislation to have been passed by this Parliament. It would have required additional financial resource to be found within a restricted budget. Of course, where we have been able to allocate additional resource using already established mechanisms, we have provided additional support where we can, and we also passed a bill in order to be able to pay the carers allowance additional supplement in 2021. We introduced the Scottish child payment from 2019 into 2021 with the initial under-60s and the full roll-out to under-16. We have used existing mechanisms and created new mechanisms to provide additional support, but primary legislation would be required to what Pam Duncan Glancy refers to. I do not know if you want to come in on anything further in that point. I think that you have probably covered everything in terms of the additional support already being provided by the Scottish Government. The fact that those are UK Government payments would be more cost-effective for them to come from a single source, which is the UK Government in this particular instance. Scottish Government officials are working closely with the DWP officials in order to ensure that the payments go out to Scottish clients. I thank the minister and the officials for taking part in the meeting to help inform our report on the LCM, which we will publish shortly. We will now move into private and can members who are joining us remotely please use the Microsoft Teams link in their calendars to join the meeting.