OK. Good afternoon, and welcome to this meeting of the conveners group. I welcome Collette Stevenson, convener of Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and Joan Mason, convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee to their first meetings of the group. We have received apologies from Jackson Carlaw, convener of the Citizens, Participations and Public Petitions Committee, and Sue Weber from the Education, Children and Young Peoples Committee. The meeting will be held in cyddii'r gymheiliau sydd wedi hyn o gofyn cyllidol, ac yn oed o falch chi'n gweithio'r cyllidol. Y cocaw yng nghymfysgau hyn, ac yn oed y gwaith y gwaith yng nghymhysgau, mae llawer o'r ddelch chi'n gwneud? Mae'r ddau ffaswyng iawn o ddechrau. Mae eich ddau ffaswyng iawn o ddau? Rhyw gweithio, wrth gwrs, munud. Mae'r ddau ffaswyng iawn. Mae amlŷg y mae derbyg. We are also meeting as one of the conveners groups. There is a number of firsts. The meeting will be held for 1.5 hours. Hopefully we will be able to get through all the questions at that time. However, we have agreed that the focus of today's meeting will be on the priorities that you set out in your statement on the priorities for Scotland. However, as always conveners may wish to raise other more general issues, It is so that we are a bit of leeway applied in that regard. Some conveners have indicated that they wish to raise more than one issue. That is the case where's that. I've noted that in the order of priority. I'll do my best, as ever, to get in all the questions. That will require brevity in questions and in responses as far as possible. Before we focus on the government's priorities, Felly, d kidnapped bynt airs that's the first time that First Minister has met a convener's group, it would be helpful if we could start with some general issues of interest to all the committees. Therefore, I'll start with some questions about transparency of government and post-EU issues, and I will invite First Richard Leonard, convener in the Public Oruit Committee. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First Minister, in your forward to a new leadership, a fresh start, you say I pledged to earn because we need a reflection on the greatness of the people of Scotland." Do you want to say at the end of the document, it is imperative that transparency underpins our approach to delivery with evidence which and I will ensure the people of Scotland have the information they need to hold us to account. In conducting our inquiry into the ferries, the Vessels 801, 802 over the last year, the Public Audit Committee has been met with saved ministerial non-cooperation, that senior civil servants evading scrutiny, Government bodies omitting evidence or unable to find evidence which then later turns up. So the public need to be assured that this will not happen again. Will you and the permanent secretary now mount a review of Government accountability and transparency to Parliament? I thank Richard Leonard for the question. Before I answer it can I say my thanks to the I look forward to what will be a wide-ranging discussion, I am sure. I can absolutely commit to reviewing and examining and looking at what more the Government can do to be as transparent as possible. There is again a range of areas that we can explore and examine. Our response time to FOIs, for example, is something that I have already spoken to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and to ministers and cabinet secretaries, right across the board. Of Ferguson's, I suppose the added complexity, and this is not some sort of excuse that I am trying to leverage here, but there are genuine issues around commercial sensitivity and, of course, not putting the yard at a competitive disadvantage. We want the yard to continue to not just bid but, hopefully, win contracts in the future. There are some reports where the very firm advice is that, if we release those reports, for example, it would put the yard at a competitive disadvantage. I take the point that Richard Leonard is making, more than happy to see what more can be done, not just around Ferguson's but generally in relation to what more we can do to be as transparent as possible. I think that we have a good record on that, but I would like to see what more and what further we can do. Let me not dwell on commercial matters, then. Only today the committee published your Government's response to our ferry's report, and the committee still has to consider it, but it was almost a week late. I do not know whether you have seen the response that we got from your Minister for Transport or not, but it rather cherry picks and notes our recommendations and conclusions using, I have to say, very few words and says, frankly, very little. Really, my question is to you, is this the kind of fresh start to transparency that we would expect? Secondly, will you publish the findings of Barry Smith KC's investigation into whether the procurement process was rigged as alleged in the BBC disclosure programme? On that second issue, of course, we take those issues that were raised by the BBC very, very seriously. Indeed, that is why, of course, there is an investigation under way. Again, I am more than happy to look at what can be published, because I am absolutely committed to not just being transparent but making sure that Parliament is updated as soon as we possibly can in relation to any issues, let alone the ones that we are discussing in regard to Ferguson's shipyard. An example of that would be that, when the request came in from the accountable officer for written authority, we made sure that Parliament was updated by a ministerial statement the first available opportunity. We will stand up to take scrutiny on those matters. I go back to the point that there are some areas and issues in relation to Ferguson's, in particular, that are commercially sensitive. If we were to release completely unredacted, for example, some reports, it would put Ferguson's at a competitive disadvantage. I am happy to look at the request that Richard Leonard has made and take some advice on it, but I am absolutely committed to being not just up front and transparent but making sure that Parliament is notified as soon as we possibly can on really important developments in relation to Ferguson's. First Minister, we have had two recent bills, specifically the national care service bill and the children care and justice bill, where the financial memorandums have not contained the best estimates of all the costs in the bill. The Government has committed to providing updated financial memorandums. We accept that there is often a lot of uncertainty about future costs around legislation, but can we have some assurance from the Government that future financial memorandums will at least contain estimates of all the relevant costs? That is a really fair point that is raised by John Mason and absolutely. I want to see what more we can do to provide as much information to committees around the finances of important pieces of legislation. You mentioned a couple there, but I hope that there is also an absolute understanding that those financial memorandums, those financial estimates, may well develop. As, for example, in the case of the national care service, we undertake intensive engagement with stakeholders, may well come, I hope, to compromise position on some of the issues that local government and trade unions have raised in particular, and that will therefore have an impact on the financial memorandum. I appreciate that that can place the legislative timetable into difficulty in your own and other committees around the table. Their own processes and evidence-taking timelines can therefore be affected. However, I hope that I can give an absolute assurance that we are ourselves reviewing internally what more we can do to provide not just the best estimates possible, but if there are any potential revisions to those estimates, making sure that committees are informed as soon as possible. I am grateful for that response. The committee accepts that best estimates are fine. I think that the problem is that, in some cases, we have not even had any estimates in some specific areas. For example, there has been the suggestion that, if we predict how many young people might end up in the court system, that is telling the courts what to do. However, I think that our feeling would be that even a rough estimate, even if it is a range of estimates, just anything in that space is better than nothing. I am now going to call Clare Baker, the Economy and Fair Work Committee. I want to ask about committee scrutiny and the Government's seemingly increasing preference for regulation rather than primary legislation. The national care service bills have been mentioned, and one of the issues with that was that it was a framework bill that was difficult for committees to scrutinise. There is also the introduction of the proposal for jury list trials. There are no details of the pilot to go with that when members consider the legislation. The one that is coming to my own committee, the bankruptcy and diligence bill, proposes a mental health moratorium, but, again, that will be left to regulation. The bill does not specify what the moratorium would look like. There is growing concern that that is not enabling committees to provide proper scrutiny to legislation, and that we are unable to consider the substance of proposals that are being brought forward. I am interested in how the First Minister responds to that and what the Government's approach is to the balance between regulation and primary legislation. I think that that word balance is so important, because I think that everybody around this table will recognise that there will be some instances where the use of regulation will absolutely be necessary. We are equally, as a Government, we should be open to that challenge back from committee to say, actually, that that should not be in secondary legislation. Let us take an example or two that Claire Baker rightly references in her contribution. Take, for example, what is in the victims' witnesses and justice reform bill, the jury list trials, the pilot, the time-limited pilot that was recommended by Lady Dorian and that we are keen to progress. It is so important that we have the ability, I believe, to be able to work with survivors groups, the legal profession and others to work through what are really challenging issues that require to hear each side, because each side, frankly, makes very valid arguments around the pros and cons of single judge trials. What we should absolutely be open to in Government—sorry, what should I say in that regard is that what we should not then have to do is, once we get to an agreement with, I hope, both the legal profession and those who represent survivors of rape and others who are important in this, we would not want to go back through the primary legislative process all over again. There is that balance—that word that Claire Baker uses rightly—that we have to try to strike. I am always open to—and I think that this Government has been open to certainly in bills that I have taken forward in previous roles—how do we enhance that scrutiny by Parliament on these really important issues? Again, taking single judge trials as an example. For example, if it is committee's recommendation, do we bring forward a super affirmative order so that it gives additional enhanced scrutiny to the Parliament? We should be as open to that from a Government perspective as we possibly can, particularly in areas where we are trying to get that balance right between not having to go through primary legislation again and all of the time that that involves versus a secondary legislation for a really important matter. I am hoping that we can work our way through those various issues that Claire Baker raises, but from a Government perspective and from my perspective as First Minister, we should be very open to any committee's suggestion of additional enhanced scrutiny. To come back, although the juridals' trials are a key issue of the bill, we are looking at, as the Bankruptcy and Diligence Bill on the mental health moratorium. It is interesting why the Government feels when they have to bring forward legislation that is necessary and when there should be more time taken to let MSPs know what it is that we are planning to pass legislation on. It is harder to build consensus if people do not know what it is that they are voting for. That seems to be a greater trend because things are left to regulations or the detail is not there in the bill as it goes through Parliament. To gain greater support of Parliament, even if there is a commitment for the regulations to be available before stage 3, often that can help. However, for the Government to recognise sometimes MSPs in a put-in-a-position are being asked to make something that they broadly support, but it is difficult to vote for something if you do not actually know the detail of it. That is very common indeed. On the particular issue around the Bankruptcy bill that is mentioned by Clare Baker, let me take that away and see if there is something that we can provide in advance of further stages of parliamentary scrutiny, more than happy and, again, in passing many bills in my time over the years, as a minister and cabinet secretary, we have often provided draft regulations in advance. There have been occasions where we have provided draft regulations in advance, but I have been more than happy to see that that is something that can be done genuinely. I think that it always is a balance when it comes to secondary legislation. There will be some issues that will not be of any contention between committee and Government that everybody accepts should be done via secondary legislation. There are some areas where we should be willing to work with committee to try to find a resolution as best we possibly can, but I think that the comments that Clare Baker makes are fair. We are going to move on from transparency to post-EU and international government relations, but to stick with the Clare theme. I am going to invite Clare Adamson, convener of constitution, European external affairs and culture over to you. First Minister, a key consideration of our committee in this session has been the effectiveness of inter-governmental relations, especially in the new constitutional reality of being outside of the EU. I would like your initial thoughts on how well inter-government relations agreement is working. Given that IGR operates primarily within a private and confidential space, how are we, as conveners and committees of this Parliament, engaged in that process? On the latter point about how the Parliament engages, I would be up for a conversation about what we can share. Obviously, there has to be a safe space for those inter-governmental discussions to happen, with some degree of confidence and confidentiality, to have that free and frank exchange of view. However, it is fair that our parliaments and respective parliaments are able to question, scrutinise where necessary. I have taken a note of seeing what more we may be able to do in order to ensure that there is, again, going back to Richard Leonard's point, as much transparency around those matters as possible. As a structure, it works on paper. It is more the culture as opposed to the actual structure. I have had a couple of conversations with the Prime Minister and other UK Government ministers as well, and I will continue to have those conversations. I think that what frustrates me is that, although in the conversations that I have had with the Prime Minister, he has been willing to listen to the arguments that he will put forward, it seems to me that there is a continual undermining of our devolution. That, to me, is of great worry. You can have all the processes and structures in place that the EIGR gives you. You can have all the warm words. You can have all the cordial meetings in the world. However, if, for example, we are being undermined—this Parliament is being undermined, in my view, it absolutely is—whether it is through not granting the exemption to the Internal Markets Act or the Internal Markets Act as a whole, I have to say, whether it is the use of the SEWL convention. Of course, it was not the use of the SEWL convention before 2016, and there have been several breaches. Thereafter, the use of section 35 order retained the EU law bill and so on and so forth. There are many examples that I could give that is of serious concern. I have to say that I am not breaking any confidences here because the individual has said this publicly. Those are very much views that are shared by the Welsh First Minister and the Welsh Government as well, absolutely at one here in relation to that undermining of devolution. In fact, it was the topic on the top of the agenda when the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford and I first met. Of course, all those issues have been of concern to the committee. We have published a number of reports with regard to rule in other areas, but one of the reports that we did was on the excellent positive work of our international offices and missions. Since that time, the foreign secretary has written to embassies to limit the Scottish Government's overseas engagements and possibly, with the great work that they do, damage trade and investment. Do you have any reflections on that? As people know, it was incredibly clumsy intervention by the foreign secretary and I said as much to the Prime Minister when we last met. It really just works against that kind of team Scotland approach. I fully respect that there is a difference of opinion, a wide range of views around, for example, Scotland's constitutional future, but we do not purport to speak to anybody else on behalf of the Scottish Government. It is not often a topic of conversation when we are having meetings around trade and investment with foreign partners. They are interested in how we can increase trade and investment and what more we can do around educational exchange, around cultural exchange and what more we can do in relation to international development, where, despite having a relatively small part of money, we can make a huge transformational change. Of course, if we are asked our opinion around the constitution and our own views, we will always be clear that those are the views of the Scottish Government. Of course, the UK Government will have a difference of opinion on that constitutional matter and other matters such as Brexit and so on and so forth. If my early engagement with ambassadors and others is anything to go by, I have to say that the feeling is that there is a great degree of warmth towards Scotland continuing that international engagement. I am now going to call Stuart McMillan, convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. First Minister, you will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considers certain bills based on the reports from the Scottish Law Commission and the Parliament recently passed the Move Over Transactions Bill. We are currently looking at the trusts and succession bill. Both of those bills will need a Scotland act section 104 order to be agreed between both Scottish and UK Governments to bring the proposals fully into force by making consequential changes to reserved law. Would a formal protocol between both Governments be of assistance and be of help to ensure that there is a full implementation of the SLC bills? I am certainly open again to consider whether a formal protocol could help matters. There is a process already very much in place. I can often depend on the case-by-case basis. The subject complexity, the subject matter, the complexity of drafting, securing UK parliamentary time, are all material considerations that we have to take into account. Because of that, both Governments tend to work on the basis that an order would require 12 to 18 months, roughly from inception to then being made. We are always identifying the need for such orders as early as we possibly can in the bill process. However, as I say, that will often have to be done on a case-by-case basis. I do understand that. Just to make concerns that you raise—I will do everything that we can do to ensure that section 104 orders are deemed necessary are first identified and then progressed as early as we possibly can. However, I will, you have asked me to give consideration to a formal protocol. I will take that away and give some consideration to whether that would necessarily help movement on section 104s. Following on from the questions from Clare Adamson regarding the IGR, in this particular area, it is clear that both Scottish and new Governments have been working well together regarding the section 104 orders. However, as you indicated to yourself, First Minister, the length of time that it can take for them appears to be a problem or a challenge. I think that the feeling for the committee is very much whether it is a protocol or whether it could be sped up to say the least. I would also aid those who are going to be the practitioners of the legislation so that they can utilise that quicker and better for better outcomes for their population. We have always got to be mindful of your own committees collectively the pressures on your timetable, which I know can often be tight. We do our best and work well with Clare Adamson across various different committees in that respect. Is there anything else that can be done to speed up that process, particularly in relation to section 104s, that you have mentioned? I am more than happy to take a look at whether that is a formal protocol or something else that is well worth us considering. I will take that one away. Next is Finlay Carson, convener of rural affairs and islands committee. Thank you, convener. Good morning or good afternoon, First Minister. My first question is around the retained EU law revocation and reform bill and the Scottish Government's approach to retaining EU law and devolved competence. At my committee, the rural affairs and islands and the net zero committee are likely to have the bulk of the legislation and it is our role to hold that the Scottish Government to account. I understand that the Scottish Government will have to work with the UK on an inter-governmental approach to this, but as a convener of a Scottish Parliament committee, it is concerning that we have had no indication of the work that the Scottish Government has undertaken to this point or any indication of the Scottish Government's approach in relation to the Scottish Parliament and the role that Parliament committees have in that process. You will note that there has been some change in relation to the retained EU law bill in terms of the UK Government's own timetable in that respect, but I am more than happy to examine in detail or maybe understand from Finlay Carson in particular more granular detail where he feels that there is a gap in terms of the information that has been provided or if he feels that overall the information that is coming from Government is not of a quality or standard or sufficiency. I am more than happy to see what we can do to rectify that. I won't go into our position well on the retained EU law bill and where we think it overreaches significantly but also, frankly, could end up having a detrimental impact on standards, particularly in agriculture, where we have a real key concern. However, I am happy to look at specifics of Finlay Carson. He can provide them just now or even, of course, I will make sure that my office reaches into the clerks to understand a bit better where the information provided feels insufficient. I suppose that it is not that it is insufficient, it is just not there. We have no indication of how the Scottish Government would like to see the committee's approach to the work in the future that is almost certainly to come. It is not about the quality of the information or how it is coming to us, the fact that we do not have any information at all. I would like to move on to another question. This morning, my committee took evidence on Ireland's plan and one really important topic within that is depopulation. The contributing factors include the lack of housing, the ferries, the impact of HPMAs but also digital infrastructure, given the hugely significant impact that broadband or, more important, the lack of broadband has on the sustainability of rural communities. We know that communication regulations are reserved, but the physical deployment infrastructure is devolved to each of the nations. Can you tell us why R100, which was a flagship project that was supposed to be completed by the end of 2021, has gone so badly wrong? We are now looking at the end of 2020, in some instances. As a First Minister, what can you do to accelerate the programme and give rural communities assurances that the commitment that was given by the Scottish Government will be delivered and will you also commit to a review of R100 to identify why it has gone so wrong? I will not be surprised if Fiddler Carson disagrees with the characterisation of R100 and I will come to that shortly. I know from various different ministerial portfolios that have had, particularly as Minister for Transport and the Islands, just how much of a concerning issue depopulation in our remote rural and island communities absolutely is and Fiddler Carson was right to give and to articulate the range of factors that cause depopulation. We are committed as a Government to having that cross-governmental approach. We know how important housing and affordable housing is. That is why one of the first announcements that I made was about additional funding in relation to the purchase of empty properties and back into the social rented sector. We think that that can help, particularly in rural communities, in addition to giving local authorities more power in relation to council tax and second homes. We are keen to work on a range of issues, but we take a cross-governmental approach. There is no doubt that when I travel to our remote rural and island communities, a number of issues will come up. Where we can work with the UK Government on those issues, we will be keen to do so. We are not, unfortunately, going to be able to convince the UK Government, it seems, of the folly of Brexit, but there is no doubt that that has had an impact, as well as migration policies. We are really, frankly, desperate to see if we can get the UK Government to see sense in, for example, the extension of the rural visa pilot, but also what more can be done around migration to help the population. There is a whole range of issues that are in our gift in the Government, except that. Somewhere, we are keen to collaborate and work closely with the UK Government. In terms of R100, it is a fair question to ask, because digital connectivity is so important not just for individuals but for businesses in remote rural and island communities. I am absolutely committed to making sure that the progress that we have made with R100, which is exceptional in terms of the investment that we have made, the coverage that we now have, is continued. There have been a number of reasons why R100 did not meet that initial target. Of course, there is undoubtedly the impact of Covid. We know that that would have had a whole range of projects, but I am keen to ask for a review in terms of getting it back on track and making an absolute commitment to do everything that we can within our gift and within our power to make sure that digital connectivity is country-wide, including our remote rural and island communities. However, if it was not for our investment, there are many parts of the country that would be in a complete digital black spot if it was not for the significant investment of the Scottish Government. I am keen to see what more we can do to make sure that that programme delivers for remote rural and island communities across the country. That is a neat segue into the themes of community equality and opportunity. I invite Ariane Burgess, convener of local government, housing and planning committee to leave the next questions on community. Good afternoon, First Minister. As part of our work around the local governance review and the new deal for local government, my committee recently held a very constructive event with Scottish Futures Forum. We were looking at the building of the relationships between local and central government. From that, the committee believes that the agreement of a new deal between local and central government is absolutely essential. That view, as you probably know, has also been expressed by the Accounts Commission. While we appreciate that it is appropriate for time to be taken to get the new deal right, we are also concerned that there needs to be a renewed level of urgency to the agreement. I would be keen to hear from you what you are doing to give momentum to the new deal. Also, from our conversations at the event, there were some clear principles that came to light. We heard that local government is looking for clear and enforceable demarcations of roles, more freedom to operate flexibly in ways that respond to the specific needs of their localities, recognising that Scotland is one of the most centralised countries in Europe and more certainty of funding. I would be interested to hear in that regard what you are doing to ensure that those principles are shaping the new deal. Finally, we have the local democracy bill that is listed for this session. I would be interested to hear if you can commit to that, because I think that this is an important vehicle for which we can give effect to the deal and as well as empowering communities further. First Minister, thank you so much. I am just going to note of all three parts of the question. For me, first and foremost, let me give an absolute commitment around the urgency that is required and the pace that is required for the new deal from government. In fact, the very first meeting that I had as First Minister with an external stakeholder was with COSLA, the COSLA president. That was not by coincidence but very much by design in order to reiterate and communicate to our partners in local government the urgency that is required to get a new deal over the line. I also had another meeting with them just a couple of weeks ago, alongside the Deputy First Minister, along with the COSLA presidential team. I have to say that it was one of the most positive meetings that I have had in my time in government with COSLA. There was a shared endeavour and desire to try to get movement on the new deal as quickly as possible. I have a fair degree of confidence that we will get a new deal in place, but, as with any deal or negotiation, it is that final couple of hurdles that are sometimes the most difficult to overcome, where you have to absolutely concentrate your effort and, frankly, where there has to be compromises on all sides in that regard. It is that final kind of straight that we are in, which is going to, I think, be the most challenging, but I am very confident that we will get to a new deal and we will get to one, hopefully, soon. In terms of the principles, they are ones that have absolutely been brought to the table by local government and ones that I absolutely want to see embedded as part of the new deal. The number one issue, and I do not think again that I am giving away any secrets here at all, the number one issue that local government brings to the table is wanting that flexibility. They want to agree with government in relation to the outcomes, where we have shared outcomes in relation to the reduction of poverty and reducing the educational attainment gap, for example, but they want to do that in a way that gives them the maximum amount of flexibility. That comes down to the issue of trust between national government and local government and I absolutely trust local government partners to deliver on those outcomes. Those principles, for me, are absolutely important. We remain committed to working with COSLA and we want to also conclude that local government's review within this Parliament that we have promised to do that. The review is considering how power and resources could be shared between national government and that is linked to the new deal that I have already spoken about. Of course, if the findings of the review require legislative change, we will seek to introduce those changes absolutely within this session. I think that it is that parity of esteem that is really important that we need to be looking at so that we move away from what I perceive as a bit of a hierarchical way of thinking about national government and local government. One of the things that really came up clearly at our event is stepping away from the idea that local government is a delivery agent, but they are really clearly partners in what we are trying to do for people in Scotland. I agree with that. We are trying to talk about spheres of government as opposed to tiers of government, which I know is really important for local government. I see us as partners. As I said, we are making really good progress in that new deal. I am hoping that we can get a conclusion to that relatively soon and I hope that it will reflect the principles that Arrian Burgess has so well articulated. You will be aware that the national incident management team recently met to discuss the latest position in Covid-19 in Scotland and has agreed that it will no longer meet. That follows other recent developments such as the separate threat level for Covid no longer being produced by the Government. In light of those events, could you set out how Covid-19 and recovery fit into the priorities for the new Government and who will be leading on them? Thank you so much. Is it really a good and important question involved in this in my previous role as health secretary? We are in a different phase of the pandemic. I think that everybody can recognise that Covid has not gone away and the impacts of Covid can still be felt. I know that my successor is health secretary. There are challenges whenever we have an outbreak or an uptick in Covid cases, that impact is not just those that are coming to hospital due to the effects of Covid, but of course the staff who do not want to ensure that they are not spreading Covid in busy hospital wards and so can really have an impact, most acutely seen in our hospital science. Covid recovery, which is work continuing to be led by almost every minister in cabinet secretary, but of course the health secretary and NHS recovery health and social care secretary has lead in terms of healthcare. The deputy First Minister will still have that overview across Government in relation to a recovery from Covid-19. It should be said that almost all of the empirical evidence and data tells us that we would expect there to continue to be pandemics in the future. Of course, we have established that standing committee on pandemics, which will continue to inform our response in preparing this to any future pandemics that may rise. You have led me perfectly on to my second question. Thank you very much. You will be aware that at our last meeting we heard from Professor Morrison and Professor Evans from the standing committee in pandemic preparing this group. It was a very interesting session. One thing that came out of that, well there are two things that came out of that, one was the fact that both professors stated that we could not be expecting to be one in a hundred years any more. We had to think differently. Professor Morrison, in particular, on three occasions mentioned the importance of this committee and he was meaning the Covid recovery committee. We have had the interim report published in August and the Scottish Government's response from the previous First Minister was that she said, we will work with the committee and partners across the public sector and in industry and in research institutions to take them forward and ensure that Scotland is as well placed as it can be to meet the pandemic threats to the future. Obviously, since then, there have been changes in portfolios and Covid recovery does not appear under Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care's remit. Given all the lessons that we have been learning about the pandemic and the importance of being prepared, should another pandemic arrive, can you confirm whether pandemic preparedness is still a priority for the Scottish Government and who, in the Scottish Government, is responsible for taking the interim report's recommendations forward? A couple of points that I would make and remember our NHS recovery plan, which is a recovery from Covid-19, is a five-year plan. It is a plan that, of course—and you will notice, of course—the change in the title of Michael Matheson's roles as Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, as well as health and social care. He will absolutely drive forward the NHS recovery work. The committee decides its own work, of course, but that recovery from the pandemic, even though we are not at the height of the pandemic, will still take years. I do not know anybody who suggests that recovery from the pandemic will just take weeks or months. It will take years, not just for our NHS but for the impacts on our economy and so on and so forth. We have to have a broad overview in that respect. In terms of future resilience, there are no responsibilities for Cabinet secretaries. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs continues to have responsibility for resilience issues, regardless of what those resilience issues are, including potential future pandemics. However, in relation to that overview across Government on recovery, I have asked the Deputy First Minister to have a cross-Government overview in relation to making sure that the recovery continues to be taken over from the good work that her predecessor did in that regard. We are now joined by one of our colleagues who is joining us remotely—Edward Mountain, convener, net zero energy and transport committee. Edward, over to you. Thank you very much, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. As you will know, First Minister, the net zero energy and transport committee has nearly finished our ferries inquiry. At the weekend, we heard that Turner and Townsend have been appointed at a reputed cost of £4 million to review the Clyde and Hebrides ferries contract, which is due to be tendered for in 2024. Specifically, CalMac's role in that. Could you clarify what their remit is and when they will report? I think that it would be helpful for the committee. First of all, when it comes to the contract, which is a contract, we are, of course, very committed to the successful development of the next generation of that contract. It is vital for our island communities that a lifeline is often rightly described. I have to say that it is a very routine practice for us to use specialist external advisers when it comes to complex, particularly high-value projects such as this one to help to ensure that the contract meets our needs and delivers value for money. In addition to engaging with our various stakeholders, including the communities that are served by the contract, our external adviser will help to ensure that the development of the contract includes industries' best practices to deliver a service that meets current and future requirements. We are very committed to giving detail on what can be published. I am happy to take that ask away and see what we can possibly publish, given that this is a piece of live work that is already under way in relation to a future contract. I am more than happy to see what can be published to be as open and transparent in that regard as possible. I am conscious that we are making good progress, but we have quite a number of questions to get through. I will reiterate my plea for brevity in questions and responses as far as possible. We move on to the equality theme. We stick in the virtual domain and go over to our second colleague joining us remotely, Claire Hawke, convener health, social care and sport. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last month, First Minister, the Scottish Government announced an extension to the stage 1 deadline for the National Care Service Scotland Bill. The Minister for Social Care recently attended the health, social care and sport committee on that subject. Can the First Minister outline the engagement that the Scottish Government has had and will have with trade unions and COSLA during the stage 1 extension? How long he anticipates the engagement at this stage will last before moving on to the next stage of the bill and when the financial memorandum of the bill will be updated? The engagement has started and it will be an intensive period of engagement over the course of the summer months. Having worked very closely on this bill and closely with Kevin Stewart, who was previously the minister in charge and leading the bill, there has always been really good engagement with local authorities right from inception stage and with our trade union partners. It has become very clear that they have particular issues. It is, again, safe for me to say that those issues tend to centre on the employment of staff—locally employed staff. That is the area that we are focused on in terms of trying to find a compromise solution. How do you have a national care service as those national terms and conditions, consistency of standards, sectoral bargaining and so on and so forth? How do you have that national framework but at the same time have staff that are locally employed? I do not think that that is beyond our right to get to a compromise position collectively on that. However, that will have a bearing then, which is a segue to the second part of Clare Hockey's question. It will have a bearing undoubtedly in the financial memorandum. We will come back with that revision once that engagement, I hope, comes to a successful conclusion. At the end of last year, the health social care and sport committee published a report on tackling health inequalities in Scotland. We know that the pandemic has exacerbated health inequalities and the on-going cost of living crisis widens those inequalities even further. Can the First Minister advise what steps the Scottish Government is taking to target support for people whose social circumstances have a negative impact on their health? The committee's excellent work on that over the years confirms what we know in regard to poverty being, unfortunately, the common thread when it comes to health inequalities. The Government has taken a range of actions in that regard. I will not go through all of them, but you can see the work that we have done in relation to tackling, for example, alcohol and problem drinking in relation to alcohol. The work that we have done is targeting smoking cessation, again lung cancer, particularly affecting those in areas of higher deprivation. Then, of course, there is all the work that we are doing to try to reduce poverty and being very targeted. The likes of the Scottish child payment, for example, the fuel insecurity fund and many more. The frustration is that we can do all of that, but we are still beholden to decisions that are made by the UK Government. If they choose to take away the uplift of £20 from universal credit, that undoubtedly has an impact in relation to poverty, as well as the bedroom tax and so on. There are many areas of UK Government policy that do not need to take my word for it. You can see from many independent experts in the third sector who will tell you that they have a real significant impact, but whatever we can do within our gift in the Scottish Government, we will do to try to reduce those health inequalities, and there is still significant work for us to do in that regard. First Minister, I am now going to invite Co-Cap Stewart, convener of equality, human rights and civil justice committee, to lead to the next question. The Equalities Committee is currently undertaking a short inquiry on human rights of those seeking asylum in Scotland against the backdrop of the current conflict in Sudan. Can the First Minister advise what preparations are under way by the Scottish Government to welcome asylum seekers from Sudan who may wish to make their home in Scotland? I really look forward to seeing the outcome of that inquiry that has been undertaken by the committee. That is an issue that I think is of interest to many of us, and it has particularly been an interest of mine for many years. I really do despair, I have to say, at the current discussions about migration from the UK Government and others. I do not think that we look at that in a way that, frankly, is through the prism of compassion, but if I was to be even more hard-nosed about it, what is in our economic interests in relation to migration as well? I think that most of us as MSPs and certainly our MP colleagues will have known many of the constituents' cases in which somebody has been in the asylum process for years and not had the right to work. We are just mind boggling for the individual who wants to work and for our economy in relation to additional tax receipts as well. In terms of what we are doing to prepare, there are a number of things that we are doing. We have the new Scots strategy, which is the strategy that a number of local authorities will help to guide local authorities in relation to refugees and asylum seekers that come to the country. I have also spoken to the Prime Minister around the situation in Sudan and, of course, part of that conversation. He updated me on his own plans in regard to refugees. I have made it clear that the number one thing that the UK Government could do is make sure that there are safe routes for migration. If you do not have safe legal routes for migration, you end up with unsafe illegal routes for migration. Cabinet Secretary for External Affairs is also around to the foreign secretary to put on record our deep concern for people at risk in Sudan and asking them to do more in relation to those safe legal routes. In relation to the humanitarian situation in Sudan, it is Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice who has written to the Home Secretary her counterpart in relation to the legal routes. We can absolutely do that. We have had some regular engagement with local authorities where we would expect refugees to come initially. There has been some regular engagement with Glasgow and Edinburgh, in particular with some of the Diaspora communities—Sydney's Diaspora communities—that are there, who are obviously many of them quite understandably exercised and want to see their family, who are still in Sudan, to join them in the UK. I thank you for that very full answer. I was going to go on to ask about your communications with the UK Government, bearing in mind that immigration and areas concerning refugees and asylum seekers are reserved matters. I think that, First Minister, you have given a very comprehensive answer. Was there anything else, any other further communications that have taken place? The extent of answer is that I haven't needed to repeat my plea for brevity. Thank you very much, cocap. I am now going to ask Collette Stevenson, convener, Social Justice and Social Security Committee to proceed with the next questions. I was pleased to see that the first mission set out in the First Minister's vision for Scotland relates to tackling poverty and protecting people from harm. One of the key policies that the Scottish Government has introduced, which is going to be in the UK, is, of course, the Scottish child payment. A carahilton of the Trussell Trust told the Social Justice Committee earlier this month, during an evidence session, on the cost of living crisis and its impact on one parent. She says, We know that the policy is starting to make a difference because our annual parcel figures that came out last week show that there was a much lower percentage increase in the number of parcels for children from November 22 to March 23. That is encouraging news, but she says that it is not an excuse for complacency. I would be interested to hear the First Minister's response to that. I would also appreciate if he could provide an update on the anti-poverty summit that he convened earlier this month. Finally, if he could commit to continue to engage with the cross-party leaders, experts and, most importantly, those with direct experience of poverty to find better solutions. Thank you for those questions. I thought that quote that you read out from Cara Hilton, who I have worked with over the years in the past and I have a tremendous amount of respect for. There were probably two things that stood out for me in that quote. One was the phrase, there was a much lower percentage increase, but that still then refers to a percentage increase, so we are still dealing with the impacts and effects of poverty, particularly in the cost of living crisis that has beset this country and that, I am afraid, is impacting and affecting the most vulnerable in ways that we all know because we will have engaged with our constituents, but in a way that seems, frankly, shameful in the 21st century. The second phrase in that quote was that there is no excuse for complacency. I am going to double underline that, because I think that is absolutely right. We have not seen the full set of figures from the latest rise in the Scottish child payment. I would be surprised if those figures, when they do come out, do not show, I hope, a reduction in child poverty in particular. Even if that is the case, nobody in Government will be taking their foot off the gas when it comes to tackling poverty and child poverty in particular, because the rates of child poverty are still far too high in our country. However, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor in particular who brought forward that Scottish child payment. It comes at a significant cost in relation to our budget, but it is worth every single penny, given the impact that I believe it is having on tackling child poverty in particular. There are a range of other measures that we are taking over and above and beyond the Scottish child payment. I will not go into the detail of them. I think that I have already mentioned some of them in response to a previous question. On the anti-poverty summit, I was very keen to make it clear that I do not want the anti-poverty summit to be a talking shop. We can all gather and have cup city nice discussions, but there is no follow-up. None of us wanted that. In fact, that was the demand from the third sector and those with direct experience of poverty. We are intending to follow it up, perhaps into subgroups and smaller groups that are focused on particular avenues and tasks. From a Government perspective, whatever levers we have in respect to the devolution settlement in the Scotland act, we will do everything to use those powers to their maximum effect. That includes taxation. That includes being targeted where we have to be. That is sensible for us to examine and explore and then making some really difficult decisions. We have a finite budget in the constitutional setup, but we are in notwithstanding some levers. We have the vast majority of those fiscal levers that remain with the UK Government. We have that fixed relatively for the most part of fixed budget, with very limited borrowing costs and certainly not for day-to-day spend. We have therefore got to be focused on the decisions that we have got to make if we want to substantially shift the dial on reducing poverty. I gather that we have a little attitude to overrun, but not a lot. I think that, particularly in terms of the responses, First Ministers, I know that you want to give as expansive answers as you can, but in order to get the questions in we might need a bit more brevity. I want to thank the First Minister for that answer and for detailing some of the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to tackle poverty. Throughout the day and low income inquiry, the social justice committee heard a lot of evidence about some of the detrimental aspects of the UK Government's welfare system, particularly the two-child limit, the benefit cap, the five-week wait, and the differential rate paid for parents under 25. That was highlighted in the committee report, Robin Peter to pay Paul low income and the debt trap. I would be interested to hear from the First Minister's response to that. Can you share any of the Scottish Government's own analysis, which has been done into how many people in Scotland could potentially be lifted out of poverty trap if key UK welfare reforms were reversed? I am taking the convener's cue if I had to be less loquacious if I can be. In terms of our own analysis, we have done analysis. I am happy to provide Collette Stevenson perhaps with detail in writing to go to expand upon the answer, but the top line of that analysis shows that when it comes to the various UK Government welfare reforms, if the key ones were reversed that have occurred since 2015, we would bring an estimated 70,000 people out of poverty. Just reversing some of those key, aggressive welfare reforms that have occurred since 2015, 70,000 people would be brought out of poverty. That includes 30,000 children. We have some detail of that analysis in terms of what various different interventions we could reverse them could do. For example, when it comes to reinstating the £20 uplift that I have already mentioned to universal credit, reversing the benefit freeze, reversing the two-child limit, removal of the family element of that, each of those interventions would just in isolation bring around 10,000 children out of poverty. Just again, taking the convener's cue in the interests of brevity, I am happy to get a written note with the detail of that analysis. First Minister, I have a brief supplementary from Claire Baker. Thank you. It is just about women in poverty. One of the ways to get women out of poverty is to empower women. The Anna Stewart report was published in February. At the time, the First Minister said that there would be a quick response to the report. So, can the First Minister let us know when the Government will respond to the report and what progress has been made with the Women's Business Centre, which there is money committed to? The response to the report should be imminent in that regard. I know that there is an issue that has been raised with me by other members as well. Forgive me, I do not have the detail on the Women's Business Centre. I am happy to take that one away and come back to Claire Baker with detail. I should say that we are committed to doing everything that we can in relation to ensuring that we have more women in work. Obviously, our most generous offer in the UK in relation to child care for each child care is important in that regard, but the work that we are doing in relation to Fair Nation to 2025, which looks at much of the work in relation to reducing the gender pay gap, for example, is crucial to that. In relation to the Women's Business Centre, I will endeavour to come back to Claire Baker in two courses. I am very aware that the First Minister will be aware of the important role of the criminal justice committee in improving victims' experience in the criminal justice system.  That is a very important issue, because at present they are being charged potentially £1,000 for that. While the committee understands that that is a matter largely for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, will the First Minister give his commitment to consider a pilot for accessing free transcripts so that survivors of rape can use those transcripts either as part of their recovery or to support any future civil process? I thank Audrey Dickol for the important points that she raised. I start by paying tribute to Ellie Wilson and the many other survivors who have chosen to tell the way of their anonymity or speak publicly about their case. I think that every single one of us could completely understand if they wanted to deal with the trauma of the dreadful sexual offence that has happened. However, the fact that they are wanting to share their story in order to make things better for future survivors is to their credit and to be commended. I met Ellie Wilson. She was a part of a round table that I hosted with survivors when we launched to Victims Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill.  She raised the issue around transcripts with me at the time. Forgive me that the letter has not arrived to the committee yet, but the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home affairs was planning to write to the committee this week, expressing the Government's commitment to supporting a pilot, to support access to transcripts and initially focused on complainers and sexual offences cases. I am well aware of giving my previous role as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. We will absolutely commit to a pilot focused initially in relation to complainers and sexual offences cases. Thank you very much. I would be very welcome to update, First Minister. I am grateful for that. I wonder if we can turn to the issue of policing and mental health. The Scottish Government's fresh start document states that the Government will support Police Scotland to have the capacity to respond to changing demands. One of the huge demands placed on the police is the expectation that they will respond to incidents involving people in poor mental health. That place is a huge and a growing strain on police officers and staff when perhaps other services are better placed to respond. Officers can often wait many hours before being able to transfer the care of an individual into a more suitable service. Will the First Minister commit to working with the committee and others such as HMICS and the Scottish Police Federation to review the demands placed on the police from the issue and look at models, for example, one in Humberside, which means that people who call the police can be transferred more quickly to another service and perhaps without police attendance in the first place? Yes. We will absolutely commit to working with the committee, and I would be in no doubt whatsoever that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary for the NHS recovery, health and social care are working together on this matter, as you would expect them to do so. It is certainly not a new issue that has come up in the past years, and it is not like any to tell Audrey Nicol, given her past experience as well. There are a number of interventions that we have brought forward to try to deal with this issue, so we have the enhanced mental health pathway that will be provided, funding over £700,000 to Police Scotland to support the development of that pathway, and that is for those who are in distress and those who are needing mental health support who come into contact with Police Scotland, and that pathway enables emergency recalls that are received by Police Scotland that are identified as needing that particular mental health support and advice directed to mental health hub within NHS 24. That is a brilliant service, again, having engaged with that as health secretary. You will know about the distress brief intervention programme as well. Again, two weeks of that personalised, compassionate and distressed support that is required. People who present to the Police might not need urgent intervention, but I do not require emergency clinical intervention but could do with that, as I say, more personalised two weeks of support. There is a whole range of other interventions as well that I can write to Audrey Nicol with the full detail of, given, again, the convener's request for brevity. Thank you very much. My body language is clearly communicating itself very well. We're going to move on to the theme of opportunity. I'm going to invite Claire Baker back in to start off the questions in this section. Claire. It's just a brief question. The committee has been looking at the disability employment gap. There was a report came from Fraser of Allander Institute that said that the Government would need to make more progress, particularly on people with learning disabilities, if the target was to be met. Could the First Minister give us an update on work that has been taken forward on that? There wasn't really an emphasis on that in the 10-year economic strategy, so what progress has been made in meeting the target for closing the disability employment gap? It still remains our ambition to make sure that we reduce that disability employment gap by at least half by 2038, and that's in comparison, as you'll know, to the 2016 baseline. The latest full-year data shows that the disability employment gap was 31.9 per cent points in 2022. That is the second lowest. It's been, since our baseline year in 2016, so we believe that we're on track to meet the target to half the disability employment gap. In terms of what more we're doing in this regard, I mentioned before the work in relation to the fair work nation. That's crucial work, because what it's doing is ensuring that we're looking at the intersectionalities that exist. What I mean by that is, for example, if we have a person of colour that has a disability, we can do everything that we want to do, and we should do, in order to reduce and dismantle the barriers for somebody who has a disability to get into work, but if we don't dismantle the racial barriers that exist, then that person is only going to progress so far. The work that we're doing in relation to fair nation, looking at the intersectionality issues, I think, are hugely important. We've absolutely made progress. The employment rate, for example, of people with a disability has risen from 42.8 per cent to 50.7 per cent between 2016 and 2022. That's an increase of 7.9 per cent compared to an increase of 2.3 per cent compared to people who do not have a disability. We're making progress, not complacent about it, but we're on track to meet that 2038 target. While I don't, in any way, dispute the figures, the Fraser of Allander have said that there needs to be a greater understanding of the progress that's been made and have a proper audit, because people, particularly those with learning disabilities, are still being left outside of the labour market, and as we see a tight labour market situation, there are opportunities for more people to gain employment. Can the Government give a commitment that we need to talk about the Fair Work Convention, but will we really analyse where progress has been made to ensure that there are equal opportunities for people and that people are able to access the workplace regardless of their disability? I haven't seen the Fraser of Allander report that Clare Baker references, so I will make sure that I look at that after this committee session. For a number of reasons, one is the right thing for us to do, and a society that believes that there should be equality and equity of opportunity for all is absolutely the right thing for us to do to dismantle those barriers. Secondly, it's in our economic interests to do so for all the reasons that Clare Baker rightly outlines in relation to a very tight labour market that we're experiencing, getting as many people in with as much support so that they don't just end up in employment but can retain that employment. I think that it's usually important. I will look at the report that Clare Baker references and, of course, I'm absolutely committed to doing more in this regard. Thank you, First Minister. I'm now going to invite John Mason. The Scottish Fiscal Commission recently came out with its fiscal sustainability report, which looks well ahead to 2072-2073 and talks about a significant annual budget gap by the time that we get there. Can you tell us anything about what the Scottish Government is thinking about that and how it is projecting long-term? I'm somewhat weary of stealing the Deputy First Minister's thunder, of course. She's going to be outlining tomorrow the MTFS, the medium-term financial strategy, and that will give an outlook not quite as long as articulated by John Mason, but certainly giving that medium-term outlook in terms of the finances. Again, without going into detail with the MTFS, we are looking at what we can do in relation to taxation. We will also look to see what we can do in relation to economic growth. There are signs, including from data and independent analysis that we have now seen from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, that we have greater and better prospects in relation to economic growth in the coming period than we have perhaps had in the preceding period. We are absolutely focused on interventions that can be high-impact in relation to economic growth for a purpose, so that we can reinvest in our public services so that we can help to reduce poverty. At the same time, making sure that we continue to have the most progressive taxation in the country, not for its own sake, but for the sake of being able to invest those funds into our public services and then into tackling poverty. I'll say more than that other than that some of those issues will be dealt with in detail in an update to Parliament tomorrow by the Deputy First Minister. As a more general question, clearly politicians tend to focus on the short term in the next election. Do you think that it is possible to get Parliament and all the parties to look at the longer term 50 years ahead future generations because sometimes we have to make difficult short term decisions for our children and grandchildren? It's a very difficult conversation to have. I think that we should for its worth. I think that we absolutely should be in that space, but there's no doubt that that can always be more difficult in relation to, depending on where we are in the election cycle. I've often seen in international examples as well as domestic examples, that where there is that kind of broad consensus, there may not be unanimity, but where there's broad consensus or an issue that needs long-term effort and investment, that's where you see the real radical change. I remember speaking as Justice Secretary to a Finnish politician and Finland at one point had the highest prison population per head and over a number of decades ended up with, if not the lowest in Europe, one of the lowest in Europe. That was because there was a concerted effort, I remember him telling me very clearly, that all the political parties signed up to the fact that they had to reduce their rates of incarceration because they were just far too high. Although there were many political argybargy over a number of issues, there was a collective agreement on the need to reduce the prison population. Where you can get that collective agreement and we should strive for that and lead in relation to what we can do in government, that's where you see your transformative change. We now go back to Edward Mountain for the next couple of questions. Edward? Gareth is obviously a key issue and when the Natsero Energy and Transport Committee last looked, told by the minister, we would get a copy of the gateway review due at the end of March as soon as it was available. Fergus Ewing, I know, bought the issue up yesterday in Parliament and he was told that we were getting it imminently. What does that mean? We were promised it in April. Could you give me some indication of what that means? Well, again, in terms of the gateway review, given that we are dealing with a scheme that involves industry partners and that involves circularity, Scotland and a number of other stakeholders, we just have to ensure that any review takes into account some of those commercial sensitivities that might well exist. As Lornaw Slater said, in response to my good friend and colleague Fergus Ewing, we will look to see what we can publish and publish imminently. The point about the deposit return scheme, of course, is that we are getting on with the scheme in relation to go live next spring, 1 March 2024, but it is so important that we get a positive decision around the exemption from the Terminal Markets Act from the UK Government, and not a conditional exemption, not for example suggesting that we remove glass from the scheme, for example. We need an absolute exemption, and that will allow us to give certainty to business to get on with a really important scheme, and why it is so important, of course, so that we can see the removal and the elimination, I would hope, of that letter that pollutes our streets and our beaches. I remind you that I am not sure that I have got an answer there, but we have waited six weeks, so I am sure that we will have to wait a wee bit longer. Depending on the climate change, I wonder what direction you have given to your new ministers on the climate change plan. The last First Minister wanted all policies reviewed. Is that your position, and my other part of that question is, will you be chairing the Cabinet sub-committee on climate, and what will your priorities be on that? Yes, I will chair the sub-committee, given the importance of this agenda, not just for the Scottish Government, I would hope for all of us and, of course, for the entire planet. On looking at our policies, we have to respond to the climate change committee's report. We have to respond and will respond before the end of the year. We have to do that. We have to really be absolutely upfront and honest about how challenging the next phase of our net zero journey will be, so we have made good progress. We are over 50 per cent of the way in relation to that net zero target, but we know that getting to that 2030 target is going to be extremely challenging, and it is going to require really difficult decisions to be made. By the way, it will also cost a lot of money, too. It does not matter which element of action needs to be taken, and those are costly interventions, but ones that will undoubtedly be necessary. We will absolutely respond to that report in due course, and I am very ambitious in relation to those targets to ensure that we are putting forward a pathway to meeting those targets. Frankly, of course, those are legal statutory targets, and we have to make sure that we are meeting them, and we certainly have a credible pathway to meeting them. We now move into what is probably termed the miscellaneous category of questions left, so I am going to start with Stuart McMillan. Thank you, convener. Just regarding the SLC bill, we know that there are a number of them already prepared and ready to come into Parliament at some point. You are aware, First Minister, that the SLC bills are really just about trying to update legislation to keep pace with modern-day life and work, but in relation to those SLC bills and proposals that the Scottish Government is considering putting forward in any of the bills, what assessment is made of the possible contribution that an SLC bill can actually make towards Scotland achieving its net and zero targets, and are you able to update this convener's group on your thinking on future SLC bills? Again, in a previous role, I had much engagement with the SLC, the Scottish Law Commission, and I think that the work that they do greatly adds value to the work that we do collectively in this Parliament, and certainly the work of Government. Since 2015, we have taken forward no fewer than six SLC bills, and all those bills have been implemented with the exception of, obviously, just recently past movable transactions. We have also committed to considering a number of other SLC reports during this session. We are, of course, a couple of years into this particular session, and we have already brought forward two SLC bills, as Stuart McMillan knows well. We are also considering the SLC's report on judicial factors as well. I think that there is great value in the issues of the day that are at the foremost and up front of our mind, but often it can be the case with the SLC bills that are quite nuanced in relation to the issues that they focus on, but it is extremely important to those that are impacted and affected. I am very keen to continue that good engagement with the SLC. Thank you very much, First Minister. I am now going to come to Martin Whitfield to ask a question on behalf of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Excellent. Thank you very much, convener and First Minister, and I welcome you to your post. I am going to roll my two questions into one, because I am conscious of time. Obviously, since becoming First Minister, there has been a substantial change both in the personnel of the Scottish Government but also their responsibilities. I am sure that, as First Minister, you will agree that the committee remits the responsibility of this Parliament to follow the ministerial and cabinet secretaries portfolios. I invite you to confirm that the Scottish Government would support the Parliament in any changes that it felt necessary, but, coming to that point, we have had a challenge in the publication of the responsibilities of both cabinet secretaries and First Ministers. Indeed, for a substantial period of time, there were two ministers who were answering to no cabinet secretary. Here in Scotland, the role of First Minister is the statutory minister that is responsible for all of these, but again today we have heard in respect of Covid recovery that the Deputy First Minister is the responsible cabinet secretary for that, but again this does not appear in the list of responsibilities of the cabinet secretary either as a cross-government responsibility or a budget responsibility nor does it appear in any of the supporting ministers for that cabinet secretary. Do you agree, First Minister, that it is quite challenging for Parliament to leverage transparency and to hold the Government to account if we are not sure where responsibilities lie within the Scottish Government? I think that that is a really fair point from Martin at Whitfield. It has been two months, of course, but it is an initial period when a new First Minister comes in and a new Government is appointed where there will be a change of responsibilities and sometimes there will be bullet points that we may have to update in relation to the remits, roles and responsibilities. I will certainly look at that and, if we can make that absolutely explicit, we should do that and we will do that. In terms of committees restructuring in order to reflect ministerial and cabinet secretary responsibilities, of course that is a matter for committees. I would support whatever committees' fuel needs are done in that regard and in that respect, but I will take away and have a look at the list of responsibilities. Often, the discretion of the First Minister, after a bit of embedding between the cabinet secretary and the junior minister, may look to make changes, but we should be absolutely up front in that regard if there are movements, for example, from the cabinet secretary's portfolio to the junior minister's portfolio and vice versa. That can happen, as I said, just through once those positions become slightly more embedded, but I will make sure that we are as transparent as possible in that and certainly up front in that regard. We are living up to successfully to the title of Mr Lainey in this section. I am going to invite John Mason to ask the next question. The question of commissioners or office holders has come up to the finance committee and affects all committees, because both the Government and other members are bringing forward proposals for other commissioners. Does the Government have a view as to what is the ideal number of commissioners? Is it one? Is it 10? Is it 100? Where are we going with this? It seems to be falling between stools, between the Parliament and the Government. I will not pick a number out of an ear necessarily, but I share John Mason's concern at times that we can or can be viewed that a commissioner is going to be the panacea to a particular challenge or issue that is being faced. I think that we have got to be careful that what we do not end up doing—because commissioners can absolutely play an important role in holding Government to account, often challenging Parliament to go further—is cluttering a landscape that can sometimes already be too cluttered. Also, there can be confusion about what a particular commissioner can or cannot do. We have got to make sure that we are not raising an expectation unfairly to the public. I would not give a view on the right or wrong number, but I want to give an assurance at least to John Mason that we are very, very alive to the issues that he raises and try to take as a consider a view on that as we possibly can. I am conscious that we are just right up against time, but I am also conscious that there are a couple of colleagues that were unable to attend the meeting. I know Sue Webber, the convener of education, children and young people, had a couple of questions. If you can indulge me perhaps, First Minister, I will go through one of them at least to try and elicit a response. Sue wrote that the committee notes the First Minister's intention to increase the availability of internationally comparable data on Scotland's education performance. However, the committee's recent work on the disabled children and young people transitions to adulthood Scotland Bill suggests that there are large data gaps closer to home, not least in relation to the number of co-ordinated support plans in place for children and young people. Sue Webber wants to know how the First Minister intends to address that data gap. Again, I am more than happy to look into detail on this in November of last year. The additional support for learning action plan update showed good progress against a number of key action, and that included taking forward work from a review of the use of co-ordinated support plans to ensure that they were used appropriately. The framework also recognises that some learners might need more targeted support—for example, that one-to-one support from a PSA, a pupil support assistant. There is more work on that, and I am keen for us to take forward. We have worked with partners in relation to co-ordinated support plans on the CSP short-life working group to understand where the barriers to implementation are of legislation related to CSPs and how they can be addressed, and we will continue to take forward the work from that report that was published in 2021. There are recommendations there for us to follow up on, some of them have progressed, and some of them we need to take forward, we know, with greater urgency and pace. First Minister, thank you both to yourself and to colleagues. We managed to get through all of the questions, and thank you also to First Minister for your commitment to come back with further detail to some of the questions that were posed. I would hope that we are able to repeat this exercise in around six months' time, and we will liaise with your office, First Minister, about a suitable date for that. Thank you very much for your attendance. The next meeting of the convener's group will be Wednesday 31 May, so thank you all. Have a good afternoon, and I close this meeting.