Ffair reform committee for 2016. Can ask everyone to make sure that mobile phones and other electronic devices are either switched off or turned to aeroplane mode. Today, Alec Johnson is substituting for John Lamont, and I've got apologies from Neil Findlay. First item on the agenda, can we agree to take items 4 and 5 in private? Thank you. Second item on the agenda is a consideration of the subordinate legislation welfare fund Scotland regulations 2016 draft, and we're taking evidence. The first session, we have Nicky McLean, who's the director and Paul McFadden, who's the head of complaints standards at the Scottish Public Service ombudsman. Welcome. Either of you have an opening comment to make before we start? Just to say thank you to the committee for the invitation today. We're obviously taking on this new function from the 1st of April 2016 of secondary reviews, and happy to discuss the work that we've done in preparation for that. Do you think that these new powers and this new function could change the role that the ombudsman has at the moment? I think that Scotland, in comparison to other ombudsman schemes across the UK, is quite unusual now in that the majority of other public service ombudsman across the UK do also have other functions, and it doesn't appear to impact significantly on their ability to carry out that classic ombudsman complaint handling function. I think that we're fairly confident that it won't influence the nature and the makeup of the work that we do around complaints.  Will those who have been refused by local authorities and who have appealed to you have the right of representation? The vast majority of occasions we expect that the reviews that we'll be making decisions on will be able to be concluded on the basis of the information that has already been collected and the information that is already presented. That's the experience of the current review stage. When the scheme was being designed, we specifically asked for the ability to take oral hearings or conduct oral hearings where we thought that fairness may dictate that was required now. That wasn't felt to be necessary by the Government at that stage, but we felt that we wanted to future proof our system to make sure that we had all available tools to do that. A future proof against emerging human rights legislation, for example, on advisable lawyers. In the event that we think that it's necessary to have an oral hearing, people will have the right to have representation. The nature of the scheme, the nature of the client group and those who'll be making applications for review mean that many of them are represented in their contact, will be represented in contact with us by advocacy and support groups. That's something that we expect and we're already engaging with those groups to make sure all the needs are catered for. You said that the Government didn't think that that facility was necessary at that stage, but the sense has got nothing to do with the Government because you're not responsible to the Government. Why is the Government able to tell you what is appropriate and what's not appropriate? I think that it was in terms of the founding legislation. When the proposals were in the early stage discussions on what the legislation may contain, for example, on seeing early drafts of that, we were of the view that this was something that we thought would be a good addition. The Government weren't direct in that stage, but clearly the Government is in charge of drafting the legislation to bring forward to the Government? Yes, except that it's Parliament's responsibility to pass the legislation and you're a body that is responsible to Parliament and not to the Government. So I'm kind of perplexed and puzzled a bit about you having to accede to something that the Government wanted rather than something that the Parliament decided and ultimately the Parliament passed on a majority vote, but you're indicating that it's very much since it was the Government that decided this? No, I've maybe given the wrong impression of seeing authority of the Government on that occasion. I think that these were early discussions around what the proposal may look like. I think that we're looking at what the omisman function may look like in terms of reviews and we've seen early proposals. This is one of the things that we decided to propose and put into that in terms of what went to Parliament for them to decide how we should take this forward. You say that you think that most of the appeals or challenges will be determined on the basis of the information that is already available, but given the decision that had previously been made, is there an appeal function where people can have representation should they wish or does that require a change to regulations or a change to procedures? No, I think that if people ask for representation and take bringing forward a review, then we will certainly be open to them. I really do think that it won't be necessary and I think that that's the experience of the existing review function in terms of people bringing forward, but we'll always be open to people making their case in any way that they wish to do. With all due respect, you might not think that it's necessary, but if you're someone who's had a claim refused and feel strongly about it, surely they should have a say in whether or not they should have the opportunity to put the case to you, particularly if you decide that you decide not in their favour. There are two aspects to it. The first is that, given what you said previously about the Government decision, do you have the powers or does it require a change if there is to be representation? The second point is that what stage in development will you decide that representation will be allowed? Under the principles of natural justice and the way in which the process will work, as people bring review requests to us at tier 2, we will share the information that we are considering in reaching our decision and they can input into that. They will see the evidence on which we are basing our decisions and they will be able to provide their own evidence. There will be contact with individuals either in writing or over the phone or face-to-face interviews. I think that there are significant opportunities built into the process and built into the draft statement of practice that we've been working towards that allow people to input into the decision-making process. The evidence that this committee has heard from a whole range of organisations in relation to other benefits is that not only those organisations but the people that they represent actually value the opportunity to have someone representing them. There are some of us in this committee that have had the experience of going to tribunal and representing claimants who have been turned down, but what seems to be coming across is that almost a paternalistic view that, yes, we will look at all the information and we'll do it fairly and they will have the opportunity to provide information to us. That's not quite the same. If you're not confident in reading and writing, if you have a difficulty in understanding, then someone explaining it on your behalf is sometimes a far better option. I still haven't heard an answer to the first point. Do the rules, the regulations, the procedures allow you, given what was previously said about the Government, to make a decision that, yes, representation is available? At what point in the general development of the scheme will you make a decision that you will start to have advocates in on behalf of claimants? It may help if I just clarify how our process and procedure is laid out. The neighbouring legislation allows us to develop and consult on our statement of practice and a set of rules for oral hearings. We are completely in control of that and we have consulted on that and received broad support for what we have outlined there. I think that the oral hearings point may be a little bit of a redhead hearing at this point. I think that the majority of what we are going to do is speak to people. We have designed our process and our service in a way that is completely accessible. That was our decision to mean that people can phone us to make a review. If they would like their advocate or support worker or anyone else to represent them to put forward their case to us, then yes, we will do that and we have full discretion to do that and we will on most occasions do that. Perhaps I am missing something, but in the years where I was representing people at tribunals, there was always the opportunity to write in and to explain the problem, but the whole point of an independent tribunal was that they looked at something objectively, listened to the evidence and people had the chance to explain what their case was. Again, to the comment that I made earlier, it sounds a bit paternalistic that you have decided that it is not really necessary for you to come and explain because you can provide all the evidence that you want, you can get someone to write a letter and we will just do that now. Each of us, the deals that we can stick to, in case cases, gets it that people can say, but I want to see you face to face, I want to explain something to you because they have the right to do that, but you are in a sense assuming that right for them that they do not, well not to see them assuming that right, you are deciding that you will be able to tell from the written evidence or someone phoning up on their behalf what if someone says, no, look, you have got this wrong, I want to have the right to appear with an advocate to challenge the decision, will they be allowed to do that? Yes, they absolutely have the right to request that and so I think as Paul says, presently through the complaints process, we regularly deal with representatives rather than complainants, we have experience of doing that, but also that people will be able to request the method that they wish to communicate with us. I think some of the data that we've received from the consultation indicates that a lot of people wouldn't be interested in that kind of representation and perhaps might find that intimidating also, so that's some of the feedback that we've had through the consultation process, so I think that the statement of practice that we are developing at the moment, it gives choice about how you put forward your representation and I think that that's in response and listening to the feedback that we're getting across the range of stakeholders. I don't doubt that people feel personal representation intimidating and that's the whole point of having advocates and representatives because these procedures are very challenging, but people often find having to write and explain and not having the chance to put forward their case to find that intimidating as well, but I'm pleased that you've now accepted that people have the right to a hearing and to advocates representing them at the hearing. Will that be made clear at the beginning that you have the choice for either for us to deal with it by correspondence or phone or you have the choice of coming to a hearing and you can bring a representative with you? Will that be made clear? We've made clear that people can choose a representative to engage with us and people in the consultation responding to the consultation have been widely supported of our approach and accessibility and openly. The concept of an oral hearing in terms of a more formal oral hearing, we will meet with representatives, we'll meet with applicants and we'll do that. The more formal oral hearing is something that is clear to people when they can request that and when the circumstances aren't where we will take that because it's in the interests of fairness. Forgive me, Mr McFadden. I think what you're saying is slightly different from what Ms McLean is saying because she gave a commitment very clearly that people could have an oral hearing should they want it and you're now starting to put conditions on that. They can request an oral hearing. That will be made clear to them at the beginning that if they wish they can have an oral hearing with a representative. I think what well in terms of the development of the communication materials that we use what what I think what we need to be careful about is making sure that we're giving we're giving sufficient information but what we are doing is we're using our stakeholders to trial and test the communication materials that we develop so I think we need to be careful about the level of information and the clarity of the information that we're providing what I said is people will have the right to request an oral hearing the decision on whether an oral hearing will be held will remain ours as the statement of practice is written at this point in time. That would be an interesting concept if in relation to claimants challenging the DWP on a range of things if the power to determine whether there should be representation rested with the DWP we would be outraged but you're saying that you will retain that power. That's certainly the intention at the moment that that that is what's been included in the document that's going out. So for a range of independent benefits or you know Westminster-related benefits that there are independent tribunals and people can access those tribunals if they wish but in relation to this one you're you will be the one that decides whether or not there'll be an oral hearing. It may be helpful to say that we have consulted on this point throughout the development of this over the past year with both third sector agencies and local authorities in talking through that and consulted fully on the circumstances where we would use a discretion to have a oral hearing and we've had a broadly supportive response to that and people recognised that that's a fair way to proceed. In that particular concern I don't believe has been raised at any point to this stage. A clarity is the system that you're proposing for tribunals or for a hearing the same as the procedure that currently exists for DWP hearings. Have you just mirrored the same procedure because not everyone gets a hearing with a DWP the same way that you're expressing? Is that right? Am I going to pick that up correctly? The question was have we modelled it on a DWP system? Yes, the convener is suggesting that there's two different procedures in play here, one with a DWP where you can request a hearing. From what I'm hearing this morning, sorry for using the word hearing over it, is that you're using the exact same procedure that anyone who would challenge a decision of the DWP would be using? No, I don't think it would be fair to say that. I think, though, that, as Paul suggested, this is slightly a red herring because Aran is, again, through the consultation process, through the discussions that we've had with third sector, with stakeholders. The anticipation is that the majority of these review cases will be dealt with over the phone through discussion with the applicant and in correspondence with local authorities, bearing in mind that the payments that we're making, we're working to very tight timescales, so we have to ensure that we can process these as quickly as possible. If you make a comparison with the existing interim scheme, these decisions are already being made in a similar vein by local authorities. I think that, broadly speaking, there's general acceptance that the interim scheme, whilst there might be some tweaks and changes that need to be made, has been working relatively effectively, so I don't think that what we're proposing in terms of dealing with the majority of these applications, these reviews, through telephone contact, face-to-face meeting or written correspondence, is not a sensible move. I think that what we're talking about is a very, very small number of cases where it's difficult to establish the facts in any other way other than an oral hearing, so I think it would be a shame if we spent the majority of the discussion on that particular point, because I think that it will arise in very few occasions, but what we wanted to have is the ability to use that as an option if there is no other way of establishing the facts in a fair way. A previous meeting of the committee, we heard from some of the third sector and other organisations that either support or deliver services and support, and some of them were saying that the interim scheme had some challenges at the start, but those challenges had been ironed out and had started to progress pretty well. You said that you've had to make some weed tweaks and things in the system. Is there anything that came up as a particular challenge or maybe a good example of good work in practice that you have now incorporated into the new procedures and the challenges that have arisen? What sort of a resolution did you come up with to deal with those? Where I was referring to tweaks in the system, I think that I was more meaning in relation to the Scottish Government's own guidance for local authorities, and I know there's been some feedback in exchange about changes to the guidance for local authorities. Obviously, our service doesn't commence until the first of April. We will have an ongoing review and no doubt there may well be changes to our statement of practice as we begin to see cases coming through. In terms of what the new structure will bring, because you then have tier 2 reviews being assessed by a national body, I think that that gives you a national picture that is perhaps not there within the existing interim arrangements. One of the key factors of delivering and developing a new social security system for Scotland is to have dignity and respect built into the system. I'm sure that that would be something that you would be monitoring. Is there anything that you've picked up in the interim scheme that has allowed you to set in play for the work that you'll do to come the first of April to ensure that that dignity and respect remains in the system and that the person, the claimant and their needs are key to that? As Nicky's lender experience of the interim scheme has been limited to her over the complaints. We've seen a relatively small number of complaints coming through over that time, and to be honest, most of them have been about dissatisfaction with the decision. The things that we've seen have been about procedural matters in terms of the guidance not being followed or being misinterpreted or misapplied. When we've been looking at that, even though up to this point, up to the first of April, we've not been able to change the decision or review discretion. We've discussed or made recommendations to the local authority around aspects where it didn't appear that there was a fairness in it because of a procedure of failing. On those occasions, local authorities have changed the wards or made decisions in the back of that. Beyond that, we don't have the experience yet of any wider aspects of where the scheme may be failing in terms of dignity, respect, fair and reasonable, but that is going to be a role for the first of April. Once we have a body of cases through, we have a bit of experience through that with the team, then we'll be able to reflect on that a bit more in a bit more detail. You have gone through and written evidence steps that you've taken to prepare for the task that you're about to undertake. You say that you've consulted with local authorities and the third sector, including advocacy reps. You've also looked at the independent review scheme for the social fund, which will still be operating in Northern Ireland. You rightly say that that scheme has a fairly good reputation and you were keen to learn lessons from that. Would you like to tell us what lessons you've learned during the course of the interactions between the practitioners at local authorities, the third sector and, of course, the IRS? In terms of our consultation throughout the past year, the first thing that we did around that was set up our sounding boards—one for the third sector of representatives and one for local authorities—through the engagement with those sounding boards, through the consultation responses, throughout the discussions that we've had with everyone, with the IRS and the Northern Ireland commissioner. I think that one of the key things that has all come out very clearly is the need for good communication in all respects. I think that being open and accessible is clearly another one and I think that this came out across quite strongly in timeliness. Clearly the nature of the decisions, the nature of the circumstances that are leading to people making these decisions means that quick and robust decisions are absolutely crucial. The IRS was held up in very good regard and I think that that was clear from the responses to the Government's initial consultation on its proposals here, where the SPSO was always one option, and where the IRS came across quite well in terms of its reputation and in terms of timeliness. We looked at the IRS, we've adopted, in fact, our own timescales have adopted those of the IRS and that's something that even those is going to be my new scheme and we're going to have to get it up to speed. That's something we're aiming to replicate. There's been a lot in there that I think we've been able to to take in terms of key lessons and we continue to talk with local authorities in terms of how they operate the existing review or secondary to review system as well. Have you any idea how many in percentage terms, how many times a complaint would lead to an oral hearing in the IRS situation? I think that this is something that Caramjit Singh gave evidence to this committee in 2014. They don't actually, in Northern Ireland, my understanding and the evidence that he gave to this committee was that they don't have the powers to hold oral hearings. In terms of your approach, you talk in the paper about equalities and human rights assessment to make sure that the process takes full account of the rights and needs of users. Can you tell us what your equality and human rights assessment has found where you're at with that? Is it completed? Are you satisfied with the findings of it? The equality and human rights assessment is not completed, I think. That's largely because we're still in the process of finalising our process and our approach. The feedback from the consultation was very much that this is something that needs to be kept open. It's something that, particularly through the first year, is something that's going to be a live document that will continue to add to the clearly issues around IRAR, around the fairness and reasonable accessibility, all of those aspects that are clearly coming across. I think that that's something that will continue to monitor and continue to speak to third sector organisations. Obviously, we're not up and running yet, so you intend to monitor all aspects of this when the process starts from 1 April. You will continue to monitor what those impacts are. I think that we've done so far a significant amount of work to understand and anticipate what some of the blocks and barriers to people accessing our service might be, but I think that, as you say, that needs to be an on-going review. In that kind of monitoring, has that taken place in the Northern Ireland situation, for example? Do they continue to monitor those impacts? Did you find that out when you were looking at what they were up to? That's not something that I'm aware of. I think that the issues around accessibility and the data that they collect are identifying any issues of equality impact assessment in the meeting. It's something that they do on an on-going basis, but it's not something that we're aware of in terms of a formal process. What they do, which is good practice and which we'll have endeavour to do, is that they maintain significant contacts with the interested stakeholders. They do a lot of engagement. We've done that today, and we need to continue to do that so that we're routinely receiving feedback about what our service feels like for users. So you're going to follow their lead in that regard? I think that stakeholder engagement is key in getting the feedback about what it feels like to use our service. And go beyond their system by allowing oral hearings to take place, if work? Yes, in a number of respects. I think that the oral hearings are something that the Parliament decided to give to us. I think that our approach to taking reviews applications verbally is something that would go beyond what the IRS and certainly the Northern Ireland commissioner would do, where they would mainly take written applications. So there are aspects of that where we feel that we've tried to improve on what's new. In terms of Parliament scrutinising your work in this area, currently the local government committee looks at your annual report and scrutinises based on that. Obviously, you have responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament's corporate body. Is this line of work going to feature in the annual report, or is that going to feature separately? And will Parliament have the ability to scrutinise what you're doing here on a regular basis? We would hope so, and I think that we would certainly report as part of our annual report in terms of our performance, in terms of our accountability and transparency. That said, in terms of our experience of the scheme, as we report regularly back to all the bodies under jurisdiction on the learning that we've received from complaints that we've received, issues where we feel that improvements could be made. I think that this is something that would merit its own distinct reporting back on those issues, in terms of the key issues, the case studies, the facts and figures that we've seen. We wouldn't be in regular engagement with local authorities and the Government as well, where we've identified things where there may be barriers to people in terms of their fair and reasonable access to the review system or the scheme itself. That reporting function, as you currently do, would be universal, so everybody could learn from one body's mistake? Yes, I think that it would be, but we don't have a statutory role in terms of monitoring best practice for the welfare fund, as we do with complaints. We would be looking to identify areas of good practice, as well as areas of concern, and we would be feeding them back at a national level. We are already engaging with the practitioners themselves through the practitioners' network. We would continue to go along to that and feedback our experience and help them to learn from that collectively. Thank you, convener. That's a very helpful commitment, thank you for that. I think that Mr Stewart stole my slender with the last question that he had there. I would like to dig into it a little bit more in terms of if there is a systemic failing of local authority or misinterpretation that you felt was there across Scotland. What would be the mechanism and timescale for feeding that back to local authorities or to the Government, given that you do not have that statutory duty, as you have just said? I think that if it is in relation to individual circumstances, then that is immediate, and that would be picking up the phone to local authority to address something that is an issue for an individual. If it is an individual local authority, but with more than one individual, we would again engage with that local authority quickly. Those reports and decisions will be given back very quickly on these, where we will have recommendations for improvement. We will regularly engage with local authorities and the Government, and again, when and how quickly we do that will be based on the urgency of the blockage to the system, of the concerns of the system or whether or not people are being treated in a way that is not fair and reasonable or does not respect their dignity. Can I come back to individual decisions? Do you need to have any regard to a local authority's budget, how much is left in the budget when you make a decision? Secondly, can you determine the level of payment that has to be made? Obviously, it is a finite fund, a finite budget, and I think that if local authorities have run money, then it is not entitlement, it is a discretionary scheme. We make a decision based on the information that was available at that time or the state of the scheme at that time and the priority of the scheme at that time. The original decision was made and the person had brought their circumstances to the local authority. There may be occasions where we are looking back slightly to where there were funds, but that is something that we will make a decision on at that point in time. The level of award or what has been awarded or how that has been awarded is part of the decision. That is something that we will take into account in terms of our decisions, assessing whether that has been fair and reasonable, whether the discretion has been used correctly, whether the merits of the decision are correct and that is something that we will be able to make decisions on back to local authorities. As well as challenging whether or not a payment has been made on a claimant's part, can the claimant actually challenge the level of payment that has been made? They can, yes. Those are going to be the difficult decisions, because you are looking at local authorities, you are looking at a discretionary scheme with lots of various points of discretion and something has been made by decision makers using their own judgment on the facts and circumstances of individuals. The range of circumstances are huge, but that is something that we will be able to consider in terms of what the applicant tells us, in terms of what the representatives tell us, what we feel is fair and reasonable, in terms of what the guidance says, the regulations say and, over and above that, what the aims of the scheme are in terms of providing support to people in crisis or those who are coming out of care, for example. I think that what we will be looking for from the local authorities is that the decision is clearly set out and the reasons for reaching that decision would include the reasons for thinking that that level of payment was appropriate in that specific individual circumstances, so we would expect to see that within the decision. If you see a pattern, for example, where claims that were being determined in Edinburgh were resulting in a different level of payment from claims being determined in Westlothian, would you have the ability to start making awards that would be based on what may be perceived to be the most favourable, or is that purely a matter for each local authority to determine? That comes back to the previous point that I made. Our role is very much about assessing whether that level of payment has met that particular individual's needs given their specific circumstances. It is very much about the individual at that given time, as well as the level of priority that the local authority has in place at that specific point in time that the original decision was made. I thank you for your contribution this morning and good luck with the implementation of the new scheme. I will suspend for a few minutes to allow a change to take place. Welcome to Margaret Burgess, the Minister for Housing and Welfare, and she is joined by Will Tyler and Stuart Fubistar. Minister, would you like to make an opening contribution to the meeting? Thank you, convener, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss the welfare fund Scotland regulations 2016. Since April 2013, the Scottish welfare fund has provided a safety net to some of the most vulnerable people in our society, helping around 178,000 low-income households, including 59,000 families with children. In the face of continued austerity imposed by the UK Government, the fund acts as a lifeline for communities across Scotland, helping people in some desperate situations by everyday things like food, clothes and beds, keeping families afloat at difficult times. However, not only does the fund meet a very real need, it also signals this Government's commitment to creating a social security system that treats individuals with dignity and respect. The Scottish Government's independent adviser on poverty's recent report highlights the Scottish welfare fund as providing critical practical support with a more person-centred and holistic approach than equivalence elsewhere. Developed in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the support of the third sector, the fund, I believe, is an excellent example of collaborative working. I also believe that that was evident from the supportive remarks made by the organisations that have already given evidence to the committee. The determination to do things differently resulted in Scotland's first substantive example of social security legislation. The welfare fund Scotland Act 2015 places a statutory responsibility on each local authority to maintain a welfare fund and establishes a new independent review process. Importantly, it requires those who deliver the scheme to treat applicants with dignity and respect, sending a clear message about the kind of social security system we seek to create, which is one that is very much centred on the individual. Almost half of the £81 million spent to date has gone to communities in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland. The Scottish welfare fund is an example of action already taken in Scotland, which provides a firm basis for tackling poverty effectively. The welfare fund Scotland regulations will help to secure this by underpinning the act and making the scheme permanent and statutory. It has always been our intention to set out the rules for the operation of the fund through regulations and statutory guidance. Whilst the regulations may be the last legislative piece of the jigsaw, the fund and its statutory guidance will be subject to on-going review and scrutiny. It is our intention to review the guidance on an annual basis, taking account of feedback from local authorities, third sector stakeholders and any points identified by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I welcome the committee's on-going interest in the fund and I am happy to answer your questions on it this morning. I welcome the commitment to review the situation on an annual basis, the guidance. That is extremely helpful. One of the things that we have heard in a number of sessions, including for this and written evidence from Who Care Scotland, is the need for flexibility. Part of that review that you will have, or that annual consideration in the guidance, will you be looking to make sure that the flexibility is there in the system and if changes need to be made that they would be made? Absolutely, convener. That is the intention of the review. We have very much taken on board and from the scheme, from the outset, both the voluntary and the statutory scheme has about having a scheme that is consistent across Scotland but allows that element of flexibility, which has been very much welcomed by local authorities. We want to make sure that that is maintained. If that is slipping away or that it is not acting the way that we would anticipate, we will be reviewing it and taking on board the comments from stakeholders. If demand for whatever reason is much higher than anticipated and the budgets at a local level are struggling to cope, whose responsibility would it be to top up those budgets? Would it be the individual local authority or will the Scottish Government make a contribution if it is felt that the budgets are not sufficient? The Scottish Government sets the level of the fund, the overall fund for Scotland. We have agreed formula for distributing it to the local authorities but if the local authorities are then expected to manage their budget annually and keep an eye on their budget, they are able to top that budget up. We have said that the Scottish Government will continually and constantly top up. We will always look at that and look at future years. Budgets are looked at annually in any case for the Scottish Government. We will always look at the fund and if it is sufficient to maintain it. We have also looked at altering the distribution method, rather than based on the historic social fund distribution. We are looking at actual spend. For the next few years, we are looking at actual spending on a local authority, so a percentage will be an actual spend and a percentage on need space. That is what we have agreed with local authorities at the moment. In future years, the allocation to individual local authorities could change depending on the level of spending and demand. For the next three years, the bill is up to an absolute need space. Minister, we have probably scrutinised the Scottish welfare fund much more than any piece of social security legislation has been scrutinised at Westminster. We have seen change during the course of the development of the new fund, including the building, dignity and respect of the social security system that we are establishing. Lessons have been learned during the course of the process because of the amount of scrutiny. Can you assure the committee that the best practice that exists out there is exported throughout every local authority to make sure that the fund is the best that it can possibly be? That is continual and will be so. We have a practitioner's group where they meet and discuss in different local authority areas. They have case studies where they look at one area, how they would deal with it, how another area would deal with it and to look at best practice. It should be in a fund such as this. Also now, with the ombudsman doing the second tier reviews, he will be able to build in their expertise and their view on it and what could be done differently as well. That would be taken on board. The social fund teams across Scotland are keen to learn from other teams and best practice. I visited a huge number of the front-line staff and they absolutely appreciate the fact that they can get with others working in another area and discuss how they can handle certain cases or how the guidance could be improved to make things clearer for them. We have a role in that with the guidance and we hope that we have done that. We have put a huge input into our statutory guidance. Every local authority was represented at it, as well as a huge number of stakeholders at our consultation on the guidance. I am hugely impressed by the welfare rights team and the way that they are spreading information and sharing best practice. One of the things that we did hear Minister Tho in evidence was from Huw Care Scotland. That is around the way that care leavers are treated and their ability to access the fund. Obviously, councils such as ourselves have roles as corporate parents and their obligations under recent legislative change that they have. Can we ensure that all those folks who are dealing with the fund and the 32 local authorities are aware of their responsibility as corporate parents to ensure that care leavers are treated as best they possibly can be when they go to access the fund? Absolutely. We have included a bit in the guidance about care leavers and the obligations of corporate parenting. We listened carefully to the evidence of Huw Care Scotland and some of the suggestions that they said that perhaps we could even be clearer in the guidance in a case study, a good example. We will certainly be considering that and working with them to ensure that if training is required, that was another suggestion from Huw Care Scotland that there is some training in that element of it as well. We are certainly willing to take all that on board. Thank you. Finally, one of the things that we have heard from many local authorities is the ability to signpost people on to other services and other funds when they have come to access the Scottish welfare fund. Through the practitioners group and other bodies, can we ensure that that signposting to help folk not only just out of that crisis but to help them not to reach that crisis point in the future? Can we ensure that that signposting continues to take place? Absolutely, because that is what is critical to the fund. It makes it so much different from what was previously in place—that kind of holistic service identifying where the support needs are required and ensuring that, in some instances, it is more than just signposting. There are referrals made to signposting, just telling someone to approach another organisation, but there is assistance to get contact with that other organisation on behalf of someone who has been claiming something through the Scottish welfare fund. There are lots of that going on, and I want to see that continuing. I think that that is an absolutely crucial part of the whole service. It is not about just dealing with an immediate crisis, it is about ensuring that that person gets support and assistance to get on with their lives and not always have to access the fund. During the operation of the interim scheme, a great many lessons were learned, and it has been very impressive how the scheme has been improved over time and how that informed the final scheme that we are now in the process of bringing in. However, one of the things that has been noted and surprised some people is the level of administration costs that are within the total cost of the scheme. Now that we are bringing in the final regulations to get the new scheme in place, are we in a position to say that all has been done to ensure that administration costs are kept to a minimum, and the highest proportion of the cost of the scheme possible is going to grants for claimants? We believe that that is what is currently happening. The initial money transferred from the DWP was £5 million for administration, which we passed on to local authorities for administration. It was then cut by the DWP to £4.6 million, which we topped up to allow the local authorities, the £5 million to administer the scheme. We think that that is sufficient to administer the scheme, and it is a reasonable proportion of the overall budget. I have heard from some local authorities—in fact, evidence that was given some time ago when I was a regular member of the committee—that some of them felt that they could do with more financial support to cover their administration responsibility. Has that been discussed with local authorities, and has that matter been brought to a conclusion? We have had a number of discussions with local authorities about the administration costs of the scheme. What we have agreed is that they will continue to get the £5 million. They will no longer have to do any second-tier reviews, so they will not have any costs involved in that, because that has been passed to the ombasmen. However, we have continued with the same level of administration costs. Of course, as we move on and the scheme travels on as we move down the years, it will always be discussed with local authorities if they come and tell us. However, the absolute focus in the priority is that the bulk of the money should go out there to the people in our communities who desperately need it. With the new responsibilities for other aspects of welfare that are coming along, is there a possibility that we may actually be able to use the individuals and the skills that have been gained by people working within local authorities to spread their responsibility slightly to make that process more efficient? We always look at efficiencies when we move on, but at the moment, the scheme is run and administered by local authorities in every 32 local authority areas. There is a huge deal of expertise built up there, but it is up to each individual local authority where they deploy the staff, which is a section of the local authority, because some local authorities benefit some revenues and provide the Scottish welfare fund or administer it and others that can be the social work department. It is entirely up to local authority how they can most efficiently operate the scheme in their area. However, you will ensure that where there appears to be a wide variation in administration costs within local authorities, you will continue to cap the scheme to ensure that that is not too great a burden on the finances. The funding is agreed at the 5 million in local authorities, and that is what they used to administer the scheme and how they operate that is up to the local authority. However, that amount of funding is agreed, and that is the amount that they get out of the 5 million. In the evidence minister from the SPSO, they talk about the first-tier internal reviews, which should be in writing and signed. I accept under exceptional circumstances, and they express some reservations about that, but they are going to obviously work with it. I just wondered if you could reflect on why we are going down that road. It is not possible to accept in exceptional circumstances to appeal orally. I think that we have been quite clear that an appeal can be made and an oral appeal can be made in terms of over the telephone or whatever somebody can say they want. I think that we have been clear that it is a review of the decision that they can say over the telephone. They want the decision reviewed. Even at a first-tier review, they can use advice agents or someone else to assist them to put forward the review and the grounds for the review. As it stands—and maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong—as it stands, there is nothing that prevents anyone from asking for a review on the telephone, or in writing, or with the assistance of a third party. If nothing else, I will move to item 3 on the agenda. That is the formal debate on the affirmative instrument. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion S4M-15227 on her name. Any comments from members? If not, I now put the question that the motion S4M-15227, that the welfare reform committee recommends that the welfare fund's Scotland regulations 2016 draft be approved. Are we agreed? Thank you very much for your contribution. I believe that this will be your last appearance at this committee before you stand down. Thank you for your contribution to the committee and wish you well for whatever you do after you stand down. We will now close the public part of the meeting.


Hi everybody, so maybe you are not coming for this talk, so I have an explanation for that Which is right there So well, I can try to convince that this is the talk you are coming from you are coming from but it will probably not work So my initial talk was rejected and I got a notification like yesterday at midnight that in fact it was not rejected So I decided to recycle some slides I had for SGX add a bit more content and that's what the talk will be about So if you have a medical condition and you can't listen to an SGX talk, you might leave I won't be offended otherwise. It should be interesting. So With that We are going to talk so a little bit more about our own clave The idea is to keep talking about what we did last year previously, which was not very successful We will discuss why and we will discuss how we can improve that and Well, if you want to follow something for example during the talk and to read something during the talk So threat model we have in the read me is interesting to read and it's still up to date even if the code is not So first question you can ask why are we making an enclave as a hardware wallet manufacturer? So the first thing is that we are ledger has been developing into several industries and created several business units today So we are not only making hardware wallets with the se on which we can code our own OS We are exploring the custodian model where we work on HSN that are not Built by us. So in that case we need to work into some things that looks a little bit like an enclave And we want to transition from a company manufacturing hardware devices to a company selling operating system licenses and for that enclave are very good target because they already exist They are already in the market and the main obstacle today for people to use a ledger is actually to buy a ledger So if we could find a way to download a ledger and have an interesting security and an existing computer It would be quite interesting for us And so that's why we are digging into those models and we are evaluating the security very Toughly for that. So we have a really reusable operating system code base working on an enclave and Changing from a secure element to an enclave for us is quite easy. So we are using this. We are using this expertise and Another important thing is that well, we have a strong Expertise in hardening cryptographic code and this is something that's difficult to do I mean that's something that you don't usually do because a lot of people using secure elements We just reuse a vendor cryptographic library We build them from scratch and we reuse Everything that we have on the chip to make them harder. So we did a popular CTF This year on our device that was worn by a company called Ninja Labs They liked the CTF. They didn't describe everything yet, but it is related to Side channels and to template profiling on side channels. So that's the kind of things we want to do an SGX as well improve it and Provide the result to everybody So if you want to transition from a hardware wallet to Virtual secure device or to have enclave you have to consider a few things First you want to focus on the key protection. So key protection is the most important part of a hardware wallet It's going to be very important for an enclave as well You don't want an attacker to be able to extract keys So here for an enclave we will focus on software threat models So we will not consider hardware threat models where an attacker has access to the enclave Because that's pretty much out of scope I mean enclave are quite complex and it's difficult to to focus on securing as a whole thing against the physical attacker then user confirmation is Extremely important as well because if your enclave is holding keys But users can an attacker or malware can sign anything It's not very secure So you should be able to confirm what you are doing and you should be it shouldn't be possible to fake this Confirmation if you are malware then flexibility you should be able to do software updates on your hardware wallet or enclave any time So even if your computer is compromised, which is quite important and As a developer you should be able to test new functionalities Typically for Ethereum if your enclave is signing an Ethereum transaction It should be able to support smart contracts and it should be able if Possible to display specific UX for specific smart contracts in order to provide always the best and the clearest message to the user to know what you are doing finally Remote attestation we should have a way in an enclave or in Like we have in the device to verify that the code is running on a healthy platform And that you are running the right code so you should be able to verify which code you're running and we'll see that this comes with With some difficulties on HTX, but we can help solving that as well So today in our architecture the way we achieve source code portability between secure element and enclaves is quite simple We focus on C source code portability So we write the code once with the same API when we work natively on a secure element We are compiling to arm because our secure element are based on secure secure core Also, which is an kind of a secure arm and when we are working on an enclave all kind of enclave So it could be HTX a TE or an HSM We are cross compiling to Moxie which is an open architecture Which was used usually in the which was used previously sorry in the Bitcoin project as an experiment by Jeff Garthick back in the days But it's very simple. It's very easy to review easy to secure as well So it's a good target if you want to have a simple VM Regaining the architecture itself We will try to reuse this model as much as we can so we want to protect the user secrets So we will the user secrets will sit between a kind of a firewall applications will be firewall between each other as well and When an application wants to access some cryptographic material it will use It will use a service call so service call on arm or something else in a virtual machine to access the secrets So applications can't touch secrets unless they enter a privileged mode, which is run by the kernel and Applications are isolated and of course can't touch the kernel So if we look at the state of our SGX stack in 2017 We had good points and bad points. So the first good point is that it works So if you want to try it today, you can do something you can run some simple applications You can we demonstrated on chain attestations So you can verify that your enclave is legitimate on chain after you pass Intel attestation You can verify that your code is the code that is supposed to be on chain And we have an open-source SDK even if the code is deprecated It's still completely usable and you can still play with it on the bad side on the negative side You we had no user confirmation possible since we didn't have a display API So you couldn't use it really as a wallet So if all code that you wanted to run on the enclave had to be signed by us so that the biggest Things that deterred people from using the enclave because at some point if you wanted to run with in a protected environment You had to send us the code or we had to sign a key which was more convenient But still a lot of people didn't want to contact us for that So that's why in my opinion it wasn't very popular and of course we did no security audit So the code is really sent to you to be to be tried and without any kind of guarantee So how can we improve that? Of course regarding the attestation well people have been talking about Intel attestation a lot So the thing is the Intel attestation today is still very useful in my opinion because you need to validate the platform health from time to time For example when there is a new security exploit that involves updating your BIOS Updating the microcode of your CPU The only way to know that is to have a centralized API at some point So it's still used today, but you can select different setups depending what you want for your application when you are using around clave So if you don't want to use Intel attestation you can it works the code is still secure because the code is signed So you can verify you can rebuild the code on your side and verify that the code is correct But in this case you don't get remote attestation at all It's a choice if you want to run your wallet on your side You can do that maybe not the best choice, but it's a choice You can run Intel attestation once if you do that you get a weak ledger attestation I put weak here because it will not be up to date regarding the health of your platform which can change So it's again. It's a choice But if you do Intel it if you run Intel attestation from time to time then you can get a stronger attestation and The biggest difference here according to compared to IS attestation today Is that it's something you can validate on chain? so The good news is that with a new Intel API called protected transaction display We can solve two problems So we can solve the confirmation issue and we can solve the fact that you couldn't run anonymous code So far. So now you won't have to contact us to run your code on the enclave once this is released So if we want to summarize Very quickly get another view of protected transaction display It will be a way to create a secure display to display something securely So on your own device that will be Prepared by the enclave. So the way this works is that PTD will allow you to create Confidential output on display So the display here is a mixed display is in this window. You have a mixed display So some is done by PTD. So can't be spied on by the host So pin pad here is done by PTD This line is displayed by PTD and this line is displayed by PTD as well. So buttons are not and this Label and string are not So the inputs the output is confidential because the host cannot read anything and With the fact that you can display Pin code that is randomly swapped by PTD You can achieve confidential input as well because if for example here you type your pin code The host has no way to know that you type one two three four if you click that I mean the host will just see that you click some Patterns on your screen but this way you can manage to have some secure input even if it's not very convenient and Here we have a way to display some additional data on PTD. So You see an amount Which is an amount of zero point zero zero nine six eight years So here you see the number of decimal below which is again not the best UI, but well I'm that's what you can do today and part of an Ethereum address So after you do that after you enter your pin a wallet could send an Ethereum transaction The limitations we have repeated it today as they eat the output is confidential So the output cannot be spied on But it cannot be trusted because you can still display something on top of the output. So in this case That's why we are that's why we are you have to do this user confirmation twice So it's not the best you X possible, but I would say it works with what is available there So the IO primitives are very limited today. That's probably some things that can change But you don't have the flexibility of global platform TE trusted UI if you want So one thing that's popular and with this API is to basically register an image on a server and then display this image So you can be sure that nobody can intercept the image and A malware on the host could not replace the trusted UI, but you can't in that case So that's why you have to have the user type again and confirm twice Which is not the most convenient thing, but it works So the alternative options you can think of or at least I can think of our worst And typically if I want a user to if I want to use it to verify that the trusted UI is genuine You would have to train your users to try to take screenshots for example and see that they can't take screenshots So that's not something is very realistic. I mean geeks can probably do that but not the regular user and So far is windows only so if you want to run those tests you can't run them online X That will probably change over time as well We are still so one part. We're still missing compared to 2017 is a security audit And that's what we will be focusing on right now And that's the reason why typically I didn't update the code because we didn't run our security audit yet So on the first part of the security audit, you want to run that like a standard security audit So you want to verify that your own clave is not vulnerable to typical bugs Buffer overflows and so on so that's very very normal Then you want to verify something more You want to see if your key can withstand several side-channel attacks Because side-channel attacks got very popular during last year So more and more people have been able to have been demonstrating Ways to extract keys from enclaves either by attacking the enclave from another one or from the host and Today there is still a state of the art to be written to know if keys are correctly protected in an enclave And we are into we are very interested to answer this question We are very interested to publish result and we want to advance the state of the art of protecting key and enclave so Good news is that we are I think good at it At least we already did it on hardware so we should be able to do it and bigger hardware as well as an enclave and That just a random advertisement, which is not totally related to side-channel on a cache But it's a general side-channel API that we published a few days ago that will let you test on State of the art state channel on templating So how can we how will we proceed with this audit? So first we'll focus on a single curve. We'll focus on sake p256k one Which is a curved used by a lot of cryptos today. So at least Bitcoin and Ethereum So for the time being that the curve we are the most interested in We will review the state of the art library used today by multiple project Coming from Bitcoin core. So leap sake p256k one and We will test it against state of the art side-channel attacks that we have on sgx We will publish a report a review on that a detailed report if there are patches to be written We will do that as well if we have some well parts to rewrite We will also do that and in the end we want to know if and when how long we can store keys on sgx and I think that using this research We will be able to finally have a workable on clay a workable hardware wallet on an enclave and with strong guarantees that the keys are going to be Available and that the keys are not going to be stolen for a given amount of time So for this we chose not to use the Intel proprietary cryptographic library Because we figure that working on an open source code and providing some providing some review of that Will benefit more to the community by knowing how we can how we can work and Design new side-channel protection attacks which could later be applied to other curves So to finish summary of what is coming next in 2019 for enclave First we want to start with the CTF. So after a review we will test so we will publish what we did with our hardened API and Well standard CTF. So if you win you get better because well, we'll put some ads In our enclave. So we will usually increase the amount and we'll see if people are interested in if people manage to extract something That worked for our cryptographic API on our hardware wallet. So that worked on Well two bitcoins I think on one bit coin. Nobody steal it. Nobody stole it on two bitcoins We found some motivated parties. So maybe we'll see the same here After we do that and we're convinced that our security is fine Then we can we will be able to release a wallet So we will release a simple wallet that will work first for Bitcoin and Ethereum and then we can move forward And release an SDK that will let people write their own applications and use PTD to secure their own applications so that's it and We still have some minutes for questions if you want


All right, let's pivot here to the Falcons. Let's give them some love here for a minute. The Jesse Bates signing last week was the big headline, kind of an under the radar one over the weekend. How about that Mack Hollins move? You get another physical receiver for Arthur Smith to play with. Exactly, this is like my bird segment, right? This is, you know, talk about the birds, I guess. Let's see what we did there. Yeah, like, and they spent more money so far in free agency than any other team in football and they have a very specific way in the way Arthur Smith wants to build this entire team. And you mentioned Mack Hollins and how physical the receiver is. He played very well last year. This is a team that likes to have physical pass catchers. When you look at Kyle Pitts and you look at Drake London and you look at the way they just went and got John Smith, he may be the fourth option Mack Hollins in terms of the passing game from their new quarterback in Desmond Ritter. Now they think the world of Ritter as a person, as the intangibles that he brings to the quarterback position, but they're well aware of where he stands in terms of talent wise, but the group that is around him is something that we're keeping an eye on. They bring back Caleb McGarry, their right tackle. Now they have that offensive line completely intact as it has been and moving forward it will be. This team manager was third in the NFL and rushing and it's built kind of very physically down the middle of the field. The one thing they are lacking and they have tried during free agency as they spent a lot of money, but unable to do is get a speed wide receiver. They've been in on a few of them, I'm told, but haven't been able to land one. That's another spot to keep your eye on that they're still trying to fill in this offense. It's very physical, but they'd like someone to stretch the field as well. All right, as Arthur Smith enters year number three, trying to rebuild that offense right now with Desmond Ritter and with Taylor Heinecke in the room as well at quarterback. Thank you, James Palmer, his bird segment. As we continue in a Monday edition of NFL Now and NFL Network, coming up.


Welcome back to the breakfast and plus TV Africa. We're looking at a second conversation now. LCCI have actually advised the federal government to remove subsidy. The Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry has advised the federal government to remove subsidies and implement the Petroleum Industry Act religiously. The advice was given by the vice president LCCI Gabriel Idahosa at a 60th anniversary celebration of oil producers and trade section held in Lagos recently. According to him fuel subsidy should be removed because it's no longer sustainable, noting that its removal was fundamental to the growth of downstream sector. The Chamber also said its critical position occupied by the oil and gas sector has consistently advocated for the creation of conducive business environment oil praetors can thrive. The menace of oil theft pipeline vandalism, low investment and insecurity have all contributed to the wars recorded. This as the all important sector is experiencing. We expect the government to do more in fixing these issues knowing the proportion of revenue contributed by this sector. We have always recommended that the government must strive to implement the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, remove the unsustainable fuel subsidy, deregulate the downstream sector, remove peculiar issues affecting the praetors in the sector. We look forward to a feature where the NNPC limited another oil and gas asset are commercialized, run more effectively and Nigerian attracts all investment required to boost oil production, refining capacity. This is what he said. According to him, all PTS members companies accounted for about 90% of Niger oil production and contributed significantly to domestic and export gas production and supply. Over the last decade, all PTS member companies accounted for 40 to 60% of government revenue, 85 and 90% of exporting earnings. All PTS member companies are also proud to have paid thousands, tens of billions of dollars in taxes, levies, royalties, rents and license fees to the Nigerian government. And this is done through indirect employment of people, local contractors and service providers. The conversation is almost endless right here, but we have a guest joining us. Adamson Momor, who is the PR of NewPeng, thank you for joining us. Hello? Yes, Adamson, thank you for joining us this morning. Yeah, good morning, how are you? I'm very well. So let's get to it. I mean, one of the issues that the LCCI is asking is that there be an implementation of the PIA. And prior to this, you have the governor's complaining about the shortfall for revenue. It hasn't been a plus for them. And some people say implementing the PIA would not be of any good to the economy, especially where there will be revenue shortfall. I'd like to show you your thoughts on this, the LCCI and the issue of implementation of the PIA. Okay, can you hear me now? So the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry is advising that the government implements as part of their concern the PIA. And now, having the PIA, you have another set of persons. It feels like, you know, governors have actually complained of the implementation of the PIA would actually hot the economy. So I'm saying, what are your thoughts on this? Just opposing the consents of the LCCI and, you know, the governors in an implementation of the PIA, what are your thoughts? The PIA is something we have all prayed for. And it has been passed into law after so many years that it has been in the Kula. That made me the implementation will be in place. And it will guarantee transparency in the oil and gas industry. Because most of the businesses in the oil and gas industry have been shrouded in secrecy. So a lot of thoughts. So the PIA is a work on development and it will go a long way to bring in new investors who have been having doubts about the operations in the oil and gas industry. But so let's get to this other part of the conversation where you have all the parts that are saying that if the the PIA becomes operational, it will significantly reduce government's revenue and in fact result in caught in maintenance by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited. It's not as you thought. The NMPC is now a limited limited company. It's the operations have been commercialized and there will be less government interference. Oh, I don't think it's going to be like that. But when you say it's going to be like that now, the issue, the actual issue is you have the fact that there are remittances. And if you're going to take that, we understand the implication for government revenue. You know that the I mean, at the end of the day, there's a shareholder. We need to determine the dividends and not pay royalties to government, which is good. All right. So what's the way forward? Because this is the situation that Nigerians and the government will have to to deal with going forward. We can't continue like this. We know what the economy is going through right now. We know what the international markets are facing right now. We know about the cash crunch that government is facing right now. It's a trillion Naira deficit budget that government is running. So what do you think the way forward is? Well, what we are facing now is a lot of leadership failure. Because I don't see why we are going to be borrowing, borrowing, you know, even the better government is even borrowing to pay salaries now, which is very, very bad, you know, this is bad economics. So I believe the way out is to have the political will to take the bull by the hand. So in terms of the industry, the oil and gas industry, a lot of even even now, the state is not very clear. Sanitary industry, when you let the refineries come on screen, so that we will stop this massive importation of refined produce. We cannot have food oil and be sending it for refining when we have the refineries here. But I'm worried about tangles that the potential refineries will soon go on screen by early next year by producing 60,000 balance refined crude per day that we go a long way to put to reduce the pressure on the foreign exchange and bring in the needed resources. So all we need is just the political will and the right leadership to follow the efforts of this country. So what happens to a reduction in revenue available for service delivery by the government, the federal government? Well, that's not what I'm saying. We will have the political will to really do the needful. What is the costum? What's coming out of the new service? What about the the state of crude? This will be all just all this in the government and improve our revenue be it out of this massive borrowing, borrowing that at the end of the day, our big run today, we have to suffer for. But this argument is valid because we're talking about a sector that is responsible, is a major sector, you know, responsible for foreign earnings or earnings of the economy. And so how can these things be really? In respect to softwares, we cannot completely remove softwares now because we don't we are not producing refined products. If we remove softwares now totally, the masses will suffer. The price of particular products will definitely shoot off. So it has to be a gradual thing. If you refineries and as you said by next year, may remove the softwares, but for now it will be easy. If you cut out on that, it is easy. Well, we have to let you go now. And Adamson, one more. Thank you so much for being part of the breakfast. Thank you very much. Thank you, it's sort of a 22 situation where, you know, Kamelis is in a tight corner. You know, so I don't know what we were going to go about it. But anyway, this is what the LCCI is saying. Hopefully, maybe in the future, we'll have someone from the LCCI that's going to talk about this, tell us more about what they are saying. But that's the sides of our package this morning. We'll be back tomorrow with more conversations. The campaigns are upon us. You know, I remember reading the cartoon, the comic book, or yeah, the comic book of asterisks and obelisks.  You know, so the campaigns are upon us and hopefully go to take us through this season peacefully and we'll come out shiny at the end. My name is Kofi Bartels. Please remember that you can always follow us on social media at Plus TV Africa on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, on YouTube, you can find us at Plus TV Africa and at Plus TV Africa Lifestyle, where our programs are live streamed every single day. Well, that's it, we will join the newsroom before the news brief at nine o'clock. Please stay with us. I am Messier Poppo.