Chamber and committees

Thank you.

Thanks for that.

My last question is about expectations with regard to the differential between the caseloads of ADP and PIP. We have already discussed how that has narrowed a little bit, as the figures show. In a recent evidence session, we questioned David Wallace about the authorisation rate, and he said that it was not a policy decision or something that they were looking at proactively, but they were trying to understand what had happened there, too.

That said, I take your point, Professor Roy, that you do not expect that to remain in that space, and that it might start to change again. Again, the changing nature of the forecasting makes things difficult for us to understand. Can you say anything about that?

Good morning. As a former Scottish Women’s Aid worker, I am delighted that we are having this discussion, and I hope that the regulations will be approved.

My questions follow on from Claire Baker’s questions. We know that, when women who are experiencing domestic abuse leave, that is the most dangerous time for them. I worry that, as Marsha Scott has set out, the circumstances that we are talking about would present an equally dangerous period for such women, so the guidance will be critical in that respect. How can we ensure that support organisations and social landlords are aware of the complexity surrounding the issue? I have a bit of a concern about their seeking to raise an action when the person experiencing domestic abuse is not quite comfortable with that. I want to ensure that that issue is being considered and that we think through all the possibilities of what could happen during such a difficult time.

A few of my questions have already been answered or touched on, which is just the nature of how our questioning goes.

I want to press a bit more on case loads, which are rising right across the UK. In February, the office of the chief social policy adviser in Scotland is due to publish a report that will look back over the past decade—actually, more than a decade; back to 2010—to unpick and understand what the trends are. It is difficult to separate out speculation from the hard causal linkages that we are looking for, but will you speak a little bit about that? We know about the ageing population and the issues in regard to mental health, as you said. When things look uncertain, that makes it really difficult for this committee, the Parliament and the Government to set policy and strategy for the future. You also touched on the differences in the authorisation rates, which might have had an influence on the position between ADP and PIP. Again, that makes it a bit difficult for us to unpick everything behind it. Those are my questions; you have already touched on them a little bit, but anything else that you can offer would be helpful.

Before you bring in Michael Davidson, can you tell us whether, in terms of the increase in the child disability payment numbers and the flow through, perhaps, to those individuals getting the adult disability payment, you have any understanding as to whether the increase is related to mental health or neurodevelopmental issues rather than any physical health issues? That might not be a question for you to answer, but it just came to mind as you were talking about the issue.

One of the other issues that were raised with us is the fact that, although EHOs have been operating and dealing with tattoo and piercing licensing since 2006, this stretches their expert knowledge to an area that they are perhaps not familiar with and which is outside of their usual expertise. Will you set out how the Government—or perhaps the expert group that you talked about—could facilitate learning in order to extend EHOs’ knowledge to cover this?

I have a few questions about the good food nation plan. The committee took evidence and published our report on it in September. One of our conclusions was that, in order to have success in ensuring that the plan results in a better diet and improved health outcomes, there needed to be a clear line of sight to the plan’s goals across very different policy areas. We know that there will be competing policy areas in the budget, and we have already spoken this morning about trying to break down the siloed approach. My question is about how governance and funding decisions will be reached in a way that will prioritise public health and a healthy diet, given the competing pressures in thinking about the economy. If we think about products that might have an impact on health but might have priority in another policy area, how do we ensure that they are thought about in relation to the good food nation plan and health outcomes?

With regard to monitoring the implementation of the plan to ensure public health outcomes, the prevention of ill health and the promotion of healthy living, how will the Scottish Government monitor the effects on health inequalities and ensure that they are prioritised? From your perspective as the health secretary, how will you do that?

I want to spend a bit of time looking at local authority capacity and resourcing. Local authorities told the committee that they were concerned about their environmental health officer capacity, because, as we know, there are a lot of vacancies in the system. There is also concern that the licensing fees alone may not cover the cost of the system, especially in the start-up phase, when there is a lot of training and development of processes and initial inspections that will be resource intensive. Will you set out how the Scottish Government intends to support resources or give additional support to ensure that local authorities can fulfil their new licensing duties effectively?

Good morning. Given the committee’s recent inquiry into neurodevelopmental assessment pathways, are you able to give us any indication as to where the £7.5 million that has been announced in the budget to improve those pathways for children and young people will be deployed?