That answer is another indication of a minister with his head in the sand. The report is stark. In the absence of an effective land requirement assessment, Homes for Scotland has gone out and done the work and it estimates that a quarter of a million households need a home. Instead of building them, the Government is slashing our housing supply budget. Housing starts are falling off a cliff. The housing association sector has already passed judgment on the Scottish Government’s budget by saying that it is an “act of surrender” and that

“the cut is a terrible blow to efforts to tackle child and family poverty.”

I say to the minister that the first step in solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is one. How much more evidence, and how many more reports and pleas from organisations will it take for the Government to accept that there is a housing emergency of its own making and that serious action needs to be taken now?

Communities across Inverclyde, in my region, are deeply concerned about the possibility of a permanent reduction in availability of their out-of-hours services and what that will mean for local communities. I pay tribute to local campaigners, including local councillors—in particular, Martin McCluskey—for all their work in pushing forward the case for the value of those services. That marks quite a contrast to the member for Greenock and Inverclyde, who, according to reports in the Greenock Telegraph, has already given up the fight and accepted that his constituents and mine will have to put up with reduced services.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise the value and importance of a full out-of-hours service in Inverclyde? Will he listen to local people’s views and deliver more than just a weekend-only out-of-hours service, as local people deserve?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to discuss out-of-hours GP services in Inverclyde. (S6O-02989)

It is important to the committee that we understand the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s views on that, the extent to which there has been collaboration and whether there needs to be follow-up scrutiny, so that undertaking to come back to the committee with the detail is really helpful.

No. That was very useful in terms of the wider piece of work around commissioners. I will pause there.

Sorry. I decided not to touch any buttons because of Fulton MacGregor’s experience earlier, but I should probably have pressed something.

I have a question about the universal periodic review. When the commission wrote the committee about the UK’s fourth cycle of that periodic review, which took place in November 2022, it said that it would be encouraging the UK and Scottish Governments to work constructively together before the formal response to the UPR report was sent. The response was published in March of last year. I am keen to get your views and your assessment of the UK Government’s response and, if you want to comment on this, to hear whether you think that the two Governments worked together on it or whether there could have been more opportunities for that constructive working.

My first question, which is perhaps for Jan Savage in the first instance, is focused on the resourcing of the commission. The commission has not used its power to conduct an inquiry. As we know, it has had to pause litigation work due to capacity issues. Does the commission have sufficient financial and staffing resources to meet its current duties and obligations in Scotland?

We know that there will be future challenges for the commission, and that new duties and powers might arise from the human rights bill. Will you comment on what those challenges might be and the potential need for further resourcing to cover them?

Thank you. Those helpful comments answer some of my supplementary questions.

What is interesting is the discussion and debate around powers for a purpose—new powers for the commission with that sense of purpose. I noted in the “At a crossroads” report the consideration of the wider landscape and the increase in the number of called-for commissioners on a variety of issues that would impact the human rights of individuals. In the Parliament, and perhaps more widely, we are having something of a debate around the need for commissioners, the growth in their numbers and the challenges therein. Do you want to expand more on your views about the increase in the call for commissioners in different areas and perhaps how those calls interact with the work of the SHRC? We have heard a bit about that already. What role does the SHRC feel that it could play instead of some of those other options being taken forward? I do not refer to any commissioner proposal in isolation but more broadly to the principle.

I am interested in understanding more about the costings for new policies that will come in this year. However, my first question is about the impact that delays to new benefits have on forecasting. For example, the delay of carer support payment from spring to autumn has been widely discussed and we have spoken about it in the committee. To what extent does that have an impact on the forecast?

I have a point about the uptake of ADP and the increase in the number of people receiving the benefit. You have said that analysis is under way. Do you intend to share that more widely to inform this committee’s work?