That is helpful. Perhaps I will take up that detail with the Minister for Drugs Policy in our next evidence session.

All of us at the meeting support the naloxone programme, but it has not gone where we wanted it to. Part of the frustration about the task force is that some of the key recommendations that the Government accepted do not seem to have been implemented. I fully understand that you are new to the role, but can you tell me why those discussions with Community Pharmacy Scotland have not taken place?

It would be helpful to get an update on timescales. I was a member of the Health and Sport Committee in session 5, and we understood that the work would be moved forward quite quickly. The opportunity to provide some sort of traffic-light warning system for patients was discussed, but that does not seem to have materialised. I hope that that will become a genuine priority and that progress will be made on that.

I turn to review of available treatments, on which I have corresponded with you for some time. I am thinking about the potential availability of treatment such as neuro-electric therapy. Where is the Government with the work to enable people to feel that they are genuinely able to take decisions about what is best for them and their families, given where they are with their addictions, and to support their decision making and empowerment?

I thank the witnesses for those answers. Tony Cain is right that it is an art form, and not necessarily a science.

Homes for Scotland’s useful briefing ahead of today’s meeting talked about flexibility and what that should look like. It highlighted that alternative sites could be given planning permission for housing if those that are allocated in local development plans prove not to be deliverable. If there is no change in how the estimates are formed, what would such flexibility look like? How can we direct new developments to where they are needed? What are the witnesses’ thoughts on that? I will bring in Nicola Barclay, as I mentioned Homes for Scotland’s call for flexibility.

Thank you. Convener, I am happy to hand back to you, given the time.

Good morning to the panel. Thank you for joining us. I have a few questions about the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement. First, what are your views on the process and methodology that have been used to establish it? I will start with you, Tony Cain, as you have touched on issues about housing in Lothian. If anyone else would like to come in, I ask them to type R in the chat function.

It would be useful to update the committee on any timelines that the Government is aware of for that independent review, because we are keen to add value to the process where we can.

I want to ask about changes that I think that the DWP has announced today to the PIP application process to try to make it easier for people to start a new claim. Has the Scottish Government captured and been involved in that work? The changes relate to individuals who need assistance to make a claim. For example, a supporting person, rather than the individual making the claim, will be able to make a phone call. Will those changes be captured in any changes to the ADP system, so that we have a system that can be flexible at UK level and in Scotland? Is the minister aware of that?

Congratulations on your appointment, convener. I, too, pass on my thanks to Neil Gray. We will miss his colourful socks in committee, when we are able to meet in person again.

Good morning, minister. I have a few questions that carry on the line that Foysol Choudhury developed. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the merits of a single disability benefit that would apply to children and to working age and older people?

It is an important area, and we should develop it in some of the work that is going on.

I want to return to younger people, because it is important that the system can meet their needs. How has the system been designed to consider younger people? They may not be encouraged to apply or be aware of what benefits are available. How will the situation change compared to what has gone previously?

I have two questions, the first of which is on the back of the letter that you sent to the committee yesterday, about the recruitment of practitioners. We have previously discussed the development of hubs and where people will be located to work. Could you update the committee on that? Also, I discussed with you previously the potential to create local authority hubs where people could go to access practitioners, and how they can help people in their homes as the pandemic regulations are lifted. Where is the Government on the development of potential hubs for such practitioners?

That is helpful. Thank you very much. The last time that we discussed this, it was not necessarily clear whether the practitioners would be located in hubs, so I welcome any additional information that you can provide us with, as and when it develops.

Finally, I want to ask about the financial projections. Information that the committee has been given, specifically that from some of the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, suggests that in 2026, spend on ADP could rise to £567 million. The budget for this year looks to be around £38 million. We are debating stage 1 of the budget this afternoon, so are there any updated figures for the current financial projections?