Ymddwn i, neswn. Yn y cyfrififorol ym mulleidwyr mewn cyfrififorol yng Nghreiffeithiau ddweud yng Nghreiffeithiau travelled gan y Parlyme i miärw hefyd o'is bobbyn sydd wedi eu cyfrififorol yn y mynd i gyfloedd y Pwg dechrau ei gyfriforol, wrth gwrs. Fynau gwybod hynny chi gweithio â'i cyfriforol, fel mae'n ei ddweud mewn cyfriforol i'r Cyfriforol i'r cyfriforol yng nghreiffodol dechrau drempwyr yn y cyfriforol yng Nghreiffeithiau ddweud, wrth hyfforddu'r ddigwyddum plesorbyn Wy ISIS yw ddech焚? stage 2, that is, SP Bill 18A, the second revised marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon and the period of voting for that first division will be 30 seconds, then after there will be one minute for the first division following a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call that group. We turn now to the marshaled group of amendments and I call amendment 17 in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendment 18. Jackie Baillie, to move amendment 17 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I wish to move amendment 17 in my name. It is a very simple one-word amendment on which I hope that the entire chamber can agree. Members will know that several equality groups called for the introduction of a principle in section 1 of the Social Security Scotland Bill, which would embed equality in our social security system. My colleague Mark Griffin lodged a number of amendments to the bill at stage 2, supported by the coalition for racial equality and rights in gender and Scottish women's aid. All, but this one, were agreed. I know in the way of the things that behind the scenes there have been discussions between officials of the Scottish Government and CRER in gender and women's aid, but no conclusion reached prior to the amendment deadline for stage 3. Hence, it is before the chamber today. I believe that the Scottish Government's intentions are good, but essentially the language within the bill as it stands is weak. The thinking is that, rather than promoting the goals of equality and non-discrimination, the Scottish social security system and indeed other public bodies should deliver it. Under the Equality Act 2010, all public authorities are required to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant, protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. That ties the principles into the Equality Act and provides legislative backing for that requirement. The principle would be considerably strengthened by that change in wording. That would not simply be about duplicating Equality Act obligations, because research shows us that public bodies are not fully aware of their duties and often do not adhere to them properly. Having that on the face of the bill would align with the Scottish Government's Equality Responsibilities under the Scotland Act 1998 to promote compliance with the Equality legislation. Above all, it would be the right thing for this Parliament to do. I move amendment 18. I call Adam Tomkins to speak to amendment 18 and the other amendment in the group. Amendment 18 is designed to continue and hopefully to complete the work that was started at stage 2 when we were seeking in the Social Security Committee to clarify the legal effect of the principles on which the Scottish social security system is to be based. We all accept and agree with the Scottish Government's proposition that the Scottish social security system should indeed be based on a set of agreed principles that are listed at the beginning of the legislation in section 1. Turning that policy intention into statute law runs risks that there will be unnecessary litigation that is designed simply to clarify in courts or tribunals what the legal effect of those principles might be even if we are all agreed on their political effect. Section 1A of the bill, which was added at stage 2, is designed to start that work of clarifying what the legal effect of the principles is to avoid the risk of unnecessary future litigation. Amendment 18 is designed to complete that work. It simply clarifies that the statutory purpose of the Scottish social security principles is so that they can be reflected in the charter, which we will come to in a few moments. Indeed, so that the Scottish commission on social security can have regard to them when making recommendations as required by the various provisions of the bill that pertain to the commission. That is an amendment that has been agreed with the Government, and I would like to thank the minister for her help in having it drafted. That is its point, and I move it. Presiding Officer, I am very conscious that we have a great deal to get through this afternoon and into this evening, so I am happy to simply say that I support both amendments in this group, both of which I believe provide additional strengthening to the bill. Thank you.  On that basis, I am delighted that I do not need to add anything else, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. In that case, the question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. That is agreed. Can I call amendment 18, in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated? Adam Tomkins, to move or not move? Moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. That is agreed. I call amendment 19, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 19 and to speak to all amendments in the group 2. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group are minor and technical adjustments to improve the structure of the bill, improve the consistency of expression across sections, add some clarifications and make some minor fixes. We have already provided detailed information to business managers, so I do not believe that I need to say much more about those amendments. However, I want to indicate my support for amendment 104, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and having said that, I move amendment 19. Thank you very much. Jeremy Balfour, to speak to amendment 104 and other amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, thank you. Can I very briefly move amendment 104, my name? It is a technical turning up, which gives clarity to the role of the low and upper tribunals and that of the commission. I am grateful to the minister and her officials for the help in drawing to this motion and I am happy to support all the other amendments in this section that the minister has just moved. Thank you very much. Does the minister wish to add anything to the way of winding up remarks? No, I am fine. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, Jeremy Balfour. Technicality, I should have said at the start of this debate today that I should declare that I am in the sheet of a higher rate of PIP, which is on my end to declare that at this stage as one of the benefits that we will be dealing with later. Thank you, Mr Balfour, for noting that for the official report. So, we move on to the question. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move now to group 3, and I call amendment 1, in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pauline McNeill, to move amendment 1, in a speech to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have taken a strong interest in the question of whether benefits can be automated, so those who are entitled. We know from the DWP estimates that £13 billion a year is not claimed by people who are entitled to assistance, and in Scotland that could be as many as 500,000 individual cases. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Scottish Government and the Minister Jeane Freeman for working with me to put those amendments together. I know that she is committed as I am to making sure that, where we can, it is easier for people to get benefits that are entitled to. That will go beyond the bill, and we did it in the child poverty act. Moving amendment 1 and speaking to amendment 11, amendment 1 is the recognition of the importance of the available data that simply means that ministers can use the data on the first application to ensure that they can use that to assess whether someone might be eligible for another benefit. Amendment 11 is the important amendment here, because it places a duty on Scottish ministers to either inform the individual that they may be eligible for assistance and provide information about how to apply for that assistance or allow for a more automated determination of whether that person can receive that without making any more applications. That is the important thing here, that once you have made an application, there is a duty on the agency to ensure that you are entitled to any other benefits than the agency can assist you in doing that. Thank you very much. I call Ruth Maguire to speak to amendment 20 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 20 and 21 in my name. I am grateful to Mark Griffin for his support with this amendment, as well as the support that is provided by stakeholders, in particular the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, in encompassing all of the information that the act requires ministers to make publicly available. That amendment would also cover information such as posters, information leaflets and appointment information, as opposed to only the more formal types of documents listed under 1D. Perhaps most importantly, in contrast to 1D, my amendment ensures that communication accessibility is mainstreamed and normalised, as opposed to only implemented on an individual and proportionate basis. Under 1D, a person would have to know where to go and then ask for accessible information. In addition to the use of the term proportionate, it implies that the provision of communication accessible information will be dependent on whether the agency decides the costs are worth it or whether the individual needs merit expenditure, therefore potentially discriminating against the interests of minority needs. By contrast, my amendment enshrines accessible information in the social security system as a matter of course. In that, it complements my previous amendment 1C on inclusive communication, which is about supporting individuals to use whatever ways of understanding our best for them. That can only be a good thing, no one has ever complained that a public system was too easy to understand or engage with. Inclusive communication and accessible information are crucial elements in building a system based on dignity and respect for all those who use it. I urge colleagues to support my amendment. I thank you very much. Jeremy Balford spoke to amendment 22 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Whenever one applies for a benefit, it can be, as we have already heard, for Ruth Maguire, a difficult procedure that often performs however simple we make them. People require advice and assistance to do that. The amendments in my name in this section again clarify where the committee has been going on a journey. It would be fair to say that, as we started our stage 1, there was within perhaps all of our minds some confusion in regard to what advocacy which we will come on to later was and what legal advice and assistance was. It has been very helpful. I welcome the Government to move in regard to it that we have now separated the two out and there is a clear distinction between the two. I think that it is very important that an individual has that right and that that right is independent of the Scottish Government. I think that we are very fortunate here in Scotland that across the country there are many groups, whether within local authorities or third sector, which are providing that advice and assistance, which is independent to claimants. Clearly, that has to happen through the whole process from when somebody goes to find out whether they are entitled to a claim all the way through to if they have to go to a first tier tribunal. I am grateful again for the minister in clarifying her support just to confirm also that, in regard to the other amendments within this group, we will be supporting them as well. I call on the minister, Jeane Freeman, to speak to amendment 36 and the other amendments in the group. I am grateful to Ms McNeill, Ms Maguire and Mr Balfour for providing amendments that I believe strengthen in this section of the bill. I am pleased to support them all. They are about ensuring that people get all the assistance that they should through the Scottish social security system. Those amendments that are not in my name in this group link to section 1b, which places Scottish ministers under a duty to promote take-up of assistance. In that way, they are linked to my amendments 36 and 38. Those amendments build on the duty to promote take-up of assistance by requiring the Government to publish and periodically revise a strategy for promoting the take-up of assistance. The strategy, which will be produced through a process of consultation, will set out the Government's best estimate of the extent to which people are getting the assistance that they should be getting and what steps the Government will be taking proactively to boost take-up rates over the strategy's lifetime. Taken as a package, the amendments in this group, together with the provisions already in the bill, will enshrine in law the Government's commitment to ensuring that everyone gets the assistance that they are entitled to through our social security system, and will provide a mechanism for scrutinising the efforts of this and future Governments towards achieving that goal. As members will know, my party is not represented on the Social Security Committee, but I am very grateful to the Minister for Opposition members and the stakeholder groups for keeping us abreast of this. This group of amendments is very important to my party in terms of improving uptake. We know from Scottish Government statistics that as many as 500,000 families in Scotland are not getting the benefits to which they are entitled, so we heartily support all members' amendments in this group. I am proud of what we have all achieved in this group and in this section in the bill. I am pleased that it builds on one of the key and long-running agreements that we have had with the Government that the system should maximise people's incomes as much as possible. In 2016, we secured from the Government an agreement that there should be a statutory duty to maximise incomes, although there has been some disagreement along the way that this now takes its form at section 1B. 2 billion pounds of benefits go unclaimed every year. Most of that is reserved, and that money could lift families and communities out of poverty and boost local economies. I know that the minister supports that approach. She has written in the daily record about how she envisages a Scotland-once approach, and this must extend to take up the same intentions to minimise forms and link best start-grat take-up to council service as an example that the minister has used. Pauline McNeill secured an agreement at stage 2 to have a system that would lead to the automation of benefits or the bonfire of benefit forms as it was put. That progress is very welcome. Amendments 1 and 11 have the Government's support, and I am pleased that they will be in the legislation. Equally, I am pleased to support Ruth Maguire's amendments 20 to 21, which takes my section 1D and ensures that everyone using the agency gets the information, the letters, the advice and records that they need in the most inclusive and suitable form that fits their needs. We have some concerns with the Government's amendments 36 to 39. My amendments at stage 2 set wide-ranging requirements on the Government to make its duty to promote take-up a reality and record progress in detail areas where more work is needed. We had the Government's support at the time. Target-based strategy to boost take-up requires the Government to come forward with measurable outcomes for which statistics should be released regularly. I was disappointed to see that the minister wishes to remove those provisions. I have to say that we had discussions and I agreed with the minister on some changes that should have been made because of the potential impact on the fiscal framework, but I still felt that those targets should remain in place. In Northern Ireland, targets are being shown to work, where they are boosting the incomes of those targeted by £65 per week. It would have been more helpful to see those parts of the amendments that will be passed at stage 2 to stay within the legislation to see real progress and targets and progress made against those targets to boost the incomes of low-income families in Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I call on Pauline McNeill to wind up on this group of amendments. Just a minute, Presiding Officer. I think that this is going to be a very important aspect of the bill in terms of the practicalities of running the agency. I think that it will genuinely help people to uptake their benefits when the agency is finally set up and I'm happy to leave it at that. Thank you very much. The first question is, that amendment 1, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call on amendment 20 in the name of Ruth Mackuire. Ruth Mackuire, to confirm that she's moving. The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 21 in the name of Ruth Mackuire. Ruth Mackuire, to move or not move. Are we agreed? We are. Is Jimmy Balford divisted? Are we, or not moved? We are. I am. Do you agree? I agree. I agree. Although members may have a waft of focus comment about June Freeman's amendment 19. Three of theut is the key points of the committee should be divided Рe אז? Gweithio, gweld Zeitudeigus ond yr adul Pen Cymru yn dangos dit pam Order 110. Erbomet Sir, Jo Chyn railroadiaethau, i that eich bobl fflais yn cais i dŷm i ddefnyddio, roi dniwn i f childhood sydd i dŷmbeithio Bodyth, i ffrwng ysgrifiann phailf pepperonu – Will the cabinet secretary say who to go ahead with the meeting, John Lyleie? That question Moved Moved Moved The question is that amendment 26 Moved Moved The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. Move. Move. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister, already debated, or group, sorry. I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister, and this is grouped with amendments 31, 32, 34, 35 and 94. Minister, to move amendment 29 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 29 and the others in this group make further provision in relation to independent advocacy services. I'm delighted to say that amendment 31 widens the definition of the group of people who will have a right to access independent advocacy services. Expanding and improving my stage 2 amendment, I'm pleased to say that these new amendments will ensure that these services can be accessed by people who, because of a disability, require an advocate's help to engage effectively with the system. Amendments 29, 32 and 34 are simply adjustments to make amendment 31 work. Since the end of stage 2, my officials and I have been working with stakeholders and MSPs to ensure that we have the right definition for this additional support. The amendments that we are debating today have the support of a range of organisations, including Disability Agenda Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, the Scottish Commission for Learning Disability, Citizens Advice Scotland, Camp Hill Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council. I'm grateful to all the representatives of those and other organisations who have worked with us to develop and agree those amendments. However, in providing for this advocacy support, we as a Government must ensure that it is available across Scotland and that a person can be assured of an equity of standards and service, whether you are in Dumfries, Dundee, Lerwick or Lothimouth. A report published last year by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance is clear that, in relation to advocacy services across Scotland, provision for people with physical disabilities is patchy and was identified as a gap in many areas, as was provision for people with issues relating to benefits and changes to social security. The Scottish Commission for Learning Disability has told me of similar concerns that there are insufficient advocacy providers, that it is difficult to recruit advocates in remote areas and that a dispersed population makes for difficulties with service provision. We have to make sure that that changes. I have lodged amendment 35, which provides for advocacy service standards. That will ensure that those who enter into agreements with ministers to provide independent advocacy services for those people who we are ensuring have a right to them will provide that consistency of service standards. That approach—central funding and agreements based on mutually agreed standards—is exactly the same as we would expect of other services that we provide funding for, such as the national standards for information and advice providers that are used in the money and debt advice sector. In developing those standards, we will make use of existing models, such as SIWA's advocacy code of practice and their independent advocacy evaluation framework, because it would be foolish not to. We will do what we always do, which is to develop the standards in consultation with relevant organisations and, importantly, with the people who currently access advocacy services. We want to ensure that, whether we meet the expectations that people will have in exercising that new right. The Social Security Bill has, within it, I believe many important and exciting innovations. Enshrining in law the right to independent advocacy services as we set out in those amendments is one of them. So, too, is ensuring that the regulations that will govern the standards will be approved by this Parliament. Instead of introducing service-level agreements across the country, we want the service standards to be agreed by this Parliament. That is why amendment 94 specifically inserts a reference to the new section on advocacy service standards into section 55, which governs the regulation-making powers in the bill to ensure that regulations to set out the advocacy service standards will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will therefore be scrutinised by this Parliament. I hope that members will agree that those amendments represent significant progress in the area of social security and provide a significant package of support for people who would otherwise struggle to access the support that they need and the entitlement that is their right. I move amendment 29. Ruth Maguire to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. A great deal of skill, knowledge and sensitivity is required to provide quality independent advocacy support to people. We have a range of high-quality services operating in Scotland, not least Ames, in Stevenson and my constituency. With the substantial additional requirements and investment in line with our new social security system, it is crucial that we ensure that those high levels of service are maintained. The Scottish Commission on Learning Disabilities is currently carrying out a scoping study into advocacy services, which highlights the need for consistent standards of services right across Scotland to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live, can access the same standard of advocacy services. That is backed by similar evidence from the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance's map of advocacy across Scotland, which highlights lack of consistency in some services. Introducing advocacy service standards will ensure equity of standards and service for all people in Scotland. I support the fact that those standards will be produced in consultation with the sector and those who rely on the services and, crucially, that they will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. I support the amendment. I welcome the minister's remarks and the movement that the Government has made over the past number of weeks in regard to that. I think that the definition of disability or being disabled is a much better and stronger definition than was agreed at stage 2 by the committee. I think that we now have to work as a Parliament and as a Government in regard to when the regulations are drawn up to make sure that we understand what we mean by that definition. I think that there is work out there to be done with advocacy groups, with disability groups and with others within the third sector. However, I think that that definition allows the Parliament to know that advocacy will go to those who need it. That is the key thing. Not everybody needs an advocate when we go through this process. To simply open it up to everyone, I think that we would disadvantage those who need it and put extra pressure financially on the Scottish Government and on advocacy groups. I think that there is a challenge of how we will deliver that in time for when the regulations are up and running in different areas. As I have spoken to different groups, as the minister has said, there is quite a different picture of where you go in Scotland. We are very fortunate that there are many good groups who are already up and running and will be able to provide the service. However, having talked to other groups in other parts of the country will be a challenge, and we need to make sure that they have the appropriate resources and training to do it. It is also very important to read those amendments with something that was approved previously. An individual will have the right to have somebody of their choice all the way through the process, which is different from what is happening at the moment. It is a very positive step forward by the Scottish Government. It also means that, often, an advocate will not be required because the individual will have somebody there that they know already who can be that advocate and that support. It would be fair to say that it is amendment 35 that is perhaps the most controversial one within the group. We will be supporting the Government on this afternoon, because we need to have a standard that can be applied across the whole of the country. There is a danger that, in part of the country where, perhaps, there are not good advocacy services, you end up with individuals simply jumping up and saying, I could be an advocate, can I have money, please? That would be the wrong way forward. We need to be able to meet the right standards. We need to be able to give the appropriate service to those that require it. I welcome the minister's remark that she has made this afternoon. She will consult with the groups that are already doing it and those that are interested in it, as those regulations are drawn up. Ultimately, it will be a decision for this Parliament as to whether we approve or not approve these regulations. I suspect that this might be a common theme as we go through this afternoon into this early evening. This is simply the start of the journey. We do not finish today by simply passing this into an act. The regulations are going to be key for individuals, and this area is something that my group and my party would be very happy to work with the Government on to make sure that we get them right for each individual across the country. First, I congratulate the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance and the third sector for getting the right to advocacy into the bill. In terms of social security across the UK, they should be proud that, because of their work, they will now be a right to advocacy in legislation. That is a measure that makes the legislation in itself groundbreaking. Key to the Scottish Labour approach to the social security bill has been a clear desire to ensure that our right to independent advocacy is included in the legislation. In our submission to the stage 1 consultation in the bill, we agreed that provision was needed. We said that even if there are fewer face-to-face assessments and the private sector is removed from the system, we recognise that independent advocacy is vital to ensure that the system is responsive to the needs of disabled people. That support, along with the voices of voluntary and advocacy organisations, significantly shifted the Government's position on the right to advocacy. When Jeremy Balfour had his amendment that he chose not to move at stage 2, I think that the committee still made clear that aside that the Scottish Government's proposal to limit to mental health conditions was a starting point and not the end point in what we expected to see in the legislation. The minister's new amendment states that those with a disability will be able to access independent advocacy. As that will cover those who have the most significant needs, I will apply to the agency under the most complex processes that are flown from the bill and meets our test from the stage 1 submission. We support the Government wholeheartedly. We have heard concerns that amendment 35 puts the independence of advocacy organisations at risk and could set a precedent for Scottish Government influence over third sector providers. Advocacy organisations already have a code of practice and they have real concerns that an independent organisation outside of Government who would advise applicants or perhaps people who were appealing against decisions of an arm of Government should be wholly independent and would not like to see service standards being set by that Government. They would rather see independent standards being set for those organisations. It is for those reasons that we will not be supporting amendment 35. George Adam is followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. As always, I will take that on in a practical manner because I am a very practical individual. I take on both what Jeremy Balfour said that he believes—excuse me—if a paraphrasing that there could be a case where people could just set themselves up as an advocate in any high street, anywhere across the country, if there was not any kind of standards there as well. That is a concern because of the quality of the actual advocacy that they get. However, with practicality, and it is just a question directly to the minister, is not the case that amendment 35 is standard practice currently anyway? Because the Scottish Government already produces guidance for commissioners of independent advocacy, which includes the set of principles and standards that are developed by the SIA that commissioners are used to ensure that the organisation individuals they commission provide independent advocacy services. At that point, when we are looking at providing a better service and providing more money into advocacy, why would anyone not want to ensure that they had that standard across Scotland and that that standard was available throughout the country? The standard to protect people and protect those organisations is providing a good standard of service for people. That is one of the most important things as well. Let us not get into a stage where people's professionalism is possibly doubted, because there may have been other people saying their advocates when they have not been. It is very important to have that here. The minister could answer those questions. Alex Cole-Hamilton is to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Given that in the passage of the act, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society, sometimes existing on the edges of our society, many of whom may have complex communication difficulties, the provision of an advocate to help to navigate through the landscape of the benefit environment and to communicate the views and needs of the people who are applying for those benefits is absolutely vital. Liberal Democrats are delighted to see provision of advocacy on the surface of the bill. We certainly support the Government's amendment 31 in expanding to whom that applies. That is a very clear and important improvement. We have come on a bit of a journey in this country in the provision of advocacy, since it was first properly defined in law under the terms of the 2003 mental health act. I was very involved with the range of stakeholders in the passage of the Children's hearings act, which saw a right to independent advocacy for young people coming before the children's panel. We have done that before and we have not felt the need to have Government-defined standards in its provision. Indeed, advocacy is, by its nature, adaptive to the circumstances around it. It changes the needs of people who require it to change from rurality to urban populations. There is a range of different organisations providing it sometimes on a voluntary basis. It is already well self-regulated. I would say to George Adam in his last remark, his question to the cabinet secretary about the fact that the Government already provides guidance. While it certainly provides guidance, there is a very clear difference between guidance and standards. I think that that takes the reach of Government abridge too far, which might actually close off the provision of advocacy to those who need it, so that the Liberal Democrats will be opposing amendment 35. I, like others, very much welcome the right advocacy within the bill and rise to speak in favour of all the amendments in the group in the name of the minister. I speak particularly to amendment 35, which I also support for a number of reasons. First of all, in my view, it is important that amendment 35 is passed in order that we ensure that Parliament MSPs will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulatory framework proposed by the Scottish Government. I think that why would we not want that opportunity to scrutinise this matter, particularly in the interests of making sure that there is a consistency of standards applied across the country, and that the same standards that are delivered by advocacy services to a high quality of my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland are consistently delivered going forward? The fact that we are putting the right advocacy on the face of the bill makes the necessity of standardisation and a consistency in professional service of higher importance and higher priority. We need to be able to assure those who use those advocacy services that they are getting a high quality service and a proper service. Through consultation with advocates and consultation with others involved in the sector, I think that the proposal that those regulations would be brought to Parliament, scrutinised and taken forward, is absolutely the right and proper and professional way to go about implementing the right advocacy. Therefore, I urge members to support all the amendments in the group and particularly amendment 35. I thank Mr Balfour for reminding us quite rightly that, even when we pass the legislation, our work is not done. There will be a great deal more to do for all of us in drafting all the regulations that will flow from the bill. The regulations that we are discussing here are one of the most important set. There are many groups to thank for getting us to this place. I would particularly like to single out Inclusion Scotland, Camp Hill Scotland and DAS for the hard work that they have put in to help us to refine our position on advocacy support to a much better place than we were at stage 2. Let me turn to amendment 35. There is nothing sinister in this amendment. It is entirely about ensuring consistency of quality and delivery across the country, which is, of course, entirely consistent with a rights-based approach. To Mr Adam's question, yes, he is, of course, right. We do have guidance for commissioners on independent advocacy, which includes a set of principles and standards that they are required to comply with. We also have produced financial support to the Scottish legal aid board to manage the accreditation process for the Scottish national standards for information and advice providers. What we are trying to do here is to add extra to that. We already have standards for services that we provide across the country to ensure consistency of service and high quality, but I want this Parliament to be able to look at the regulations that describe what those standards are, which we will have reached having had that wild consultation, having started on the basis of the professional expertise and experience that already exists in the advocacy world that my colleagues have already referred to, but then ensuring that it is this Parliament as it should be that provides the scrutiny to that and approves those regulations when we bring them forward. I urge members to support amendment 35. It is entirely consistent with a rights-based approach that says that if you want to provide a service, you need to make sure that every single person in Scotland who is entitled to that service can trust that they will receive the same quality of provision as any other person. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 30 to 34, all the name of the minister, all previously debated, minister, to move amendments 30 to 34? Move formally. Thank you. Does any one object to amendments 30 to 34 be moved on block? Being voted on block? No, they do not. Good. The question is, therefore, that amendments 30 to 34 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call the minister to move amendment 35? Moved. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. This is the first division of the day, so there is going to be a five-minute suspension of what we call members to the chamber, so a five-minute suspension. Thank you. That is the suspension over. We will now proceed with a division on amendment 35. So this will be a 32nd vote on amendment 35, and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 35, in the name of Gene Freeman, is yes, 90, no, 33. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 36? Moved. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 36, in the name of Gene Freeman, is yes, 90, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 37? Moved. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 37, in the name of Gene Freeman, is yes, 97, no, 25. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 38? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 38, in the name of Gene Freeman, is yes, 97, no, 26. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 39? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 39, in the name of Gene Freeman, is yes, 97, no, 26. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 40? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 5. I call amendment 41, in the name of Adam Tomkins, grouped with amendments 42, 2, 46, 66 and 15. Can I ask Adam Tomkins to move amendment 41 and to speak to other amendments in the room? The amendments in this group pertain to section 1J, which is introduced into the bill at stage 2 and is a statutory restriction on the involvement of the private sector in assessments for disability assistance. There was a concern amongst a number of us that the wording of that section, as introduced at stage 2, was drawn so tightly that it would inadvertently prohibit the involvement of certain medical experts in the involvement of assessments, particularly if they had self-employment relationships with the NHS rather than were employed as a matter of employment law under that technical definition of employment. After I lodged the amendment 41 in my name, the minister lodged amendment 42 in her name, and if she moves that amendment and presses it to a vote, I will happily withdraw amendment 41, because I think that the minister's amendment will not press amendment 41 to a vote, because I think that the wording of amendment 42 more accurately captures the policy intention that I had in seeking to bring amendment 41 to the chamber, so we will support amendment 42 in the minister's name, and indeed we will also support the other amendments in this group. Thank you very much, and I call on the minister to speak to amendment 42 and the other amendments in the group. The amendments in this group deal with the important issue of assessments. We have an opportunity in this bill to do things differently and to sweep away what is a failed assessments regime from the DWP. I am pleased to say that now, in not pressing his amendment, I would be happy to support all the amendments in this group, now that Mr Tomkins is not pressing his. I have always been clear that profits should never be a motive or play a part in making decisions in assessing people's eligibility for disability or any other kind of assistance. That is why I brought forward an amendment, now section 1j, that says that an individual cannot be made to attend an assessment by someone who is not employed by a public body. Amendment 42 is a technical adjustment to section 1j to ensure that individuals can be taken on by public bodies as assessors without necessarily having a formal employer-employee relationship. For example, they may indeed be self-employed. Amendment 42, to be clear, in no way allows for a public body to contract with private sector operators to employ assessors as the DWP does. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us to shape amendments 2 and 15 lodged in his name. It is right that, where assessment is deemed necessary, individuals will be assessed by professionals who understand their conditions and the impact of those conditions, so I am happy to support Mr Griffin's amendments. I would also like to thank Alison Johnson again for working with us to shape amendments 46 and 66 lodged in her name. I have always been clear that the Scottish Government will reduce face-to-face assessments by using existing and relevant information to get decisions right first time. It is important that, where an assessment is necessary, the Scottish Government gives consideration as to how it can be undertaken to reduce any impact on the individual. I am therefore very pleased to support Mr Johnson's amendments 2. Given that Mr Tomkins is not pressing his, I would urge all members to support the amendments in this group. Thank you very much. I call on Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 2 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will support Alison Johnson's amendment in this group, although we cannot support the ministers and would not have supported Mr Tomkins' attempt to weaken the hard-won legal ban on the private sector from delivering assessments. While I can see that the meaning in the minister's letter, the flexibility that she is seeking, we feel would allow gig economy assessors, people on zero hours contracts, to provide assessments, and that is not a change that we can support. Amendment 2 in 15 in my name. I am glad to have worked with the Government on those, bringing back the policy intent from stage 2. We will ensure that the assessors are suitably qualified for the condition that they are assessing. That is supported by SAMH. The original impetus behind the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 was to ensure that those who have a mental health condition are assessed by someone who has a suitable professional experience. Just now, 39 per cent of PIP recipients have a psychiatric disorder. All too often, the assessment experience is poor and has contributed to a lack of trust in the system. Met with a lack of understanding and a apparent inability to understand fluctuating conditions and stigmatising attitudes. I ask members to support the amendments in my name and in the name of Alison Johnstone. I will be pleased to support Mark Griffin's amendments in the group. I too have concerns regarding the casualisation of Labour with regard to the Government's amendments, so we will not be supporting those in the group. I would like, however, to thank the minister and the Government very much for the positive constructive way that they have worked with me on tabling those amendments. Fundamental changes to assessments for disability benefits are essential to building a new social security system that is really based on the principles of dignity and respect. It is essential that the current approach to assessments does not continue. Those assessments are often highly stressful and, in many cases, can exacerbate the individual's health condition or disability. In an alarming number of cases, the subsequent decision is then overturned because of the poor quality of that assessment, so clearly something is very wrong indeed. No wonder, then, that a survey of several hundred citizens advice, Scotland clients and advisers showed there. I quote, Highest priority for the Scottish social security system was that the number of unnecessary medical assessments for disability benefits is substantially reduced by making the best use of existing evidence. Members of the social security experience panels made similar comments, and this is what amendment 46 does. If evidence is available through other routes, such as existing evidence from GPs and social care professionals, it is sufficient to corroborate what the individual has claimed on their application form, then the Scottish Government will not be able to require them to undergo assessment. That is aimed at significantly reducing the number of assessments, currently standing at around 96 per cent of all PIC applications. If assessment is required, amendment 66 requires ministers to explain to the individual why this is the case, to also take into account options other than a face-to-face assessment, and, if such an assessment is required, it must be within a reasonable distance of the individual's home. No longer should applicants have to travel long distances on public transport that is not as accessible as it should be. For the avoidance of doubt, the intention here is absolutely not to stop assessments from being done when they are required to determine entitlement, nor if the applicant thinks that they will benefit from having one. However, where evidence can be obtained in a way that is less intrusive and less stressful, then the new principles of the new system dictate that this must be done. Clearly, this amendment is only the beginning of such an approach. It will not have the intended effect on its own. Ministers will need to facilitate information sharing, in particular designing evidence forms issued to GPs, for example, that more clearly relate to the benefit criteria that they do now. I am sure that the minister will be aware of how closely so many people, myself and the thousands of PIP and DLA recipients in Scotland, will be watching how that provision is implemented if passed by Parliament today. To close, if we are to find this new system, as the Scottish Government is rightly intending, on the principles of dignity and respect, then protecting applicants from unnecessary assessments that can cause distress is one way to do so, and I move the amendment in my name. I am grateful to Adam Tomkins' remarks about his own amendments on amendment 41. We had anxieties in the Liberal Democrats about that. I understand his points, but I still think that it would open the door once again to elements of the private sector coming into this process. I think that on balance 42 gets that right, so we will be backing the Government amendment. I hear what my colleagues in the Green and Labour Benches are saying on that, but for the Liberal Democrats that strikes the right balance. I certainly support Mark Griffin's amendments around quality standards and training in the process. I think that it is absolutely right that people have confidence in the assessment process and that people who are carrying it out are trained to a high enough standard that people can understand and have confidence in that process. I think that Alison Johnstone's amendments add a very humane element to this aspect of the bill. I think that it represents an important and well-timed departure from how things have been conducted traditionally by the Department of Work and Pensions in terms of assessment, particularly around disability benefits. It is certainly putting the applicant at the heart of the process and, in many cases, in the driving seat. For that basis, she will be assured of our support for her amendments in that regard. I thank Adam Tomkins to wind up in this section. I therefore just to clarify to presser amendment 41 to withdraw. I have to formally check that does anyone else is ever happy that Mr Tomkins withdraws amendment 41, or that no one else wishes to move amendment 41, I should say. No one does, that is good. I call amendment 42 in the name of the minister. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Will we move to a division on amendment 42? I must make a cast of votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 42 in the name of the minister is, yes, 96, no, 26. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 43 in her name? The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 44? The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call on the minister to move amendment 45 in her name? Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I will call amendment 2 in the name of Mark Griffin, who is already debated with amendment 41. Mark Griffin to move or not move. Moved. The question therefore is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 46 in the name of Alison Johnstone, who is already debated. Alison Johnstone to move or not move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Before I turn to the next section of groupings, members may like to know that we are just slightly behind. We are about five minutes behind our time schedule. I did exercise my power under rule 9.8.4ac to allow that debate and that group to continue and to finish in the time needed. Moving on to group 6, I call amendment 3 in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments 4, 5 and 6. I ask Pauline McNeill of Bowfarn to move amendment 3 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 3 in my name and I speak to amendment 4, 5 and 6, preparation and approval of charter. I launched a series of amendments at stage 2 aimed at making the charter subject to form a parliamentary approval. However, the effect of that would have contradicted the need for a clear and accessible charter. I agreed not to move those amendments at stage 2 and to work with the Scottish Government to come forward with something that would involve some parliamentary approval. The charter being a critical document and various amendments at stage 2 will also ensure that it will be a more critical aspect of the new social security system with reference to the charter. Amendment 4 means that the Government may not make the charter unless a draft has been laid before Parliament with parliamentary approval. Amendment 6 is clear that, if ministers decide to make changes to the charter, then that must also be laid before Parliament. I think that this is the right way for Parliament to be involved in the approval of the charter. I move. I am grateful to Ms McNeill for working with the work that we have done together to bring those amendments forward. I am very pleased to support them. They will cement the charter's status as a fundamental part of the Scottish approach to social security and give this Parliament its rightful place, making future Governments accountable for any attempt to alter the nature of that approach. The question therefore is whether amendment 3 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 47, 48 and 49, all the name of the minister, all previously debated, and can invite the minister to move amendments 47 to 49 on block? Does anyone object if I put all those questions at once on block? Anyone objects? Therefore, the question is that amendments 47 to 49 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 4, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 3? Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 5, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated? Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 50, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 19, minister, to move formally? Move formally. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 6, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. Move. families. The question is that amendments 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 51—in the name of the minister—to move or not move? The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We turn now to group 7. I call amendment 52 in the name of Adam Tomkins in a group of its own and Adam Tauwkens to speak to you and move amendment 52? The bill includes a definition of the Scottish social security system, and that definition is important because the principles that we have already talked about and the charter that we have just talked about will apply within the scope of the Scottish social security system, as defined. It has been my view since the bill was introduced last year that the definition in section 7 of the bill of the Scottish social security system is deficient, but deficient in just one technical particular. We know that there are a number of benefits, there are 11 benefits that are devolved in full, and we know that in addition to that there is the power to top up any reserved benefit, and all of those powers are included within the definition of Scottish social security system as provided for in section 7. However, there is also a third element of devolved social security, and that third element of devolved social security is in section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, and that is the power to create new benefits that do not otherwise fall within the scope of the 11 devolved benefits or the power to top up. The force of amendment 52, which has been drawn up with the assistance of the Government and the Government's lawyers for which I am grateful, is just to ensure that that additional element of devolved social security is for the purposes of the definition of the Scottish social security system that is brought within that definition, so that the full definition of the Scottish social security system will embrace not only the benefits that are devolved in full and the power to top up reserved benefits, but also the power to create new benefits. In that sense, there is a technical amendment that I hope will attract the support of the chamber. I am pleased to support Mr Tomkin's amendment 52. It does, as he said, implement his long-standing view that the bill ought to better reflect the scope of the social security powers devolved to this Parliament. It does so in a way that ensures future schemes to be added to the Scottish system will be introduced through acts of Parliament with the robust scrutiny that process requires and clarifies that ministers should be held accountable for any future schemes that they choose to introduce, so I am happy to support the amendment in his name. Adam Tomkin's to wind up, to press. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Turn now to group 8. I call amendment 7, in the name of Mark Griffin, in a group on its own. Mark Griffin to speak to you and move amendment 7. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendment was lodged in a previous form at stage 2, and I am glad to have worked with the Government to bring it back at stage 3 in a form that we could all support. The amendment seeks to give people a right to cease receipt of assistance at any point and, effectively, say that they no longer wish to receive that assistance. Child poverty action group highlighted that, as is currently allowed under UK law, it is important that people are able to withdraw their application once they have an award. There are circumstances when a person might want to stop getting a particular benefit, even though they are still entitled to it. For example, that may happen when a person or a couple has a choice between two benefits but can only get one of them or a couple has a choice about which of them makes the claim. Child poverty action group highlighted that a couple of people who care for their disabled child, one gets carers assistance for their child but has their own health condition, they get universal credit. In universal credit there are extra amounts for someone who gets a carers benefit and for someone who has a health condition but not both unless they are different people. If they could not withdraw their claim for the other partner to then claim it, they could be over £150 a month worse off because their universal credit will not include a carer's element. I am so happy to move amendment 7 in my name. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for drawing this matter to our attention and for bringing forward the proposition that he did and for working with us to produce amendment 7. I believe that it is now a practical amendment with a sensible purpose that recognises that an individual should have the choice to stop receiving assistance with a defined process for requesting a cancellation that should also ensure that there is no obligation to treat a determination as cancelled if there is any ambiguity in the request. I am pleased to support amendment 7. Thank you. Can I ask Mark Griffin to wind up if he wishes to or to press a withdrawal? Simply to press the amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group number nine. I call amendment 53 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 111, 111A, 111B, 148, 113 and 114. Minister, to speak to amendment 53 and all amendments in the group. As I have said before, the issue that we now turn to has been the most challenging issue that I have faced in all the work for this bill. Support for people who are terminally ill is a complex, sensitive and difficult issue. I am very aware that behind the decisions that we make, there are thousands of people who we must put front and centre of our decisions and our actions. The central principle is that a person who is terminally ill should have the support that they need quickly. I have lodged amendment 148 as an alternative to amendment 111, which I will not be moving. Amendment 148 has been framed carefully to ensure that the sensitive and difficult conversations between an individual and their clinician, which are required in these difficult circumstances, are held when medically necessary to allow for optimal focus on the patient. I believe that providing for maximum clinical judgment is the best way to achieve that. The amendment sets no arbitrary timeframe to the definition of terminal illness but recognises that it is the skill and expertise of the registered medical practitioner that is needed to determine a determinant diagnosis. To support that critical decision making, the amendment allows the chief medical officer in consultation with registered medical practitioners to set a framework in guidance. It is this guidance that will decide when an individual has a progressive disease that can reasonably be expected to cause that individual's death. Both the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer, as our national experts, have reviewed and fully supported the amendment as the best way to achieve timely support for those with a terminal illness. Amendment 113 creates special rules for terminal illness cases. Those guarantee terminally ill people quick access to disability assistance, ensuring that an individual does not have to satisfy a qualifying period in relation to their diagnosis and that they will not have to undergo further assessments to prove that they have a terminal illness. Their awards will be calculated at the latest from the date of application and they will automatically receive the highest rate of financial support to which they are entitled. That is in line with our commitment to the principle of providing support when it is needed and it maintains fast tracking for those with terminal illness to remove any barriers to their receiving support as soon as possible. I understand that that will mean that Mr Macpherson's amendments will automatically fall, but I want to absolutely assure him that my new amendment will cover all people of all ages. Amendments 553 and 114 are minor adjustments needed to make amendments 148 and 113 work. I call on members to assist those with terminal illness by supporting the amendments in this group and I move amendment 53. The reasons behind why I laid the amendments that I have was to extend the definition of terminal illness to ensure that regulations be framed to include anyone under the age of 18 with a progressive disease that very sadly is likely to cause death. My amendment sought to make sure that for those young people special rules would apply so that they got the highest rate of benefit quickly and with no assessment. Doing all that we can to help such young people, those young people and their families is of course very important to us all and that's why, as the minister just said, I'm glad that the new amendment 148 and amendment 113, in the name of the minister, would enable what my proposed amendments intended to deliver and would account for the policy intention to enable anyone under the age of 18 with a progressive disease that likely to cause death to receive the highest rate of benefit quickly and with no assessment. Therefore, given the minister's new amendments will enable this change based on the balance of views of different parties and guidance based on input of clinicians, and given that the minister will not be moving her amendment 111, I do not move and seek to withdraw amendments 111A and 111B and instead encourage all MSPs to support the minister's amendments concerning terminal illness in order to deliver the change that my amendments sought to seek. Thank you very much. I call on Jeremy Balford to be followed by Mark Griffin. I think that, as the minister said, this has definitely been the hardest part of the bill for all of us to get right. It has been a journey that I think we have all been on as a committee and as a Government and I think that we have ended up in the right place for those who are most vulnerable in our society. The reason that I introduced the two-year stage at stage two of the bill was that, from my previous experience sitting on tribunals, there were sadly cases that came before the tribunal where someone who had made an application was terminally ill but was going to live beyond the six-month period, but sadly died quite quickly after that period, did not get into the special rules and did not receive the money that could have helped them to provide better services towards the end of their life. From my perspective, the six-month rule was simply too short a period of time. I welcome the Government's discussion with different groups and with other MSPs on that. To take away the time limit completely is the right way forward, because whatever time you come up with, whether it is six months, one year, two years or five years, it is clearly going to be artificial and clearly some people will get in and some people will not. Having been lobbied heavily by my older brother, it is very difficult for GPs sitting in their room to say with any definition or clarity that sadly you might live for less than six months or two years. As well as given that diagnosis, they also have to deal with that patient with so many other things that are going on in their life. Clearly it is important that people get the right benefit, but it is only one of the things that a GP or a consultant or a nurse has to deal with individually. We have made progress. I think that we are on the right course. I think that the guidance again will be very important. I welcome the minister's assurances that she will work with the medical officers, with the medical profession and with those who work in the sector from the first sector. Can I play a particular credit to Mary Currie and MND for the work that they have done around it and for the helpful information that they have given? Clearly no one wants to make this a party political issue. This is what surely, as a Parliament, we come together to do the best that we can. Can I pay respect to the minister for doing that, for trying to take all of us with her, but most importantly for helping those who have been given a diagnosis that none of us would ever want? Thank you very much. Presiding Officer, we will support all the amendments that are going to be pressed in this group. I particularly thank the minister for bringing forward the amendment on special rules and taking forward the policy from the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. While we were pleased with the changes that were made at stage 2 to increase the definition of terminal illness to be used to two years, the removal of all time limits is a victory for campaigners and those who are terminally ill. Ultimately, the change is very welcome. That change to, essentially, move to base a terminal world on clinical discretion and the needs of the terminal ill was not expected just a matter of months ago. MND and Marie Curie, who have representatives in the gallery today, should be particularly proud of the work that they have done to secure this change. I want to sound a word of caution that, while the change in policy is welcome, we have to learn lessons as to how those changes came about. The lessons that we need to learn are that the processes cannot and should not be a template for how ministers are going to set up the new system. We are expecting sways of regulation that will include the intricate policy design of nine forms of assistance. For the campaigners and for the people for whom the social security system is meant to be an investment, they need the assurances that more detail and policy will be done out in the open, well in advance of decision making in the months ahead. Alison Johnstone, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. I entirely agree that this is one of the most sensitive and challenging issues that we have had to discuss, certainly during the bill process, if not in this Parliament. I am very pleased with the outcome. I welcome the improvements that have been made through the minister's amendment, and we will be supporting all amendments in this group. There were many MSPs on the committee and organisations involved with the bill, and they have worked hard to find a way to resolve the complex issue. The Scottish Greens are very pleased that the new amendment clearly places sensitive, difficult decisions in the hands of clinical experts. In a previous letter to the Scottish Government, the chief medical officer stressed that decisions about when to fast-track people's benefits should focus on the health of the individual, not the medical condition or the timescale. I think that removing that restriction on timescale and allowing medical practitioners to exercise their expert judgment in its fullest capacity is the best way forward for both patients and clinicians. We very much welcome that change, and I, too, would like to express my thanks, in particular to Mary Curie and to MND, whose input in the process has been invaluable. I am sure that every member in the chamber would agree that the measure of a civilised society is the compassion with which it treats those who are given the hardest of news, whether that is in a doctor's surgery or in a hospital. I want to thank the Government on that. I think that they have worked the hardest to build consensus. I know that the work was going on late into the weekend of the wording around this consensus amendment, so I absolutely rise in support of 1.48 and 1.13. I can understand the drivers behind amendment 111, but we would have stuck with the original stage 2 iteration of this, because we felt that it just simply did not extend enough support. It also put doctors in a very invidious position of having to decide not only at that time of that heartbreaking conversation, but whether that meant that somebody got an award or didn't. Policy around end-of-life is always very, very sensitive, and we owe it to all those people who face that devastating news that we will strip out the party politics of it. It is right that we put this in the trust of our clinicians, who I know, I and everybody in the chamber trust implicitly under the guidance of our CMO. I would just like to finish by adding my voice in thanks to MND and Marie Curie, who spelt out in very important personal and visceral detail just what that means to so many people in our country. I thank the Government again for the distance that they have travelled on that. George Adam I am only too aware of being on the committee and, for other reasons, how complex and sensitive and difficult the issue has been. I commend the minister and other colleagues for the fact that we have been able to come to where we are today. It is a difficult conversation that everyone has had to have during this whole debate on terminal illness. Most members will be aware of my wife, Stacey, as MS, and along with only 11,000 others, she is celebrating MS awareness week. That is a progressive disease, but you might think that the way that she has been bullying most of the MSPs today is that she is quite healthy and carrying on with things, but it is MS itself that we could be in a position at that time, eventually, where that could affect us. That is one of the things that I look at all the time when I am looking at issues like that. I also look at the fact that the constituent that I spoke to last week in Paisley, who actually said to me when we were having a discussion about her own individual circumstances and the debate and the amendments in particular. Her argument was that she was looking to have no timescale, because she thought that there should not be a timescale that should be up to the clinicians to decide how we go forward. In closing, we have got ourselves to the right place, because it is not for us as politicians to decide on an arbitrary figure in time that it is up to the clinicians to give them the scope and ability to be able to make sure. We have to take into account that, if someone gets, if we use an arbitrary figure, like two years, three years or whatever, an individual will make life-changing decisions when they get that actual terminal illness diagnosis. Your average clinician is not going to put someone in that position. I think that we have got to a very good place. I think that we have got to a place here now where we have got the public on our side. I think that in the real world, in people's lives, that is what we have been dealing with in that issue. I think that that alone has shown that this Parliament can come to a level of maturity and deal with an issue like that. I will be brief, but there are a couple of things that I want to say. I genuinely appreciate the collective effort and the input from medical professionals, stakeholders and fellow MSPs to find the best approach to terminal illness for our new social security system in Scotland. In all our discussions, people have always given careful consideration to the issues and the complexities involved. I know that we can all agree that the central principle in our approach should be to ensure that those who have to confront all the personal and psychological issues that come with a terminal diagnosis are provided with the support when they need it. Medical practitioners will play a vital role in implementing this important change. I am grateful to the medical professionals for providing their views and for their offer of support in developing the guidance to deliver this new position. I am also grateful to my fellow MSPs for their very considered approach to this complex issue and for continuing to discuss that with me. It is clear that we all agree on the best way forward and I welcome the cross-party support. I believe that we have arrived at the right solution to ensure that people who are already in extremely difficult circumstances are able to access the maximum level of financial support that they are entitled to quickly and with the dignity and the respect that they deserve. Thank you very much. We move to the question that is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn to group 10. I call amendment 54 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 54 and to speak to all amendments in the group. The amendments in this group will create a right to appeal to the first tier tribunal against a decision to reject an application for assistance or redetermination on the grounds that has not been validly made. Amendments were agreed at stage 2, which would require the process for applying for assistance to be put in regulations. The amendments from Mr Griffin explained that his intention with those was to give people a right to appeal against a rejection on an application on grounds of technical invalidity. In fact, putting the application rules in regulations makes no difference to whether the rejection of an application can be appealed against. My amendments in this group do what the Social Security Committee wanted to do at stage 2, by creating a right to appeal against the rejection of an application. They also go further and create a right to appeal against the rejection of a redetermination request 2. Requiring the application process to be set out in regulations gets in the way of creating an application process that meets the aspirations around accessibility and inclusivity of communication that members have already voted to support this afternoon. I do not believe that anyone thinks that regulations are a good way of getting a public message across. People should not have to get their heads around a lot of legal ease, with all respect to my lawyer colleagues, to find out how to apply for assistance. They should be able to pick up a leaflet or go to mygov.scott website and get a straightforward plain English explanation of how to apply. They should be able to trust that, if they follow those instructions, their application will be valid. People should not be tripped up by a rule buried away in the regulations. If we are to meet the aspirations for the Scottish social security system, which I know is shared across this chamber, in terms of having a system that allows people to make applications in the way that best meets their needs, it does not help to limit the ways in which applications can be made to form specified regulations. I urge members to support the amendments in this group so that the process for applying for assistance can be made as straightforward and as accessible as possible. In that way, in the event that there is a dispute about whether an application or a redetermination request is valid, the dispute can be resolved by appeal to the first tier tribunal. I move amendment 54. We will not support amendments 54 and 55 but intend to support the rest of the group. Amendment 54 and 55 seek to reverse the effect of my amendments, which the Opposition agreed to at committee. Those amendments, which mandated that the Government must provide in regulation clarity on what a satisfactorily submitted application must look like, were supported by the child poverty action group at stage 2 and the principle is still supported at stage 3. The aim was clear to clarify the process of making an application in relation to whether or not it is validly made, and I believe that those should remain a duty on ministers. We are rehearsing this issue again as we did at stage 2, but whether the application is validly made should mean simply that the questions on the form or asked on a phone call have all been fully answered. That is what regulations should say in relation to the manner in which an application must be made. The ministers' amendments 56 and 58 are welcome and it complements what is now at section 21 in the bill. Making that clear in the bill in regulations will ensure that processes are fit for purpose and provide certainty for people using the system, not certainty for the Government that they can flex the application system as they require. The existing provisions would not require either the bill or regulation to specify exact types of evidence required, a query raised by the DPELR, and it will not reduce the ability of the system to be flexible and responsive to the evidence received. In the UK system, before such an appeal right was explicitly provided for in legislation, its absence was ruled incompatible with human rights. According to mewn fawr, those are members not to support amendments 54 and 55. Does the minister wish to wind up? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me just repeat that people should be able to trust that the application rules publicly communicated in plain English are the real rules for applying. The idea that regulations saying how applications can be made need not be complex and over legalistic is belied by the evidence. Anyone who doubts that needs to look at the UK Government's claims and payments regulations. Those run to some 122 pages of closely typed text, a very substantial part of which is exclusively about the process for applying for assistance. They have been amended extensively and are fiendish in their complexity. The public, and I suspect many members, are weary of the increasing volume of regulations produced every year. Setting out application forms and regulations was fine a number of decades ago when there was only ever going to be one paper-based forms specified and putting it in regulations ensured a sort of national distribution. The world has moved on and legislation should move on too. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we will move to division. This will be a one minute vote. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Members may have cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 54 in the name of the minister is yes, 94, no, 26 and there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. I now call amendment 55 in the name of the minister. Already debated, minister to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we will move to vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 55 in the name of Gene Freeman is yes, 95, no, 26 and there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 56 in the name of the minister. Minister to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I turn now to group 11. I call amendment 57 in the name of Mark Griffin. Grouped with amendments 62 and 70, Mark Griffin to move amendment 57 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 57 in my name. The amendments in this group were lodged previously in a different format at stage 2, and I am glad to have worked with the Government to bring forward that policy in a form that has the Government's support. A key call from Paul Gray in his second independent review into personal independence payments was that applicants should have the right to have a clear and thorough notification of why a determination has been made. Specifically, the amendment requires ministers to provide a copy of an assessment report when someone requests it. Adding in the choice element is a key change since stage 2, after the minister rightly raised concerns that the automation of that may pass on health information that the applicant was not aware of and perhaps did not want to be aware of. Broadly, the aim is to enhance transparency and subsequent redetermination and appeals processes and to ask members to support the amendments in this group in my name. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us on this set of amendments. I am happy to support all in this group. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and we turn now to group 12. Amendment 8, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 9 and 10, Mark Griffin to move amendment 8 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. I move amendment 8 in my name. Again, the amendments in this group were lodged in a previous form at stage 2. I am glad to see that the Government and I have been able to work together to bring them back again in a form that we can agree to. The amendments in this group were much like group 11. The amendments seek to ensure that the person with a decision has the maximum information available to aid their redetermination and appeal, but also if they have an award, how they use it to prove their entitlement or access other passported benefits. The original amendment was lodged with the support of the child poverty action group, and it sought to ensure that, as standard, a notification is made in writing. Although relatively benign, the minister rightly pointed out that that could cut across provisions to ensure that people had inclusive and accessible communication that we lodged. As proud as we should be about the challenge that we have set for the new agency, that someone should have their preferred communication as default by braille, audiophile, email or indeed in writing, we know that other organisations and companies, in spite of their duties, are not as progressive in accepting those forms. We could never leave anyone in the position that they could not access a passported benefit or that they would not be unable to prove their source of income because the organisation refused their preferred method of communication. Although there is clearly more work to do to make those organisations and companies to upgrade and update their practices, we need to have that backstop in the system and ask members to support the amendments in this group. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us on this. Those amendments ensure that individuals will have a tangible record of why their determination or redetermination has been made without limiting the capacity that we have to communicate in the most effective way or to embrace new technologies, and I am happy to support all the amendments in this group. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 58, 59, 60 and 61, all in the name of the minister, all previously debated, and can I invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Can I ask if any member objects to the question on these amendments being put on block? No one does, so the question is that amendments 58 to 61 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 13. I call amendment 124 in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings, and Jackie Baillie to move amendment 124 and to speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to speak to amendment 124 and all other amendments in this group. Amendments 124 to 131 all relate to the question of appeals to the first-year tribunal. Amendment 132, from my colleague Pauline McNeill, is about the collection of statistics that will inform future policy about access to appeals tribunals, and I would urge support for that amendment. A variation of amendments 124 to 131 were first brought forward at stage 2 by my colleague Pauline McNeill, and, although the Scottish Government did not agree with them at the time, they sought to improve appeals to tribunals. The Government's amendments are to be welcomed, but there still remains an issue of concern. Those have been highlighted by Enable, the Child Poverty Action Group, Disability Inclusion Scotland, Disability Agenda for Scotland and the Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform. I apologise if I have missed anybody out of that rather lengthy list. However, let me turn to the substance of those amendments. The two-stage access to an appeal tribunal was first introduced by the Conservative Government in 2013. Since then, there has been an 83 per cent reduction in appeals, and much as we might like to think that that was because they got the claims right first time, this is unfortunately not the case. According to Enable, around 86 per cent of cases that undergo mandatory reconsideration do not change. 72 per cent of those who had the right to appeal did not appeal, but when they did, 60 per cent of those who did were successful. If you take those figures together, that means that as many as 20,000 people across Scotland are missing out. I think that that establishes that there is a barrier faced by people appealing to tribunals, and if you need to be convinced even further, then let me point to the evidence from the Government's own social security experience panels. Those are the voices of lived experience, and here are some of their comments. A number of people unable to appeal due to the stress associated with the process and therefore accepted what they felt was an unfair or inaccurate decision. I know that their decision is wrong, but I do not have the time or energy to fight this further. Again, suffering with depression and anxiety and being made to jump through hoops made me 100 times worse, so they did not appeal. The report from the experience panels containing those views was published after stage 2, so members did not have a chance to consider that before voting on amendments. However, they are clear. There are barriers to the system that has not been addressed. The amendments before you today attempt to address those barriers. As it stands, someone who has had their case rejected twice by the agency must actively appeal to the independent tribunal service. It is that requirement to appeal twice that is actually the problem. Those amendments make the process of challenging decisions smoother, but reflect the minister's desire, which is right, for a rights-based system where the claimant is in control. The agency has the opportunity to refute decisions, but where a redetermination comes back with no change, an automatic appeal to the tribunal is triggered. That removes barriers to appeal with the option to withdraw at any point. Finally, I am aware that the Scottish Government is not comfortable with those amendments. I am disappointed, but I would of course be a reasonable person to be prepared to consider withdrawal if amendment 132, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is supported, because that requires the Government to collect and publish data in that area, so indeed we can return to that again. Thank you very much. I call on Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 132 and the other amendments in this group. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for bringing the matter to stage 3 of the proceedings, because I think that it may well be unfinished business. As Jackie Baillie said, there is evidence that when the mandatory redetermination was introduced, tens of thousands of claimants dropped off the system and did not proceed to appeal. Prior to redetermination, of course, a claimant would have had the right to appeal directly to the first year tribunal. You can understand why people might understand that being a clear system of appeal. As Jackie Baillie said, confusion, stress and the vulnerability of any claimants is a concern, I think, for us all, if there may be reasons as to why people drop off after their reconsideration. We should be concerned about this issue. There is strong support among the organisations that are already mentioned for a one-stage appeal that would mean that, if a redetermination failed, the appeal would be automatically sent directly to the tribunal system from the agency. I will take an intervention from Gerry McValfour. I am grateful that the member agrees that there is a danger that, if those amendments were passed, we would end up with lots of people's cases going to the first year tribunal, but they would never turn up. Thus, decisions are taking a lot longer to be delivered by the first year tribunal and a system being blocked for those who want to appeal. I appreciate that there was a concern about the bureaucracy of a system that would mean that the appeal would be automatically sent from the agency direct to the tribunal system. I believe that I had designed something that would prevent any confusion, because the person would be told that the appeal was already in the system. However, to be honest, Mr McValfour, I am still more concerned about the number of people who may not proceed to appeal. I hope that you would be too, and I will get to the question of how we might be able to come back to the question. Indeed, in a recent evidence session, and you will have heard this too, the organisations that have been in discussion with the Scottish Government about the issue remain unconvinced by the redetermination system, and I pressed them hard on the question. There still remains a very serious concern out there. Whether the Scottish Government's approach to the issue, which it says, a redetermination, will be carried out differently from the DWP system, because a new official will look at that claim. We do not know whether that approach will actually work, but, to all intents and purposes, it is still mandatory. However, my amendment 1.3.2, at least, would require the Government to contain information in the annual report, which is required to do in any case. My amendment would mean that the information contained within the annual report would include the volume of appeals, and we could look at the data that should allow Parliament to monitor that. In my view, this is the very least that Parliament can accept on this matter, because, if those concerns are brought to bear, at least the Parliament has a chance to re-address us in the future. I thank the minister, Jeane Freeman, for working with me on the very question on amendment 1.3.2. I move my amendment, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I call on the minister to speak to the amendments in this group. I cannot support the amendments in Ms Bailey's name in this group, but I am happy to support those from Ms McNeill. I want to go through my reasons, though, why I cannot support Ms Bailey's amendments, because I think that it is important to be clear on the record why that is the case. During stage 2, we debated the appeals process in detail, because no one, least of all me, wants to see anyone losing out on their entitlements because of a complex or confusing system. That is why the amendments that I brought forward at stage 2, which were unanimously supported by the committee, addressed the concerns about potential barriers to appeal, while retaining—and that is the critical point—the individual's right to decide for themselves what they want to do in their case. In the bill, as it currently stands, the agency is required to help people who decide they want to appeal and to help them every step of the way. To give the individual information about their right to appeal, ask them to fill in and return a form. The agency will send them, if they want to appeal, tell them all about what they should expect to happen next and give them information about local organisations that can provide them with independent support. If the individual decides that they want to appeal, they simply send a form back to the agency and the agency will then send that form and all the materials that it uses to make its decision on to the tribunal and the tribunal system, of course, takes it from there. So far, so rights-based and so straightforward, the individual retains control of deciding what they want to happen in their own case. Precisely, I have to say, what the experienced panel members who have made comment on this have said they want. The difficulty that I have with Ms Bailey's amendments is that they remove a degree of that control from the individual. They set up an automatic appeal system that only puts the agency in charge and the individual only comes back into play on their own case in a negative way by pulling out of an appeal that has been automatically triggered. Ms Bailey's amendments state that the appeal process is automatically instituted where the redetermination is the same as the first determination. But what does the same mean? Some of the benefits have different levels of financial award within them. Is that what the same means? How, more important, and why, should it be the agency that decides if it is to be appealed against? That strikes me as fundamentally wrong. With no information other than the agency trigger, the tribunal would start with no information, not least the grounds of appeal, other than that the redetermination was the same as the determination. I appreciate the intentions behind Ms Bailey's amendments to remove unnecessary barriers so that we ensure that, where someone disagrees with the agency's decision, they are advised of and supported to challenge that decision through to First Trailer Tribunal if that is what they want to do. We have worked hard to do that and have positively introduced provision to ensure, via short-term assistance, that an individual is not financially discouraged from exercising that right to challenge. I am not complacent about this and that is why I am happy to support Ms McNeill's amendment 1.32 to monitor and report how the process currently in the bill is working so that we can continuously look to improve. I believe that that is the right way and would ask members to support Ms McNeill's amendment as Ms Bailey not to press hers, but, if she does, I ask members to oppose. I would ask Jackie Baillie to wind up in this section and to move or withdraw her amendment. I know that I do not have the support of the SNP or the Tories for those amendments, so I intend to withdraw them. Equally, let me place on the record that those amendments were devised having reflected on the stage 2 debate and have been changed accordingly. The individual retains their right throughout. It simply is the case that we do not make them appeal twice because we know that, under the previous legislation set up by the Tories in 2013, with this 2-appeal stage process, 83 per cent fewer appeals were lodged. That tells you, I think, all that you need to know. I address Jeremy Balfour's point very briefly because, if the objective is to get more decisions right first time, I hope and believe that that will be the case. It does not follow that the first-year tribunal will be swamped with cases or that people would not somehow show up. 20,000 people in Scotland could be missing out on their correct entitlement because the Government remains wedded to a two-stage appeal process. Some more cynical than I would say that redetermination is the current mandatory consideration but just by another name. Although I welcome the improvements by the minister, the barriers remain. I hope that people will support amendment 132 from Pauline McNeill so that we can collect the evidence to support the changes that, in my view, are still badly needed. Thank you. Jackie Baillie wishes to withdraw amendment 124. Does anyone object? No one objects. I now call amendment 62, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 57. Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 9, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 8. Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 125, in the name of Jackie Baillie to press withdraw. Not moved. I call amendment 126, in the name of Jackie Baillie. Not moved. I call amendment 10, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated. Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 127, in the name of Jackie Baillie, to move or not move. If it would be helpful, Presiding Officer, I'm happy to not move on block amendments 127 to 131 in the interests of time. Does any other member wish to move any of the motions, the amendments that Jackie Baillie does not wish to move? No one does, in that case. Thank you very much. Amendment 131, in the name of Jackie Baillie, to move or not move. So we move to calling amendment 63, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 54. Minister to move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 64, in the name of the minister, to move. Move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 65, already debated? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 66, in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 41? Alison Johnstone to move or not move. Move. Move. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 67, 68 and 69, all in the name of the minister, and invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Move on block. Thank you very much. Does anyone object if we put a question on these three amendments together? No one objects. The question is that amendments 67 to 69 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 70, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated? Mark Griffin to move or not move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 71, in the name of the minister? Minister to move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We turn now to group 14, and I call amendment 72, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in this grouping. Minister to move amendment 72 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 72 and the others in this group, in my name, are technical amendments. They clarify that overpayments made as a result of an individual failing to notify a change of circumstances after being told what changes of circumstance to notify may be recoverable. Amendment 80, also in my name, is similarly technical. It provides that payments made in error after a person has died can be recovered from their estate. It is based on the principle that a deceased person cannot have spent the money and equally there is no reason for it to be available to the beneficiaries of the estate. I cannot support Mr Griffin's amendments in this group. The bill, as it stands, only allows overpayments to be recovered if the error causing the overpayment to be made was either the individual's fault or an error so obvious that the average person would notice it. Mr Griffin's amendments 133, 135 and 136 are, I suspect, intended to change that approach. So that an overpayment will only be recoverable if it can be proved that the error causing it would be obvious to the individual who received it. I do not believe that the test for recovering an overpayment should be subjective in this way or would be equitable. People should be treated equally under the law. Why should someone who keeps a close eye on what they are receiving be liable to repay while someone who does not gets to keep public money that they should not have been given? In drafting his amendments, Mr Griffin seems to have overlooked the fact that a proportion of people receiving assistance will not be managing their own affairs. They will have a guardian or an appointee acting for them. Mr Griffin's amendments would mean that even very large overpayments that are perfectly obvious to the person managing an individual's affairs could not be recovered because the individual personally could not be expected to have noticed the error. Mr Griffin's amendment 1.3.4, in my view, defies common sense. The bill currently provides that an individual can be held liable to repay an obvious overpayment. Agreeing to amendment 1.3.4 would introduce an inherent unfairness to the system. It would mean that an individual would not have to repay an obvious overpayment if the fault lies in determining entitlement, but would if it is a clerical error in processing a payment. That seems to me a fundamentally wrong approach. Section 36A already makes an overpayment unrecoverable if a mistake in determining entitlement is not reasonably obvious. If a mistake is reasonably obvious, it is unfair that recoverability turns on how the error was made. Finally, I am happy to support Mr Balfour's amendments 1.4.6 and 1.4.7. I am grateful to Mr Balfour for bringing them forward in place of amendment 1.3.7, which I cannot support. Mr Balfour is suggesting that all decisions about recovery of overpayments are taken by the first-tier tribunal and I can see the sense of it. Of course, transferring a jurisdiction from the sheriff courts to the first-tier tribunal is not a step to be taken lightly, but the amendment 1.4.6 provides space to consult and refine the approach in light of any issues raised during the consultation, and I am therefore pleased to support it. I move amendment 72. Thank you very much, and I call on Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 133 in the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will support all the amendments in this group. I will promote the ends of having a clear process of dealing with overpayments in a way that is fair, and although there were changes at 36A, it has required considerable change since the bill was lodged. My amendments in this group, 1.3.3 to 1.3.6, along with Mr Balfour's amendment 1.3.7, are submitted with the support and advice of the child poverty action group. In this group, I am seeking to ensure a fairer test of liability for recovery of overpayments. There will be occasions when, as a result of agency errors, individuals are overpaid assistants. It is important that people have the right to challenge decisions on the matter that Mr Balfour's amendment covers. The amendments mean that, in many cases, people will not have to repay overpayments that were not their fault. In the current bill, the test of liability to repay is still too strict and is stricter than nearly all UK-wide DWP benefit restrictions. Those amendments ensure that individuals would only be liable to repay an overpayment-resulting form an agency error, where it would be reasonable to expect them as the individual to notice taking account of, for example, the distress or their own personal circumstances at any given time, and not where the error is an error of decision making by the agency for which the individual has no control. As the bill stands, decision makers would consider whether a notional, reasonable person would have realised an error. Instead, my amendments would require decision makers to assess, in a far more person-centred way, whether the individual themselves could have expected to notice errors. I think that is more in keeping with the overall aims of the whole process and treating people with fairness, dignity and respect that we treat applicants as individuals that we take into account, their personal circumstances at the time that they may have received an overpayment, and I would ask members to support all amendments in this group. Anna Collin, Jeremy Balfour, to speak to amendment 137 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will be supporting the Government's amendment but we will not be supporting amendments 133 to 136. I am grateful to the child poverty action group for the help that they have given on me, and if I can, Presiding Officer, just give a brief explanation of why I will not be moving amendment 137, but I will be moving amendments 146 and 147. The confusion that I think has been caused within some of this is due to my fault. Perhaps my lack of trust in skills at 137 and maybe it confirms why the legal world was never going to be a career for myself. What we all want to do here is achieve the right thing. If somebody has an overpayment, which the agency has decided that they have, in my view, and I think probably the Government's view now and I think also the opposition, other opposition parties, if that decision should not be decided in the shower of court as a small-claim debt, but it should be decided by the first-year tribunal and then make the decision which would then allow the claimant to know where they are in regard to that and have the right of appeal to the first-year tribunal. Having spoken to a number of lawyers, 137 simply does not allow that to happen. If we were to pass 137, the agency would not be bound by the first-year tribunal's decision and the agency could then again go back to the shower of court and take that action and that seems to give to me two bites of the cherry to the agency which is not the way forward. What I think 146 and 147, again if we can get it right after the consultation and get the regulations written correctly, would make very clear that it would not be a debt recovery action in the first-year tribunal because that would not have that power. It would simply be a decision of whether that claimant has had a valid decision made by the agency yes or no. I think that that is a much better place to do at the first-year tribunal. I think that it allows those who can give advice and assistance to help people through that. I think that of all the first-year tribunal can be a place that people feel concerned about. It does a much better place than the show of court which can be very intimidating indeed. I think that we all want the same thing here and I do believe that if we do support amendment 146 and 147 then we will get there and I would leak your permission to withdraw 147 because I think that it will add confusion and not be helpful going forward in regard to that. Thank you very much. I am going to call now Alex Cole-Hamilton to be followed by Alison Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Liberal Democrats will support all amendments in this group that are pressed forward. We do have some concerns around amendment 80, around the recovery after death, given the brutal application of some benefit rules that have happened in the past with constituents known to us on the death of a parent with dependent children and sometimes the application of legislation no matter how well-intended can have very human consequences so we would like to see strong guidance underpinning that as to how that should be recovered. We also support the amendments in the name of Mark Griffin. I think that there are some very helpful changes to the language which would make this section far fairer and again add some of that humanity that we have discussed earlier in the debate. Finally, just a lend of my support to Jeremy Balfour, I too have been very effectively lobbied by the child poverty action group to make very important points about the fact that we already have a process for peeling the recovery of overpayments through the DWP. We need something similar in Scotland and I think that 146 and 147 hit the right note. Thank you. Alison Johnstone to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you. I can confirm that the Scottish Greens will support all the amendments in the group with the exception at the moment of amendment 80. I will reserve judgment until I hear the minister's response because we too share the concerns that Alex Cole-Hamilton has just raised. Amendment 80 allows Scottish ministers to recover assistance paid after death. I was struck by the absence of limits on this power. It does not specify appropriate periods of time. In particular, it would empower to reclaim even small sums that were paid very soon after death. So can the minister give assurances that this power will be used sparingly with humanity and in particular with regard to people's individual situation? Thank you. I do not particularly want to speak on any of the amendments. I think that the issue that I want to raise is in relation to those amendments in this group and it is connected to another piece of legislation going through the Parliament. I think that it gives the minister the opportunity to address this. That is the prescriptions bill that is going through and has come before the Delegated Powers Committee. It raises the issue of overpayments. It is relating to benefit overpayments and the period that those overpayments remain liable to the person. In England that period is a period of six years. The prescriptions bill proposes a period of 20 years and the Scottish Government does not propose to change that. So in relation to reserved benefits over which the Scottish Government has power over prescription of that overpayment, and over council tax, will the minister commit today to look again at the 20-year period of prescription for those overpayments? Thank you. That is a piece of legislation going through the Parliament. It is relevant in this case. Can I ask the minister to wind up or to press a withdrawal? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the scale of the payments that we will eventually be making, which will be more in one week than we currently do as a Government in a year, it is, of course, entirely possible that mistakes will be made. The Government has a duty to be responsible with public money and recover overpayments where it is appropriate to do so. But this must be balanced against fairness to the individual. The bill guarantees—the bill as it currently stands— guarantees that people will be treated fairly because an overpayment can only be recovered if it was caused by the individual's fault or is so obvious a reasonable person would notice it. The Government must consider the financial circumstances of the person who owes the money deciding if, when and how to recover it. An overpayment can only be recovered through deductions from future assistance payments either with the agreement of the individual or if the individual unreasonably withholds agreement at a rate that is fair having regard to the individual's financial circumstances. Mr Griffin would like the bill to say that the recipient of an overpayment specifically has to have noticed it and also to make recoverability turn on hair splitting about different kinds of error. I have explained why it would be unfair to have a subjective test for deciding whether a liability exists and that Mr Griffin's amendments would result in public money being unrecoverable in circumstances I do not think the public would either understand or consider fair. At stage 2, Mr Balfour and Mr Griffin both suggest that it might be better if debt recovery were pursued through the first tier tribunal rather than the sheriff court. That will already be the case where recovery is sought through deductions from future assistance payments. It is only where ordinary civil recovery processes are being used that a case would go to the sheriff court. As I said, I have listened to Mr Balfour and to what he has had to say and I can see the sense in his argument for having all cases go to the first tier tribunal. There will be work to do in order to ensure that the transfer of jurisdiction in that way is done with full understanding and reflection and consideration but I am very happy to support his amendment and to undertake with him and others to work in that way. With respect to Ms Johnson, yes. Amendment 146 and 147 that the minister is supporting, can the minister say for the record if she believes that amendments 146 and 147 create a right for individuals to appeal the decision on liability at the point that the decision is made under section 36A? Where the agency decides that an individual has been overpaid, the agency has done that on the basis of a determination. Such a determination is appealable as we have already discussed in chamber this afternoon when we discussed the process by which an individual can pursue a challenge to the agency's decision. We have had this discussion many times in committee and also in this chamber and I think that the position is clear. In respect to what Ms Johnson asked in terms of the amendment around recovery from a deceased estate, then we are of course seeking to have that option in our primary legislation and will then work to produce guidance for the agency and otherwise working with others to ensure that the agency is clear about the balance that needs to strike should it wish to pursue that power that it would have. With respect to Mr Finlay's question which I am afraid caught me and I suspect others unawares, I have little knowledge of what he is talking about. I think that it is unfortunate he appears to have little knowledge about what we are talking about today and I am unable to answer him. And the minister to press amendment 72 to press. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments okay, order please, just in order so we can hear the votes. Can I call amendment 73 to 75 in the name of the minister all previously debated and invite the minister to move amendment 73 to 75 on block? Moved on block. Does any object if I put those questions on block? No objects. The question therefore is that amendment 73 to 75 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 11 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. 11 is moved. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 76, 77, 78 and 79 in the name of the minister and invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any object if I put those questions on block? No one objects. The question is that amendments 76 to 79 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 133 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 72. Mark Griffin to move or not move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and this will be a one minute vote in the section. Members be cast their votes now on amendment 133. The result of the vote on amendment 133 in the name of Mark Griffin is yes, 31, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 134 in the name of Mark Griffin? Mark Griffin to move or not move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 134 in the name of Mark Griffin is yes, 32, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 135 in the name of Mark Griffin? Mark Griffin to move or not move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. Let's move to a vote. Members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 135 in the name of Mark Griffin is yes, 32, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 136 in the name of Mark Griffin. Mark Griffin to move or not move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 136 in the name of Mark Griffin is yes, 32, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 137 in the name of Jeremy Balfour? Already debated with amendment 72. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Not move. Not moved. Mr Griffin. Very well. Amendment 37. So we'll move to a question on 137. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 137 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 32, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 80 in the name of the minister? Already debated. Minister to move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 146 in the name of Jeremy Balfour? Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And we turn now to group 15. Can I call amendment 81 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pauline McNeill to move amendment 81 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. Presiding Officer, I hope that the chamber will be patient with me. That is a quite complex aspect of the bill. I move amendment 8. I speak to amendment 82, 82, 85, 86, 82, 77, 88. Those amendments deal with chapter 5, sections 39 to 42 of the bill, which set out the offences for benefit fraud. The bill describes the offences that can be committed by a person providing false or misleading information, at least on error in the determination of assistance. Consequences are set out regarding the levels of fine and custodial sentences available to the courts. Those sections also set out offences when a person causes another person to fail to notify changing circumstances, resulting in a change in benefit entitlement and the same individuals within an organisation can be held responsible. Those are vital clauses to ensure that a zero tolerance approach to benefit fraud, but we must make sure that those provisions do what they are actually intended to do, and they do not criminalise an honest mistake. I would like to set out my concerns here. The policy intention is not to criminalise genuine errors made by individuals, but the policy note states that the provision is framed to provide that it is sufficient in law that a person knew of the error or ought to have known that it might lead to less assistance. That is the phrase that ought to have known that it might, that concerns me. I am sure that we all agree that there is no fairness in a system that should arise for the prosecution of those who have made a simple mistake. It was just as Scotland, who highlighted that in a briefing at stage 1 of the Social Security report. It highlighted that the Social Security Administration Act 111 is the most commonly used in the Scottish courts, and it will be immediately appreciated that there are significant penalties imposed in relation to a failure to notify changes that are affecting entitled and under complex social security regulation. For example, the issue of whether a couple are to be regarded as cohabiting is one example of the difficulties that the courts have to resolve. It is against that backdrop that the courts have interpreted the legislation strictly requiring proof of the criminal standard of all the elements of the offence, and in particular that the prosecution would require to prove that a claimant knew that a change in circumstances would affect benefit. The UK legislation does not use the phrase ought to have known that it might have led to less assistance and rather it uses the term knowingly. So, if a case of alleged fraud for a reserve benefit such as housing benefit claimants will be prosecuted under this UK act, but if it is a devolved benefit such as care resilience, for example, it will now be prosecuted under the new social security act, but with a different form of words. And my concern is about the drafting of those words. We prosecute in the courts day in, day out on the section that I just outlined and across the UK £1.9 billion has been recovered in benefit fraud, so it does work. It would have made more sense to me to use the same drafting as the UK legislation for the avoidance of any doubt, so I want to ensure that the new provisions that are drafted differently do not prosecute people for genuine error. CPAC, the Citizen Advice organisation and several others still have concerns about those provisions, and the minister will know that I've spent some long hours over which I'm very grateful to her officials in trying to understand the reasoning behind the wording in that act. The policy memorandum does draw a distinction between the criminal offence of error and the unintended error by an individual. It adds that the policy intention is not to criminalise genuine errors and suggests when it is shown that the individual misunderstood the element of the application that is made a genuine error and prosecution will not follow. So that's good. But according to Justice Scotland, however, section 39 does not appear to specify that the person actually need to know that the statement was misleading. It was just not in line with the policy intention. It is overbroad in their view, and if you read the wording, it creates an offence which does not require the criminal intent on the part of the accused's criminalised behaviour, rather clearless, careless or negligent. Section 40 creates an offence of failing to notify, which of course is punishable up to five years in prison, where it states the person knew or ought to have known that the change might result in an individual seeking to be entitled to less assistance. Again, Justice Scotland are concerned that, in its present forum, it is overbroad. It has the potential to penalise conduct that has not been in the circumstances as they might affect benefits. I think that perhaps myself and the Scottish Government are at one about the intention of section 39 to 42. My concern is in the draftings of those provisions. I just think that it would have been clearer to use the same wording as the UK Stat, that it would be prosecuted in the courts day in, day out. I also would like to thank the minister for a letter that she issued to me on Monday following a conversation that I had with her officials and for which it would helpfully set out to me the Government's intention in this regard. That was the defence of reasonable excuse. That is not the intention to criminalise an honest mistake. I would be prepared not to press that, but I need to outline my concerns on the record. If the minister is clear in her summing up, that there is no intention in the framings and the drafting of section 39 to 42 to criminalise an honest mistake, and that the insertion in stage 2 of the defence of a reasonable excuse is to be proven in the balance of probabilities. If she can give me those assurances, then I would be happy and content that we are at one about the actual intentions of section 39 to 42. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I call on Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just want to reiterate my concerns with the proposed amendments that were stated at stage 2, in that I would have concerns about the amendments with regard to the burden of proof. What would prosecutors be expected to prove, and how would that evidencing be undertaken? Of course. Claudia McNeill. So, that was raised. What would the prosecutor be required to prove if you have to prove that the person knew? What amistifies me about this? This is exactly the language of the UK stat, you are referred to section 11a, which says that you must show exactly that. However, we have prosecuted in the Scottish courts day in, day out, and across the UK have recovered £1.9 billion, so why would that not be good enough for Scotland? That is what amistifies me about it. Ben Macpherson, I refer to what was discussed at stage 2, in that the concept of knowingly in order to evidence that whether false or misleading information had been knowingly given or not is a concept that is legally problematic. Reassurances were granted at stage 2, and I think that the reassurances that were in the letter to the minister, and I acknowledge that Pauline McNeill has stated that she would not press these amendments if further reassurance was given again by the minister in summing up, but I reiterate my points around the fact that I think that the concept of being able to prove in the courts around whether false or misleading information have been given knowingly or not is legally problematic. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to lend the support of those benches to Pauline McNeill's amendments, I think that a very welcome language shift in here, recognising that genuine mistakes do happen, we shouldn't, if we're building this as a humane, more humane social security system, then we shouldn't penalise people for errors that they genuinely make, but if she is satisfied by the assertions of the minister in her summing up, then so, too, shall those benches. Pauline McNeill Thank you, and I call on the minister to speak to the amendments in this group. Pauline McNeill Thank you, Presiding Officer. As has been said, the amendments in this group were rejected at stage 2, but they relate to an important issue, so I can understand why Ms McNeill wished to raise them again. Before I p