IXs, IX calling to the name of Jane Freeman, on the Social Security Scotland Bill at stage 1. Can I invite those members who wish to speak, in the debate, to press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on Jane Freeman to speak to and move the motion minister 12-minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The social security Scotland bill comes to this Parliament as the legislative foundation for a new public service for Scotland, unig arddangos ar y cyfrannu ei ddwyllwr, yn torny er mwyn i'ch gwyllwch mwydylwnu, eu llefyn, ac mae, ond rwy'n ddweud cael bod mai wych yn gyllidol i'i cyfrannu ei ddweud hon o'r cyfrannu ei ddweud o'r cyfrannu ei ddweud cyfrannu, rwy'n gwych yn cyfrannu 11 munud i ardalwch 1.4 miliwn i'r Cyfrannu. Ydyn nhw gwylio'r ddiwedd, rwy'n gweld yn cofio'r casfau i'r Cyfrannu ei ddweud, should the time come when our Parliament has that opportunity. This bill sets out the social contract that extends to everyone in Scotland. It underpins the investment that we believe social security is, an investment that we make in ourselves and in each other, a recognition that people across Scotland contribute to our society in many different ways, each valuable and each adding to the sum total of our quality of life. So every party and every member of this Parliament now has a direct stake in delivering this contract. Members in this chamber must have confidence that by the end of the parliamentary process we have a social security act that the people of Scotland are confident in and content with. With that in mind, I'm pleased that the committee has come to a unanimous agreement to support the general principles of the bill. As we get on with building this new public service, the beacon of fairness, accessibility and transparency we intend it to be, and one focused on doing the right thing for those whom it serves, we must all be mindful that it is our shared responsibility and one that demands that we put the people of Scotland first. This is a complex bill that will support the biggest single expansion of devolved Scottish public services since the restoration of this Parliament. Between the bill being announced in September 2015 and published in June of this year, the Scottish Government carried out an extensive consultation and engagement exercise. We did it on the basis that if we want to proceed on the basis of consensus, then we need to know what people expect from their social security system. So we asked them. Alongside our published consultation document, we carried out engagement events in every one of Scotland's 32 local authority areas. We visited communities and organisations to find out what people liked about the current DWP system, what they didn't like and what they wanted to change. What came through loud and clear is that what matters to the people of Scotland is how they are treated by their social security system. There can be no doubt that people feel that the existing DWP system does not treat its users kindly. Evidence from our most recent survey with stakeholders showed that when people were asked how they view the current system, 60 per cent of respondents, more than half, rated their experience of the current benefit system as poor or very poor. Only 18 per cent rated their experience as good or very good. So if there is one thing people are agreed on, it is this. Our Scottish social security system must treat people better. That is what we have set out to achieve and is reflected in our bill. Ensuring that the system that the bill provides for meets people's rightful expectation that they will be treated with dignity and respect. It does that by ensuring that decisions on social security policy and delivery will be governed by a series of key principles, including the principle that respect for the dignity of individuals will be at the heart of the Scottish social security system. Presiding Officer, words and intentions alone are not enough, which is why the bill also provides for a duty to prepare and publish a social security charter. That charter will make our principles come alive, translating them from statements of aspiration to focused aims on how we will meet those principles in every aspect of our day-to-day delivery. An approach that enables the principles to be easily understood by all and embedded in a way that is open to monitoring, reporting and scrutiny. Presiding Officer, I believe that we all agree inside and outside this chamber that basing our social security system on a set of key principles to carry the principles off the page and into the day-to-day operation of our social security system is the right thing to do. I am pleased and grateful that this agreement is reflected in the committee's report, which says that there has been a universal welcome for the inclusion in the bill of a set of principles on how the Scottish social security system should operate. However, there are clearly some areas in which the legislation does not set out some of the policy choices that we have made in a way that properly reflects the intent behind those choices, and we will address those. When I appeared before the Social Security Committee on 2 November, I gave a couple of examples where I believe that we need to make some adjustments to ensure that our policy intent is clearly applied. I am pleased that this is reflected in the committee's report. I welcomed the assurances that I gave on the issue of cash versus payments in kind and on support for provision in relation to independent advocacy. There are other areas where we need to reflect on what the committee has said in its thoughtful and reflective report and on what stakeholders have said to us. One example is the recovery of overpayments, which we will not pursue in instances of official error, other than in exceptional circumstances. Another is the question of redress, where an individual feels that their treatment has not been compatible with the charter. We will use the time between now and the beginning of stage 2 to consider those matters and determine what further action we believe is needed. There are some instances too where I think that we need to explain ourselves better. On the process of redeterminations and appeals, for example, I am keen to have further dialogue and an opportunity to present the evidence, which I believe supports our view, that the appeals process, the bill sets out, will be very different in purpose, spirit and practice to the one currently operated by the DWP. From that further dialogue, we will reflect on where matters stand at that time. Between June, when we published the bill and my committee appearance in November, I had 70 meetings with more than 50 separate individuals, groups or organisations. If we are going to reach a consensus on areas where people feel that we have not yet addressed their concerns and I believe that we can reach that consensus, then we need to keep the dialogue going to find solutions. My door is open and I will actively engage in those further discussions with members of the chamber and representatives of the many stakeholder communities with an interest in the bill. Presiding Officer, we are, together, engaged in a complex and complicated task, ensuring that we build a rights-based social security system for Scotland that not only delivers the 11 devolved benefits safely and securely, but does so true to the principles that we have set out and works effectively alongside the UK system. It is complex and it is complicated, but it is also a golden opportunity. The prize is a social security system that is there to support people who need it when they need it for decades to come. A new public service that embodies the social contract between the individual and the state, founded on the shared recognition that we all contribute in different ways and that it is right that the state should provide at those times when we are in need. I am pleased that we have come to this stage in the process in a spirit of agreement. I look forward to the debate this afternoon and to the next legislative stages. I will work with members and all those outside this chamber who want to work with me so that we seize this golden opportunity to deliver a new social security system for Scotland and for a future. A new social security system based on respect and dignity and one that delivers for the people of Scotland a new public service of which we can all be proud. I move the motion in my name. Thank you, minister. I now call Clare Adamson to speak on behalf of the Social Security Committee. Seven minutes, please. I am very pleased to be speaking today as convener of the Social Security Committee. I joined the committee last month and moved to the corporate body. I would like to start today by thanking Sandra White for her work as convener, in particular in steering the committee through the evidence-taking process. I would also like to thank the clerks for their support and also the many individuals, organisations and stakeholders who contributed to the evidence received by the committee. That is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of legislation following the Smith commission and the transfer of new powers to the Scottish Parliament. I am very pleased that the committee was unanimous in its support for the general principles. The committee, as a whole, wants to see this well progress and we want to continue to play our part in improving it through the parliamentary process. In reaching our decision on the general principles the committee was mindful of two key factors. Firstly, the consultative approach taken by the Scottish Government has already been outlined by the minister and the widespread support for that with witnesses and stakeholders. It is an approach that continues through the work of the experience panels and other channels and the committee welcomes its progress. Secondly, the committee was mindful of the balance between what is on the face of the bill and what will be brought forward in regulations at later dates. I know that other members will be interested in exploring that area and I will also come back to it. Presiding Officer, this is a framework bill. Its function is to create the foundation for the delivery of 11 existing UK social security benefits and it also paves the way for Scotland's new social security system, a social security system that will affect more than a million people in our country. Although the committee was unanimous in its approval of the general principles the committee has also identified some areas that require further consideration. I want to highlight some of the evidence received by the committee, suggesting ways in which the bill could be strengthened or clarified. The first thing that the bill does is set out its principles. In our evidence, there was particular support for stating that social security is itself a human right and that respect and dignity of individuals is to be at the heart of the social security system. The principles in turn will inform the development of the Scottish social security charter. A frequent suggestion made in evidence was that the bill should include the right to independent advocacy and advice. The committee concluded that it did support the inclusion of a right to and I quote from the report independent advocacy under and with regard to the Scottish security system. At this stage, the committee has not recommended the right to advice be added to the bill. However, the committee has asked the Scottish Government to reflect on the evidence received regarding advocacy and advice. The committee also agreed with stakeholders including the Scottish campaign on welfare reform who said that the bill should state that social security has a role to play in the eradication of poverty. Also, in further recognition of the evidence received, the committee has also recommended that instead of the Scottish ministers having a role in ensuring that people are given what they are eligible to be given under the Scottish social security system, that this is strengthened to be a duty on Scottish ministers to ensure that people are given the entitlements to which they are eligible. The committee believes that those additions will strengthen the foundations of our Scottish social security system. Presiding Officer, those high-level principles will feed into the development of an accessible and meaningful Scottish social security charter. The committee has drawn the ministers' attention to the importance of ensuring that it is available in a range of accessible formats and in a range of locations. Much of our committee evidence was understandably about the individual forms of assistance. However, the detail of each of the different forms of assistance will be brought forward in regulations and the Scottish Government is developing its policy on the individual forms of assistance. For that reason, the committee did not feel able to provide recommendations on the detail at this point. The Scottish Government has provided illustrative regulations on best start grant and funeral expense assistance. The committee welcomed clarification from the minister that an individual will always have the choice of whether or not to receive assistance in a form other than cash and that cash will be the default. That was an area where it was felt that the bill was not as clear as the policy memorandum and we welcome the minister's undertakings to address this at stage 2. Because much of the detail about the specific forms of assistance will be in the regulations, the committee also considered whether the balance had been appropriately structured with what was in the framework bill and what would follow in regulations. The committee concluded that at present the bill does not allow for adequate scrutiny of the detail of the different forms of assistance. The committee noted that the bill does not make any provision for a superaffirmative procedure or independent scrutiny of the regulations and that was of concern. One specific way in which scrutiny can be strengthened is by the creation of a Scottish body similar to the Social Security Advisory Committee. There is strong support for this among stakeholders. The committee believes that there is a role for a statutory body independent of government with an initial focus on assessing draft Scottish social security regulations. The committee also believes that Scottish ministers should be applied to consult that body and that the body should report and make recommendations publicly available if the Scottish Government disagrees with the independent body's recommendations and that the Scottish Government should give its reasons for doing so. I note that, since the publication of the committee's report, the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group has published its findings and recommendations on how a scrutiny could be strengthened including the recommendation of the creation of a statutory advisory non-departmental public body. Social Security Committee welcomes the framework bill and supports its general principles. Of course, there are a number of issues that will be run to at stage 2, but the committee looks forward to considering them in detail in the new year. Thank you. Well done on your first go as a convener's speech is quite hard. I call Adam Tomkin. Six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'd like to welcome Claire Adamson to her new position as convener of the Social Security Committee. I'd like to underscore her thanks for the clerks who were sitting at the back for their work in helping us produce the stage 1 report. I'd also like to thank the Government for its very full and comprehensive response to that report, which arrived on Friday afternoon if I'm not mistaken. Presiding Officer, we are supportive of social security devolution. Ensuring that it works and ensuring that it works well is one of our paramount duties to the people of Scotland in this session of the Parliament. We support the general principles of the bill and we will be voting for the bill at stage 1 this evening, but we do have a number of reservations about the specifics. To start with, it's important to note that this bill does not explain who is going to be entitled to what under any of the devolved streams of social security assistance. Ultimately, that's the question that matters most in social security law and this bill does not address it at all. It's been referred to as a framework bill Clare Adamson just used that phrase but it's not even that. What we have here is a frame but all the work is going to be done by regulations. All rules about eligibility and all rules about the value of each form of assistance are to be set out in secondary instruments to be made under the bill. This gets the balance between primary and secondary legislation wrong. It reserves to Scottish ministers much more power than UK ministers have under reserved social security law and it cuts Parliament out of the picture to an unacceptable degree. If I were a different sort of if I were a different sort of politician I might even call it a power grab but I'll leave that kind of language to others. Not least because of these concerns the bill absolutely must be amended to create in statute a Scottish social security advisory committee along the lines that Clare Adamson just outlined. It will be their job to provide expert and independent advice to ministers and indeed to Parliament on draft regulations. My understanding is that the Government accepts the committee's verdict that that kind of amendment is necessary and will seek to amend the bill accordingly at stage 2 and I welcome that. Turning now to the social security principles in section 1 we support the principled approach to social security set out in the bill but we want to know much more about what the legal status of the principles will be and the same is true with the charter in section 2. Will the charter be legally enforceable? Is it a set of political aspirations or of legal entitlements? A broad range of witnesses voiced concerns to the social security committee about this including Leonard Cheshire, Sam H, Engender and the RNIB and they are right to have done so. Without clarification as my Glasgow law school coleg Tom Mullen put it in written evidence citizens and their advisers will be unsure what their rights and the Scottish Government's obligations are and there is likely to be wasteful litigation to determine their meaning and effect. These are things that we have to get right at stage 2 in order to avoid that unnecessary and wasteful litigation. Ruth McGuire I thank Adam Tomkins for taking an intervention I just wonder if he would reflect on that the principles are in plain language so that they can be understood and obviously there's a tension between making them legally enforceable as that makes them more difficult to understand because they have to be in legally precise terms. How would he marry up that tension? Adam Tomkins It's a perfectly reasonable point and there's a trade-off between accessibility of language and legal enforceability but we all say that we want a human rights based approach to social security. One core element of European human rights is that when your rights are breached there is no judicial protection. Not a mere complaint to an ombudsman not a charter on a wall but effective judicial protection. If we're serious about saying that we want social security to be founded in human rights then I think we need to take that on board. Social security devolution comprises three elements the streams of assistance devolved in full the power to top up reserved benefits and the power to create new benefits. We know that the SNP like to say that only 15% of social security is devolved but this is a bit misleading. The truth is that we have devolved 30% of working age benefits in full and we've created the power to top up and we've created the power to enact new benefits. The element of this package that is missing from the bill is the power to create new benefits. The bill deals with top ups but there is no equivalent provision for new benefits. I've challenged the minister about this in the chamber before and she's told me that she doesn't need a provision on new benefits and the power to create them already but I'm not yet persuaded of that so I do intend to probe the matter further at stage 2. In my view the bill should include provision on new benefits I have time. I can give your time back minister. Can I refer Mr Tomkins I'm grateful to him for taking the intervention Can I refer him to section 28 of the 2016 Scotland act which provides this Parliament with the competence to create new benefits and it is from there that my stance is taken. We already have the power to create new benefits. There is no need to duplicate that in this bill. Adam Tomkins I know that that's the minister's position and I'm sure it's based on legal advice but as I said I intend to probe it further at stage 2. Two final points I think are worth making at this point. First it does need to be said that the Scottish ministers are proceeding on welfare devolution. We still have no idea at all what kinds or what value of assistance to people with disabilities they propose. We don't know anything at all about how such claims are to be made or assessed or processed but what we do know is that UK ministers think that the SNP are going more slowly than they need to and as this bill proceeds this is a matter to which we shall return. The member is in his last minutes. The paragraphs at the end of the Social Security Committee's report on the financial memorandum which I don't think the minister referred to in her opening remarks are important and need to be highlighted. Our concern is that Scottish ministers are devising a very expensive social security system. Of course we want dignity, fairness and respect to be at the heart of that system but we should treat the taxpayers who pay for this also with dignity, fairness and respect. Just last week in its first report on forecast social security spending the Scottish Fiscal Commission noted that devolved welfare spending will rise by nearly 50 per cent between 2017 and 2023 moving from £330 million to £470 million and that rise is without knowing anything yet about what Scottish ministers' plans are for attendance allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payments disablement, the severe disablement allowance and so on and so forth. So to conclude, Presiding Officer we have general principles of the bill but we do have a number of concerns that we will want to address at stage 2 as social security devolution proceeds. Thank you. I call Mark Griffin. Seven minutes Mr Griffin please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We recognise that this past week has been a momentous one for the Parliament as we begin to exercise powers devolved under the Scotland Act 2016. We do have concerns about the bill and I am pleased to confirm that Labour will be supporting the general principles of the bill today. As members have already said we owe particular thanks to the 119 individuals and organisations who have detailed and advised and guidance-led our considerations. I am also very grateful to the committee clerks who aided our stage 1 proceedings on what will eventually be a landmark piece of legislation. For one, Presiding Officer, I am humbled at the opportunity we in this chamber have today as we set out on building a new social security system founded on the basis of dignity and respect. Our decisions and the improvements we put forward will be critical to improving the lives of disabled, sick and elderly Scots up and down the country for years to come. Presiding Officer, we will only ever have one first go at this so it is vitally important that we get it right. Not for Government, not for anyone in the chamber but for the 1.4 million people who will come to rely on the system. For all the statistics, legislative innovation and debate in this chamber the public who rely on the system will compare our progress against the cruel and inhumane system we have now and how we work to eradicate poverty using these new powers. At the end of the summer when we published our response to the bill we highlighted concerns about the risks of placing so much into secondary legislation and that the bill had failed to live up to some expectations. I think that was a fair statement then and though we look forward to improving and strengthening the bill in the new year there has been welcome movement which means we can proceed together. The committee's report reflects the evidence that we heard about the imbalance of primary and secondary legislation and reiterates that there are key concerns which must be addressed. The fundamentals of accountability in scrutiny the vitally serious questions regarding the offences created and a redetermination system which echoes a discredited UK system which can be a barrier to justice. It is welcomed that the minister has set out our intention to bring forward amendments for a form of superaffirmative procedure and statutory independent scrutiny and so accepts the arguments made since the summer and the recommendation of the committee. There has also been movement on the issue of independent advocacy accepting that individuals should have a right to support them get the most from the system. The work of the Scottish independent advocacy alliance and others has been crucial to that shift and they should be encouraged by their success. One of the most reassuring messages we heard in committee was that the innovative approach of including guiding principles is the right one. During the evidence sessions Judith Robertson of the Scottish Human Rights Commission reminded us of the threat of a good example and challenged us to instill the right to social security in the principles. Acting on that challenge could make this a world leading piece of legislation because a clarity of intention would flow from legislation which creates a backstop for unintended consequences. While I do not have the time to run through every aspect of the bill we propose improvements. We will be working ahead of the Christmas break to ensure that opportunities are not missed in the bill. As one of the minority on the committee who refused to accept that a ban on private sector assessment should not be in the bill I have instructed the legislation team to devise an amendment that could give legal effect I know that the minister has made clear that our door remains open and I trust that she will reopen discussions on that particular measure too. Nor do we accept the recommendation of the Government's view on redetermination. Again, I am one of the minority. Pauli McNeill, Alison Johnstone and I see the two-stage process as a barrier to justice and one of the worst vagaries of the system and we will work to change that. Take up alongside uprating and adequacy are key fundamentals of a better system. We welcome the Government's agreement that there should be a duty on the agency to ensure take up but we should go further. Last week the inflationary uplift and the higher rate threshold was announced so if it is good enough for half a million top earners, guaranteeing uprating in law is precisely what social security recipients should expect too. Taking a far more holistic no wrong door approach to how we help people get what they are due would go so much further so we intend to push for the duty to be strengthened and matched with that mechanism to guarantee annual uprating. You will hear this afternoon that we have a fair amount of work ahead of us. Underlining that work should be our ambition to create a better system than what exists today. That challenge to go further than others and other parliaments, other Governments is something that I hope that we can come back to again and again throughout this afternoon's debate. Over the coming months we must embrace that first chance to get things right and make this the landmark legislation that the people of Scotland expect. Thank you very much. Open debate, speeches of six minutes. Ben Macpherson, followed by Jeremy Baill from Mr Macpherson, please. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. I, like others, am very much glad to welcome today's bill here at stage 1. As others have mentioned from the convener to the speaker so far and the minister, the process that we as social security members have gone through in terms of hearing the evidence and going through the deliberations around the bill has been a very constructive one and I think it has demonstrated this Parliament at its best listening to stakeholders listening to those who engage with the system as it is at present and thinking of their aspirations in terms of how we exercise the powers of this Parliament and build this new social security system for the future. I would like to thank all the clerks all those who gave evidence and particularly those who gave evidence of their experience of the system of which I have noticed that there are members in the public gallery today who gave us their insight. I think that what was clear from the evidence that we received from them and written evidence as well as that there are problems within the current system as it is and this opportunity through this bill with the 15 per cent of social security spending with the 11 benefits with the framework that this bill would create is a huge opportunity for us together to not only build a new system based in the social contract but also to reimagine and reinforce the idea of social security and what that means and that that is a collective process and a collective investment in ourselves in each other and part of that a big part of that for me relates to what is in part 1 of the bill in terms of the principles and we took much evidence on this and I welcome the Government's response to our committee report that the principles are about defining the nature and the ethos of the new social security system and this has been warmly welcomed by stakeholders enthusiastically welcomed and is such an important part welcome for the principles as they are currently drafted but also a recognition that new principles would be of benefit and I'm glad that organisations like Advocard in my constituency and others have successfully persuaded the committee and from the response the Government to bring forward a new principle around the right to advocacy I think that this is the right thing to do I also pay tribute to the poverty alliance around their proposed principle that the system should have a role in eradicating poverty perhaps I would suggest that instead of saying social security has a role to play in the eradication of poverty in Scotland it should perhaps state that the Scottish social security system should have a role to play in the eradication of poverty in Scotland that would make it very clear in terms of section 7 of the act that the very clearly attach it to the point that this is the Scottish social security system and given that that is only 15 per cent of the social security spend in Scotland it can only have a limited impact on addressing poverty which is of course something that we all want to do there's a lot I could say more about the principles and I think there's been some interesting deliberations so far about the legal status I think that what would be useful as we move into stage 2 in my view is that I completely agree with the position that the simple language of the principles is important and makes them accessible as Ruth Maguire rightly pointed out earlier and I think that the Government's point in its response to our report about how the charter will translate them into specific tangible commitments I think that's the point where we need together as a committee with the Government to consider how we make sure that it's very clear the relationship between the principles and the charter and what that means to people with my time left Presiding Officer I'd like to touch on a point that was brought forward in written evidence that wasn't elaborated heavily in our oral evidence sessions and that's around section part 4 around DHPs discretionary housing payments housing and the fear of homelessness is something that comes up with regard to social security at committees at surgeries that I have and it's also something that comes up regularly in deliberations in this chamber and elsewhere in the Parliament and given the importance of DHPs and the commitment that the Scottish Government has given to them so far and the utilisation of them by local authorities to make a meaningful difference on the ground when it comes to mitigating the bedroom tax or dealing with issues around the benefit cap or universal credit and the challenging circumstances that those aspects of UK Government welfare form have placed individuals and families in DHPs play such an important role in my view it would be worth considering as we move to stage 2 whether we might want to consider the possibility of putting discretionary housing payments on a statutory footing either provided by councils at present or perhaps we could even consider provision by the Scottish Government within the bill and I'll be looking to probe as we move towards stage 2. In conclusion, the whole notion of social security is that it's better to give people a hand and help our fellow citizens and help each other rather than have to pick people up off the floor. This new social security system that we're building together will do that in a more effective and humane way than I think in some ways the current system does it present. With that 15 per cent it's such an important move and I absolutely support the principles of the bill. Thank you. I am in receipt of the PIP payment. Like others I welcome this bill I thank again the clerks and all those that gave evidence to it but I think that there is a long way to go in regard to stage 2 and three of this bill because this bill does leave still a lot of uncertainty to people out there who are on benefits or who might be going on to benefits in the future and I understand that the Government's purpose is to put a lot of things in the regulations and they will come forward in due course but that uncertainty means that somebody like myself who is in receipt of PIP today still does not know whether we will be in receipt of PIP in 2, 3, 4 years time and the people I talk to tell me that that gives uncertainty in regard to planning and in regard to what's going to happen next and that's why I do think when it comes to stage 2 we do need to look at more into the bill itself and not just leave it to regulations so that we can give some clear guidance to people going forward as to what they're going to expect and I wonder whether the minister in her summing up could even give some kind of indication as to when the regulations will be laid out for the different benefits and particularly those who are in receipt of DLA and PIP and attendance allowance The second area and I've mentioned this previously to the chamber is the role of the agency and how the agency will work we can have lots of interesting discussions about principles and charters and objectives all of which are very important but ultimately what is important is how that individual who claims a benefit is treated and I think there's still a lot of danger that we think this new agency is going to be cuddly and soft and never say no to anyone and clearly it can't do that because an agency will be there to decide if someone gets benefit or doesn't get benefit and I want to come back to that and elaborate that on a moment but I am concerned that we may be thrown the baby out of the bathwater because for some people the face-to-face assessment is actually very beneficial because they have time to talk to somebody face-to-face and explain what their disability is and how it works I do accept that the present system has its failings but I think to say suddenly we're never going to use any private contractor again for face-to-face assessments one leaves us with a practical issue who is going to do it and who is going to pay for it and secondly are we simply going to rely on medical evidence and professional evidence Minister very grateful to Mr Balfour for taking the intervention can I just point out that there is no contradiction between saying we will not use private contractors as I have said repeatedly to deliver one-to-one health assessments because as I've said it is incompatible with the system that we're setting up and assuming that there will be no one-to-one health assessments and I assure Mr Balfour will remember me saying in committee that if an individual wishes to have a one-to-one health assessment then of course that will be provided what I've said repeatedly is that we will have far fewer and we will not work on the current presumption that every single individual requires one because the information we need to make decisions right at the first time already exists in public records that the individual can choose to provide us with I'll give you your time back Mr Balfour it's a long interview I think there's two issues there firstly I do question whether all the evidence that people require is there within medical evidence and I would ask the minister to go back and Luke five years ago the tribunal service asked for all medical evidence to be provided when a tribunal sat and that occurred but still even with that medical evidence before a tribunal it was found that still face-to-face questions had to take place so I challenge that presumption by the minister and secondly it still doesn't answer the question who is going to do these face-to-face assessments where are the people that have the skills out there to do that and I think we need more information on that in my closing remarks can I be very quickly to the issue of advocacy and advice and assistance I think there's two separate things some people will require advocacy some people will require advice and assistance some people will require both and for me going forward at stage two we need to make a clear distinction that advocacy and advice and assistance are different and will need to be occurred at different times we also again going back to my view of the agency have to make sure that both the advocacy and the advice and assistance are independent from the agency and from government that they are properly funded and people are signposted towards those because some people will need advocacy through the whole process some people will need advice and assistance through the whole process and for others it will vary in between I think still the bill is unclear in regard to making that distinction between advocacy and advice and assistance having said that in conclusion I do welcome this bill and I do think that this bill can be improved even better when my amendments come forward at stage two thank you I call Sandra White Ms White thank you very much before me thank the committee members the clerks for the work that they have carried out and the many groups and individuals that have already been mentioned are here in the gallery today as well who took part in the many committee evidence sessions round table discussions individual meetings and without their willingness to get involved we would not be discussing I don't think stage one of this historic bill today basically this bill puts people at the heart and social security is a human right and that people are treated with dignity, fairness and respect that is really important to emphasise that part I must say that the Scottish Government must also be thanked for the way in which they have approached the bill being very proactive and consulting with organisation individuals from day one of the bill and I do thank them for that and I'm sure other members did too Presiding Officer, the ethos of this bill must be based on dignity, fairness and respect but it also must deliver a safe and secure transfer of benefits to the 1.4 million people who rely on them and I must say this to Adam Tomkins in his contribution we must remember it is for this 1.5 million people who rely on them and as we go through the process and different stages of this bill we must keep this in mind we cannot rush things through and people are missed out from the very beginning we have to keep that in mind as we go through these stages I want to not as much reply to Jeremy Balfour I think that the minister almost replied as well we must ensure that people that we hear from and I know one of the gentlemen that we hear from is in the audience today or in the gallery today Brian Hurton Brian suffers from a degenerative eye disease if I hope I pronounce this correctly keratocomas a condition which will not improve he and the many others who gave evidence who their condition will not improve or just deteriorate basically we must make sure that this bill this Social Security Bill make sure that they are not subjected to the never ending round of giving evidence to basically medical assessors in some points medical assessors when you look at the evidence are not even medical people themselves and we must make sure that once this Social Security Bill is forward in this Parliament this never ending going forward for medicals and appeals it really is very debilitating not just to people's physical health but their mental health also and I'm sure I have faith in the committee and this Parliament as well in this Government that will make sure that the new Social Security Agency will ensure that people are not put through this this is one of the things that came up in evidence time and time again as I said before and I thank Brian and others who came forward to give us their evidence as well I want to raise a number of recommendations which are in this stage one report they've been touched on by previous members the issue of primary and secondary legislation it's been raised by many groups as has been mentioned in the correspondence and also in the report as well individuals too and certainly from my memory which was not that short long ago it certainly exercised the minds of the committee members now my own personal view at that time and I did mention when I was on the committee that a balance does need to be struck my concerns are if there's too much detail in the primary legislation before the development, the design or the testing has been done, has been undertaken it could lead to mistakes which are perhaps undeliverable to the Social Security Bill and any changes this is one of the things that struck me when I was reading the papers any changes to rectify it would need to go through primary legislation which seems to be a very long process and it could delay the implementation of the new social security system I think it's something which we committee members and the Parliament really need to look at and exercise as well and I'm pleased to note that the Scottish Government has said that it will bring forward amendments to this superaffirmative procedure and it's been mentioned before the establishment of an independent scrutiny body and I think that's important if we could touch on just two other areas the principles of the bill and the fact that the Scottish Government clarified the legal status of that I raised this when I was on the committee as well and I'm concerned in regards to this and in particular the very ethos of this bill which is dignity and respect now if I go out there and I speak to people and I say to them dignity and respect, most people know exactly what respect for someone is and what dignity is and I have raised this before on committee as well I really I'm concerned that if we start bringing in lawyers etc to clarify what respect means we'll lose the transparency and the plain speaking which people expect and are entitled to forward with this bill so I think I would like I would look at that and obviously others will tune committee members before we go forward to perhaps anything else at stage 2 I think the charter also which others will mention it must be available in all languages it must be available in anywhere, libraries etc so that people know exactly what they're entitled to that's the main purpose of this bill, entitlement which would be there for people to be able to pick up and reach out libraries or wherever it may be and I know my time is up now Thank you very much We've thought about Alison Johnstone Ms Lamont please Thank you very much Deputy Presiding Officer and as you may have noticed I've got a seasonal lurgy to look forward to as Christmas appears so I'm just warming you that my voice may not last out to the end of this some people might regard that as a blessing too Exactly Can I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate I wasn't a member of the committee but I'm very grateful for the committee's stage 1 report and for the issues highlighted within it and I have enjoyed reading them because the focus has been on the key issues rather than some of the generalised discussion around social security and these powers coming to the Parliament which sometimes I think have been lost in their own right and have come significant for other issues all the briefings that have been provided and those briefings from those groups giving voice to those who will most directly be affected by the bill and its proposals and we should not understate our responsibility to get it right in this legislation I think it is important to recognise just how significant this bill is in the real world decisions made here will have a direct impact on individuals and families across our communities and I think that at the heart of this is an understanding of the purpose of social security I think that it's a mark of our decency as a society that we have a social security system that works and it recognises that any one of us at any time might be in need of support and I have to say to Adam Tomkins he creates a false division when he talks about taxpayers being treated with dignity and benefits recipients being treated with dignity very often they are the same people and we should understand that the benefit system is not for those over there as at any potential time in our lives and I do regret that the Conservative Government chose to divide people into workers and shirkers creating changes in the social security system predicated on demonising those people on benefits and creating a complexity that provides often insurmountable barriers to people seeking the support to which they are entitled I think that's unforgivable but it's also short-sighted and irrational so I'm just listening to this debate and the briefings we received reflect that complexity and takes us beyond our comfort zone of the general principles to testing its workability and effectiveness for those who depend on these benefits that's why it's so important to have greater parliamentary scrutiny in my view than is currently proposed not to give MSPs more time to talk about these issues but to ensure that the proposals by those who have lived experience of the process shaped by those who can see the perhaps unintended consequences and shaped by those who will understand how aspiration has to be transmitted into budget choices we need to see the visibility of the process in order to ensure that we get it right and I don't think it's good enough even with a superaffirmative approach that still remains take it or leave it within the parliamentary process but rather an open and transparent role for all of these organisations groups in developing proposals which can then be decided upon I think that there are significant issues around discrimination that should be explored further we know what is said about the difficulties for people with learning disabilities ensuring they secure their rights we know that many people with learning disabilities are living longer, a blessing for us all but it does mean that many parent carers continue to care into very old age and that should be respected and we should be looking at the issue of age discrimination too we also know that many disabled people are denied the opportunity to achieve their full potential to work, to study to play their part in society because of discrimination experienced within the social care system and we know that as a direct consequence of cuts to local government that there is a double whammy for those who need care and those who provide unpaid care stretches and I believe in we all recognise unpaid carers but believe the social security system in this bill should translate into real changes in their lives equally the capacity for groups to help and support people whether it's with advocacy or whatever through the system that in itself is being limited by the self-same cuts so we need to see the government's proposals in that context too that it does not have responsibility of all of the social security system and I welcome the ways in which they have highlighted the issue of dignity in the system but we need to see social security not just in its social but in its economic context and the Scottish Government can act around that broader context we know many who live in poverty are in work, cut off in precarious work with limited guarantees of ours with lack of certainty on when they will work that can lead to chaos in managing family budgets and managing childcare or care for other people and it's essential that we recognise that context for so many people who may in some circumstances then give up work altogether so the Scottish Government can play a role in creating more secure work we stop these kinds of jobs being defined as positive destinations when they're nothing of the consort we're interested, I am interested in what dialogue the Government has because we might sign the business pledge to recognise their role in supporting people to work or those securing the small business bonus about what is expected in relation to rights of work and providing that security which often the lack of it leads to people falling into a system where they're not able to manage their budgets effectively because we do know that social security does not stand separate from the economy or it's not simply about other people it is about fairness greater equality and opportunity and in getting it right not only recognise the needs of those who seek support at any given time we recognise the benefits to all of us to ensure that we have an economy and a society that creates greater equality and opportunity for us all Thank you Call Alison Johnstone to call by Alex Cole-Hamilton Ms Johnstone please Thank you, Presiding Officer The bill before us today offers an opportunity to decisively reject more than two decades of welfare reform and show that a different way of providing financial support to those who need it is possible and it's an opportunity we must seize we must seize it because the current UK approach leaves tens of thousands of Scots not knowing whether they can put food on the table for their family and in many cases they can't Trussel Trust figures show us that in 2016-17 it issued 146,000 three-day emergency food parcels in Scotland 48,000 of those to children before so-called welfare reform food banks weren't part of everyday life in Scotland we must seize this opportunity because under this system through the benefit cap households almost all of them with children are told that they've been assessed as needing a certain amount of money to support themselves but arbitrarily caps that amount in the full knowledge that it's not enough to meet the needs of those households we have the opportunity to restore dignity and respect to our social security system and the opportunity to reclaim the idea that when we provide a good reliable income for the most vulnerable in society everyone benefits the bill makes a reasonable start towards those goals but there is much more to be done recognising that social security is a human right is absolutely the correct thing to do but I'm not convinced that this very laudable ambition will hold through in the rest of the bill and I too will draw your attention to the charter one might expect it to be a charter of rights but it seems intended to be more off as Citizens Advice Scotland puts it a performance framework for the new system it doesn't appear to confer any rights on benefit applicants and recipients without a clear statement of rights and a system of redress should those rights not be respected Adam Tomkins does Alison Johnstone think that the charter should be legally enforceable in the Scottish courts? Miss Johnson One thing that we can agree on at the moment at the moment the status of the charter is entirely unclear and I hope that the Government will confirm perhaps in closing today or throughout the bill process what exactly the status of the charter is and at the moment it seems fairly meaningless so I think at the moment the Government couldn't claim that the system is a human right another aspect of the bill which undermines the rights-based principle of the new system is the proposed redetermination procedure that claimants can use to have a benefit decision reconsidered the Scottish Government has made some improvements but in one important aspect it duplicates the UK mandatory reconsideration process by creating that same two-stage appeals process which the UK Social Security Advisory Committee in a report last year said some claimants from pursuing disputes when they would have done so under the previous system and they would have been successful on appeal the introduction of mandatory reconsideration was intended to and has achieved a huge reduction in the number of benefits appeals making it to tribunal compared to benefits for which MR doesn't apply data from the advisory committee shows a massive 95% decline in JSA tribunal appeals since MR was introduced and at the very least the Scottish Government must explain what strategy it has to stop this from happening again under its proposed plans for redetermination I implore the minister to listen again to the huge number of organisations who have made submissions to the committee arguing that reconsideration will prevent people from accessing justice in the new system a few weeks ago this Parliament passed into law legislation that set challenging new targets for the reduction of child poverty at the urging of opposition parties the child poverty Scotland act makes an explicit link to the use of social security and particularly the new devolved social security powers having done that it must now use those powers to meet those targets and that being the case it's surprising that the reduction of poverty isn't one of the key principles of the new system as laid out in the bill for if social security is not about reducing poverty then what is it for I'm glad that the stage 1 report urged the Government to amend the principle section of the bill accordingly and I'll also be bringing an amendment to this effect at stage 2 and key also will be driving up access to benefits and greens will be bringing or supporting amendments on a statutory right to benefits advocacy and also advice services yes they're different some people may require one or other or both I think we also need to look at a ministerial duty to set targets for benefit take up before closing I'd like to discuss the issue of uprating uprating benefits in line with rising costs Sheffield Hallam University estimates that between 2015-16 and 2021 the freezing of benefits and the uprating of benefits below the rate of inflation will cost 700,000 Scots households more than £450 annually a £300 million cut to benefits each year far and away the biggest benefit cut being imposed by the UK Government so it's disappointing that this bill does nothing at present to ensure that a future benefits freeze couldn't easily be imposed by a future Scottish Government I recognise the current Government Scottish Government has pledged to upgrade disability benefits with inflation given the number of people claiming them this is a serious and welcome commitment but it's a pledge only there's nothing in the bill to stop this not being honoured by a future Government the bill's based on dignity and respect of an adequate value having benefits that could diminish in value year on year isn't respectful and doesn't afford dignity Presiding Officer, in conclusion I believe that the Scottish Government has the very best of intentions with this bill and I acknowledge that setting up a genuinely new system rather than simply administering existing UK benefits but in doing so some mistakes have been made the bill must contain stronger rights for claimants, a better system of appeals a commitment to reduce poverty and a mechanism to upgrade benefits as William Beverage said in the 1942 report that set up much of the social security system we have now is a time for revolutions not for patching given all of the social security system and its users have had thrown at them in recent years we now need a radical rights based and forward looking system and I look forward to bringing amendments at stage 2 and working with others to help make that a reality thank you very much that was quite a short quote from Beverage Alec Cole-Hamilton, we are followed by George Adam Mr Cole-Hamilton Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I would like to start by referring members to my register of interests in that I am the joint owner of a rental flat in Edinburgh for which I receive direct payments of housing benefit from our socially renting tenants I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work it's not a committee that we have a Lib Dem representative on but we have been paying close attention to the work and the unanimity of a claim that the state one proceedings will receive tonight is testimony to their work and today represents something of a coming of age for this Parliament as such I am very proud to lead for the Scottish Liberal Democrats this afternoon can I also thank the Scottish Government for their inclusive approach that they have taken in the development of this legislation and in the access that the minister has afforded opposition members to discuss both areas of common ground and indeed disagreement from the start has taken us to a point where I think we'll have no hesitation in supporting this bill through stage one tonight construct of a social safety net is one of the most important tasks entrusted to any administration empowered so to do we do our constituency disservice therefore to make of it a political football we must come to this task soberly and with full cognisance of the social impact that a right decision can lead to or the social cost that might result from error and when considering the role of the state in providing social security I too, like Alison Johnstone always draw upon the words of William Beverage that great liberal and in particular I've reminded this chamber of the words that he said when he said that the state in organising security should not stifle incentive opportunity or responsibility in establishing a national minimum it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family for me this precept should form the touchstone of all of our efforts in this regard that our efforts in establishing a new Scottish social security system should be built around those principles of social mobility at their very heart and as parliamentarians it is not often that we can start from square one and we almost have a clean slate here and that is well worth remembering because it means we have an opportunity to improve how welfare is both managed and the means by which it can improve people's lives in this country it is essential that in this bill we take smart decisions to tailor our social security policy and its agency to the needs of our constituents and our wider country and above all do so in a manner that is grounded in international human rights law and we've heard much of that discussion today I effect all of us have heard shocking and heartbreaking stories and did we have in this chamber in respect of how payments can be delayed changes of errors in the enormous unnecessary stress that has been caused by the rollout of universal credit in so many cases these have been fundamental denials of human rights and we must set our aim far higher I will Johann Lamont I'm just going to review this question on human rights being defined in legal terms I wonder if you think it is possible for someone to exercise a right that has not been legally defined Alex Cole-Hamilton I think the fundamental protection for human rights is their access to justice and I don't think we have that in many walks of life in this country so no right now I don't think you can we are dealing with a form of government intervention which has traditionally been designed to confuse and deter where unnecessary bureaucracy has been adopted precisely to dissuade applicants from going any further and where eligibility assessments have seen deserving citizens stripped of their benefits due to the misapplication of the rules Presiding Officer the 1.4 million Scots who will rely on the benefits that we construct from this point onwards are looking to us to do things differently they will ask us if the culture around these new benefits will change for the better and not be left up to the interpretation of what we do today and in the subsequent stages of the passage of this bill not to leave that question unanswered this has been a confusing and sometimes degrading process so I wholeheartedly support the call of a vast number of stakeholders to see a right to access the services of a trained independent advocate to guide claimants and speak for them throughout the process I also support the call Scottish campaign for welfare reform to set out as much of our new social security system in primary legislation as possible so that future changes sought through regulation by successor governments to this one must undergo the full focus of parliamentary scrutiny through the super affirmative procedure and in the same vein Deputy Presiding Officer I recognise the importance of making the mechanism as Alison Johnstone said we must always plan for less enlightened times and by locking the rights of meaningful uplift around these benefits into law we offer a level of protection to some of our most vulnerable citizens so I'm grateful to the Scottish Government for their sensible and progressive approach to the application of these new powers but I wish to sound a note of caution too I have heard the minister and her colleague state on a number of occasions that it should not fall to this Government for the messes made by Westminster now I have some sympathy with that point of view but it cannot be our only response in some cases we do have the power to help people through the new powers afforded to this chamber and if there are clear areas of injustice then we have to and we have the reach to rectify those then we should consider so doing whether that's for women born in the 1950s who suffer state pension inequality or for those who are widowed at very early age may now lose up to 18 years of benefit if the system is failing those people and we have the power to fix it we must consider so doing and I will finish here and I will finish on a note of consensus because this coming of age of our Parliament is a very welcome one it will allow us to turn so much rhetoric that is often spoken across these benches into meaningful action and deliver assistance to millions of our fellow Scots who look to us so thank you right we're a wee bit pushed for time now so if you try and stick to the six minutes please George Adam followed by Alexander Stewart thank you Presiding Officer as a member of the committee I was actually going to start I was a bit surprised at how deep downbeat this debate has been so far but I think Mr Cole Hamilton apart from a bit in the middle where I kind of disagreed with him there was the whole tone of the idea because we stand here at the dawn of a new day for our Parliament and I would like to say how pleased I am to be able to speak in this debate as for me it's not only a debate about social security but it's an opportunity for us as MSPs to make new decisions implement new procedures and above all really put people at the centre of all this following the devolution of 11 social security benefits in the Scotland Act 2016 this is the first time that we as parliamentarians have the power to really make changes and demonstrate our strong desire to do things differently to put respect and dignity at the top of the agenda make sure that the system does not actually make life harder for our constituents the new Scottish social security system the Scottish Government is proposing is taking a big leap forward and paving the way for devolution of powers over non-income related disability benefits including disability living allowance and personal independence payments and we know that the current model is seriously flawed with Westminster and we know the difficulty involved with that in itself but this bill heralds a material change in the social responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament is a significant moment for Scotland for the history of devolution and an important step on our future and our growth as a country the Scottish Government is a chance to really change things for the better and I'm confident that this bill lives up to that aim putting dignity and respect at the heart of this bill of utmost importance and these principles are embedded throughout whether it is how the entitlement to benefits is determined or just review an appeal system or the decision to remove private sector from disability benefit assessment the often appalling assessments process is one of the most frequent complaints I get in the constituency office and I'm depletedly short when I listen to the impersonal, cold and calculated way that my constituency have been treated by the DWP many come into my office after they've been left confused, frustrated, distressed and they're assessed after their assessment interview and above all, as though they've not been believed or taken seriously this will not be the case in Scotland the bill clearly outlows the seven principles for the social security system and at each step of the way underlying them all the Scottish Government's belief that social security is a fundamental human light we believe you, we value you and we will take you seriously the bill also proposes the creation of a social security charter which will put that belief into practice and one of the most important aspects of the charter is that it's co-produced with people with disabilities it's very easy for parliamentarians to talk the talk but for the Scottish Government has gone a step further and actually asked our constituents to join us in the creation of the legislation that will affect them the establishment of the experience panels has given people from all walks of life a voice and this Government has listened learned and then implemented so while our counterparts down in Westminster routinely ignore the stream of advice and evidence from stakeholders and claimants alike and are determined to push through the abysmal universal credit system and abhorrent rape clause no matter what the cause to people's physical or mental health this Government is actively seeking suggestions and advice from those who are in receipt of social security right now and those who are experiencing difficulty navigating the minefield that is the DWP the Government's recent survey of experienced panel members on how they view current UK systems showed that 60 per cent of respondents rated that their experience of the current system was poor or very poor this is clearly the side effect of the Westminster Tory Government who are quite happy on their path of austerity and welfare cuts while all I can say to this is Westminster may be happy to ignore you but this Government wants to meet you hear your story and do all they can to make the process easier that is what it really means to put people at the heart of the policy the bill will also place its importance on the duty the Government has to review policy and to update the Parliament regularly on what has been done to meet expectations and how the system has performed the bill also makes very clear that consultation activities are so undertaken to date by no means marked the end of its engagement with stakeholders and claimants unlike Westminster, the Scottish Government fully intends to continue listening with a view to understanding people's issues and to take action when it's required the latter sections of the bill deal with the framework of the system, the type of benefits to be delivered and how they will be rolled out on the top priorities as a safe and secure transfer for 1.4 million who rely on the benefits system every single one of us has no doubt about the horror stories from the chaotic universal credit rollout and one of the main complaints was the hardship people were suddenly plunged into after waiting months for their first payments the Scottish Government has made it clear that the Scottish Agency is delivering devolved benefits by the end of this parliamentary term the timetable and the process out will ensure that we get delivery right so that we depend on this vital support and they do not miss a payment but Presiding Officer this is first and foremost about people and I hope I've outlined how our Scottish Government plans to do things differently it is however only 11 benefits and my preference would be for much much more than that but one thing is that this Government is working and producing our system that is people-centred Presiding Officer in this bill at this time we have the opportunity to make real changes in people's life let's make sure that we all remain focused on that and as we progress this bill further Alexander Stewart followed by Ruth Maguire Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on a bill in the devolution of social security in Scotland I am not a member of the committee but I'd like to pay tribute to all who have taken part given evidence and supported the committee in its endeavours As Adam Tomkinson indicated we are supportive of the general principles of the bill a bill that grants legislative competency to Scottish Parliament in respect of a number of benefits and will be supportive of the bill in stage 1 While supporting the general principles and wishing the bill to work in the interests of everyone in Scotland we do of course have some reservations on the specifics The bill is based on the principles upon which we all agree that is dignity, fairness and respect that is what we would all expect to be dignified, to be fair and respectful of all those individuals who require our support and our assistance However, in determining the strength of those principles as part of the bill it is important for us to understand Scottish ministers will have a duty to prepare the social security charter and report to the Parliament annually on the system of performance However, the bill does not include the duty on ministers to abide by the charter something that needs to be re-addressed if it is to be carried out going forward Furthermore, it is absolutely right that we take on a human rights-based approach but at the moment we do not know exactly who will be entitled to what under of the devolved streams of social security assistance which carries the risk of the bill not living up to some of the expectations as we set a new path This is particularly important for the bill whereby Scottish ministers will be given wide-ranging powers making it defined for those of the rules about eligibility and the figures of much of the claimants are likely to receive will be set out in the secondary instruments made under the bill Further to the idea managing expectations Citizens Advice Scotland has also pointed out the importance of clarifying rules around residency so that it is understood who is eligible for devolved security and what happens to people who move over the border As has been touched on it is absolutely vital that the bill is subject to scrutiny and acceptable levels of scrutiny when stakeholders have been consistent in raising their concerns about the balance between primary and secondary legislation While that allows the Scottish Government flexibility to adapt rules depending on how the system develops that is something that should be examined in greater detail during the passage of the bill so that the bill can be adequately scrutinised going forward The Social Security Committee has been quite clear that in the current faces it has some issues about the scrutiny as there is no provision for a super-affiliated procedure or independent scrutiny of regulations produced under it It has also been echoed by Citizens Advice Scotland with its call for the to be an equivalent body to the UK social security advisory body as part of the new system something that I should look forward to seeing develop on stage 2 A final point I would like to mention today is that there is a need for absolute clarity on the future political debate going forward when it comes to social security particularly when we are talking about the bill and now it gives us the opportunity to transport powers to Scotland and that is very important that we have the opportunity that we do that Although there has been scope to do this I feel it is worth noting that there is no provision in this bill to create new benefits beyond what is covered in the forms of assisted evil are already something that has been pointed out in the Inclusion Scotland during the evidence session and also Poverty Alliance pointed out the fact that there was a lack of clarity in the bill about the power to top up reserved benefits would be used and these are very important points these organisations understand they work with individuals they have that collaboration and the Parliament needs to take on board their views and opinions on the future political debate going forward we need to be honest about what powers the Scottish Parliament now has and the bill really will be an official marker for the power of Scotland now has over social security and the system that we endorse In conclusion I would like to again reiterate my support for the social security bill at stage 1 Whilst we can all agree on the general principles of the bill I hope that the Scottish Government can reflect and raise by my members on these benches today as we tackle things and go forward for they are quite right and we are also required to support the social security system and we cannot get it wrong we have this opportunity within Scotland and within this Parliament to set the standards and we cannot get it wrong for the individuals who require that support they want us to make sure that we are getting it right for them and that we make bold choices and deliver for everyone as we are progressive the bill to stage 2 and I look forward to seeing that happening Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer Ruth Maguire, followed by Pauline McNeill Thank you, Presiding Officer This historic bill establishes the first UK social security system based on the principle that social security is a human right It's heartening to note that unequivocal support across this Parliament is what external stakeholders are like for the broad principles and aims which underpin the bill Those principles and aims which we should all be proud of and are worth reiterating they are to create a society where those in need of help are supported and not demonised a society where our social security system is run for the people and not for profit and a society where every single person with no exceptions is treated with dignity and respect will enshrine those principles in legislation and further establish Scotland's reputation as a nation which values compassion and empathy and rejects selfishness and demonisation when it comes to how we treat those in need of a little extra support So this bill passing stage 1 today will mark a hugely positive step forwards and there's much to celebrate and feel optimistic about but at the same time and I regret having to point this out because it's important to do so we can't lose sight of the challenges that remain and the limitations that exist upon the powers of this Parliament as is so often the case when we discuss social security related issues from child poverty to disability rights the regrettable reality is that Scotland is more often than not acting with one hand tied behind its back with UK government policies too often taking things backwards while we attempt to legislate to move forward we must also remember that 1 per cent of welfare powers will remain under Westminster control and that even those being devolved are being impacted by UK level cuts I emphasised this point back in November 2016 when we first debated the future of social security in Scotland and if it was an important point then then it's even more important today because whilst this bill will make hugely positive differences to the lives of people in Scotland it will not because it cannot solve all of the issues around our community that's not to detract from the significant difference that this bill can and will make but just to remind ourselves to keep a broader perspective on the context in which we are working towards our aims returning to the bill itself though its fundamental aims and principles are not in question in taking evidence the committee did hear concerns from stakeholders about aspects of some of the details at this stage which we've highlighted in our report the complex issue of the balance of primary and secondary legislation was raised by stakeholders who were concerned about Parliament's ability to scrutinise changes for example one parent family Scotland argued that more detail in the bill would ensure legislation is future proofed so that forthcoming governments can be held to account over any planned changes I appreciate that the Government are considering the issues of this balance very carefully and I acknowledge the risk that if too much detail goes into primary legislation before design, development and testing has undertaken it could lead to costly or undeliverable mistakes in everything we do our top priority has to be the safe and secure transfer of benefits to the 1.4 million folk who rely on them and we do have to be mindful of anything that could delay or otherwise adversely affect representation Moving on to redetermination and appeals, I'm glad that the Scottish Government agrees with the committee that regulations should set a time limit within which the agency is required to complete redeterminations With regard to the two-stage appeal process the committee accepted that the agency should have the opportunity to correct errors before a case goes to appeal and whilst I think that that's right that the focus is on getting the initial decision right first time People's previous experience of the DWP system will mean that it's even more important to actively seek out any part of our process which might act to discourage or be a barrier to someone appealing and getting what they are entitled to I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to gather further evidence and make adjustments if they're needed In terms of offences and investigations the issue of social security offences is of course particularly sensitive and I support calls for the bill to be clarified I don't think that it reflects the Scottish Government's stated policy statement and in particular around failure to notify I believe that further consideration is required and I'd ask the Scottish Government to reflect carefully on that evidence and consider amendments at stage 2 to make it clearer Presiding Officer, in conclusion this bill is a landmark piece of legislation for this Parliament and for our nation it will affect more than a million people across Scotland we must get it right committee scrutiny is crucial to ensuring that we do it's a privilege to be involved in scrutinising such a significant piece of legislation and I welcome the Scottish Government's initial response to the committee report which clearly takes on board the committee's recommendations I look forward to further work with committee colleagues at stage 2 to make different choices here in Scotland with social security and show that we can create a fairer and more just society when we take matters into our own hands thank you Pauline McNeill, followed by Stuart Stevenson Facing a new social security system for Scotland is in my opinion the most important piece of legislation of this parliamentary term I agree with other members that it does mark a new era for this Scottish Parliament and we could have life changing provisions at the end of this process we have an excellent starting point which is an intention to depart from the worst aspects of the UK system we are creating our own distinctly Scottish system for the 11 benefits which we will administer it's important that we are radical that the legislation is strong that the legislation is clear and the legislation is workable for my contribution I want to focus on a few areas where I believe a lot more work needs to be done and I want to begin with a question of advocacy I'm pleased that the Government recognised the need to have a statutory duty to access independent advocacy but I do want to debate the scope of who would be included in any statutory provision I'm in favour of drawing that more widely and not drawing narrowly as maybe the Government's intentions might be we've still been here I've heard from many advocacy groups that it can be an important aspect of acclaimance at individual right and many advocates have been refused the right to be heard in an assessment process cos they don't always have a clear role many people lose out because they can't navigate the system on their own the Scottish Government funded for advocacy organisations as part of the welfare advocacy pilot project and over the period of March 2015 to August 2016 they worked with more than a thousand people helping 2.7 million worth of best benefit entitlements to those people so I think the importance of advocacy does speak for itself According to Inclusion Scotland independent advocacy is necessary for a substantial portion of those who will claim Scottish disability assistance The second issue that I want to address as other members, Ruth Maguire and Alison Johnson have also addressed is the question of mandatory reconsideration on the appeal process I feel that this is an area of the bill which requires considerable reflection to ensure that this process will not prove to be a barrier for acclaimance and we believe it should be a one stage process and we believe that this could be achieved at the outset of the process by the claimant indicating in the event of being unsuccessful that they wish their application to proceed to a tribunal mandatory reconsideration has till now served to block claimants advancing to an appeal this part of the bill I think should be closely scrutinised at the stage of mandatory reconsideration the claimant should be able to make it clear that in the event of being unsuccessful they wish to proceed to an appeal Interestingly Jessica Burns a regional tribunal judge said to the committee that the mandatory aspect should be removed people should have the option of asking the agency to think again about the decision but that should not prevent them from making a direct appeal to the first tier tribunal and I will in a minute I welcome the fact that the minister has said in the event of the very first decision being unsatisfactory there will be a fresh look at that decision of agency staff and that will be contained in the operational manual I would want to make sure that that was in statute because if that's the case it's an important feature of the system I'll take a brief intervention from Adam Tromkins Very grateful to Pauline McNeill for giving way The members talked about this in committee as well Has she done or commissioned any research on what the impact would be on our already congested tribunal service if people had an automatic or direct right of appeal without any mandatory reconsideration? Pauline McNeill I think I'm more concerned about the number of people who might not be able to come to the end of the process if we do not make sure that this is a smooth process However, I will address the question in stage 2 I can assure the member of that and I have had discussions behind the scenes with others who have got an interest in this Section 27, 20 and 29 deals with the appeals and the claimant has 31 days to appeal In my view, there needs to be more information about whether there will be new tribunal judges appointed or will we simply be tacking on to the old system It seems obvious to me at the very least that there should be at least training for new judges as after all we are creating a new system with a new approach I also believe that there should be more transparency in the judgments of those tribunals and that they should be published I believe that each judge should have their decision in the public domain We are going to have a new approach throughout the whole system I think that a more radical approach to transparency in decisions would be welcome Quite a few witnesses mentioned including Moana Simkins from the MS Society that there are no timescales in the bill I hope that we can address this question at stage 2 There are various timescales that we want to look at for our first decision It has been suggested that it might be 6 weeks where there is more evidence required, it might be 4 weeks Whatever your view on that I do think that that is an area where I think there is more work to be done In my last 30 seconds or so I want to address the question of overpayments because I think that it is very important If there is an error made by the Social Security Agency there should not be a requirement to pay it back That was said by a Scottish Government official at an event on 16 August run by Inclusion Scotland I want to ensure that this can be relied upon as a key principle Since then the Government stated intention overpayment will not normally be pursued except in essential circumstances but clearly the bill says in chapter 4 that there is an individual's liability to pay Scottish ministers the value of any assistance I simply want at stage 2 to get some clarification and ensure that if that is the Government's stated attention that that will be reflected in the bill Presiding Officer, I agree with Alison Johnstone that we get a chance if our radical rights-based system I support the principles of the bill Will George Stevenson be followed by Michel Ballantine? Thank you Presiding Officer It's been suggested by some that the Social Security System stems from beverage we might reasonably argue that it stems from the 1908 Pensions Act that the Liberal Government introduced which paid the first pensions in 1909 at the first political book I read read was a biography of Lloyd George when I was 70 years old so perhaps I mention it every year absolutely but I think the important thing about the reference I'm making is that 100 plus years ago the times then known as the thunderer definitely funded against the inequity of paying people without them having put something into a fund the N.I the national insurance provision didn't come along until 1911 but now we've got a consensus that we're going to support a bill which is of course much more wide-ranging than the 1908 act and that is a good and proper measure of how we have travelled in our regard that we have for those in our society and of course that will be all of us because at different stages of our lives we have different needs who will at one where another depend on a social security payment now Johann Lamont made mention of the the need for rights to be in legislation well I'm not sure that they need to be we can exercise rights they're not in legislation and in particular the modern concept of human rights stems from the work of Eleanor Roosevelt in the aftermath of the finding of the united nation in 1948 she wrote while words ideas and ideals may mean little by themselves they hold great power when properly disseminated and embraced and I hope that this debate spreads the word about what we want to do now I want to just pick up one or two particular points I wasn't on the committee but I've read with interest the excellent report the committee has produced in particular I go to 1d which is where the bill currently says role and it is suggested that it should instead be duty now of course when it be slightly careful when we change a single word and we must weigh that single word because if you say it's a duty you might potentially lock out the Scottish social security system from doing top-up of somebody else's social security provision by way of financial without our creating a new social security provision now I only say might because I haven't examined the matter in detail but I hope that others will look closely at that now Adam Tomkins is without question the most experienced constitutional lawyer in this Parliament I don't think there'll be much debate about that but and it's quite a big but he may have inadvertently failed to perhaps understand the practical application of our constitutional position if as he suggests we should incorporate into the primary legislation more as we go forward than is currently intended what the effect of that is of course is to end the discussion of the matters brought into the primary legislation at the end of stage three whereas having them debated and discussed in the context of secondary legislation extends the consideration that parliament is able to give to the matters into the committee stages that will follow as secondary legislation comes forward now it's particularly opposite that I make that point in relation to Adam Tomkins remarks because he ha I won't unless unless well for that if I may presiding officer but I may come back if time permits but but I think that the key point too is that Adam Tomkins suggests that the Government is behind the curve in its preparations for what has to follow and yet on the other hand he insists that that incomplete and imperfect preparation should be incorporated in the primary legislation and I think those two positions are pretty inconsistent one with another now legislators and it includes every one of us here are perfectly capable of making mistakes so you have opportunities when it's secondary legislation to more readily correct them and I may a culpa provide an example from my own experience on the 23rd of April 2012 I signed the snares training Scotland order 2012 well it turned out not to be quite as good as I thought at the point I signed it so on the 22nd of May less than a month later I tabled the snares training Scotland number 2 order which was a better presentation of the legislation that was required I also turn and I leave this as a little mystery for colleagues to pursue the very first order I signed as a minister with the report of Cairnry and Harbour empowerment order 2007 which I signed in the 25th of May 2007 I will let members discover why the order is entirely invalid entirely invalid the good news is it was never used or required this is an excellent piece of legislation it's a big and important step forward for the parliament having flexibility in the way we deal with it going forward it's not about giving the government flexibility it's about giving parliament flexibility I welcome the indications that a super affirmative procedure will be introduced at stage 2 that gives us the kind of assurance and opportunity to have extended consideration of secondary legislation it's a proven technique that works very well Presiding Officer the last of the open debate contributions is from Michelle Bounting thank you I also want to start by thanking the committee and acknowledging the work and evidence that has informed this bill so far as my colleague Adam Tomkins touched upon we the Scottish Conservative Party are the party of devolution in in this place since 2014 in the Smith commission we have reinforced and expanded the powers of this parliament helping to build one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world three years on and 30 percent of working age benefits are now devolved along with the power to top up reserve benefits and the power to create new ones paving the way for this new piece of legislation this bill will redefine welfare north of the border this parliament has the opportunity to create a fair simple system that is accessible and understandable to all this is an opportunity to take responsibility for how we support people at the most difficult times in their lives and in doing so we must ensure that this bill is fit for purpose and does not raise expectations only to snatch them away again the principles are certainly present recognising social security as an investment in people rather than as a support the enshrinement of social security as a human right in scott's law and embedding respect and dignity of the individual at its heart all welcome statements but if we are serious about achieving this outcome it will need more than just words and I would like to see more detail within the bill so that both parliament and the people can be clear about what these devolved powers will deliver parliament must be part of the decision-making process and the balance between primary and secondary legislation needs to be addressed as this bill goes through to stage 2 on that basis I welcome the proposal to create a scottish social security advisory body into statue however proud it presiding officer I want to focus briefly on an area close to my heart the need for advocacy around a quarter of all the written submissions to the social security committee called for a legal right to independent advocacy having someone at your side who understands the system and can articulate your position can make all the difference when you are at your lowest and whilst accepting my colleague Jeremy Balfour's points about the difference between advocacy and advice I do believe they can be done at the same time as well advocate an organisation supporting those with mental health issues in the Edinburgh area have labelled the bill as it stands an erosion of the human rights work that has been done previously similarly bodies such as citizens advice Scotland and inclusion Scotland have voiced their concern on this issue I understand that the minister is aware of this evidence and I do urge her to ensure that there is adequate provision in the bill on this matter the other concern presiding officer is of a slightly more technical nature and one I haven't heard really any mention of today and that is the fact that the Scottish Government intend to spend 190 million on it implementation while committing to the principle the Scottish social security it's like a tongue twister isn't it the Scottish social security is to be efficient and deliver value for money we have of course seen some problems with the development of it by this government and the past record at the moment does little to fill me with confidence looking at the way that the common agricultural payments were delivered you have to be a little bit worried about the implementation of an it system that will affect many many more scots although I know that the Scottish Government have responded to the social security committee's request for further breakdown of these it costs I urge the minister to ensure that robust procedures are in place to ensure that these costs do not spiral this it system must be delivered with them budget on time and in a condition fit for use so as to avoid similar scenes to those witness last winter where farmers were forced to take out loans while waiting for payments if a similar crisis were to affect social security the consequences could be disastrous to conclude presiding officer this is the bill which has the potential to revolutionise social security in this country it is an unprecedented opportunity to create a tailored system that provides the support for the people when they need it we should however also remember that if we want the principles of respect dignity and fairness to be delivered through this bill we must ensure that we take all of the people with us and that the people of Scotland by ensuring that as Alex Cole Hamilton so rightly reminded us that the principle of social security is to help individuals and families to be socially mobile this is why we must ensure it is delivered promptly and properly with an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny to ensure transparency and fairness if the Scottish Government do not get this bill right it will be the people of Scotland who pay for that mistake thank you we now move to the closing speeches and I call mark griffin five minutes please mr griffin thank you Presiding Officer I reminded the chamber earlier that our decisions and the improvements we put forward will be critical to improving the lives of disabled sick and elderly people up and down the country for years to come and for that reason I think the chamber has sent out a clear message that we all want to get it right and if those who will rely on the system have heard our debate this afternoon those who have lived under the existing so-called welfare system they will have heard a parliament brimming with ideas on how we can build a new social security system people can be proud of earlier I spoke about some of the areas where we in this side of the chamber hope to work with and perhaps even push the government to go a little further and those are areas we have focused on for a number of months I wanted to welcome the contribution made by Alison Johnson confirm today that we will work with the Greens at stage 2 to improve the bill on some of the areas that she spoke about and one of the things that arson johnson spoke about was something the committee was clear and unanimous on that the bill should include an additional principle that social security has a role to play in the eradication of poverty in Scotland and in our response we said that the bill is a route map to cut poverty in Scotland and we want to see this new principle included the government's response that the socioeconomic duty would be sufficient and that we only have 15% of the power requires some reflection I think of course that when you're coming to that 15% figure that includes pensions and relies on I think a somewhat strange calculation of welfare spend this bill does after all include powers to make the Scottish social security system more adequate a top-up of child benefit advocated by the give me five coalition would not only cut through poverty in Scotland but that 15% would then be 31% once pensions pensions are stripped out and I don't remember anyone in the Smith commission arguing for devolution of pensions with the the looming costs that that came with it and that would go further than the UK government and underline our ambition to use the powers to cut poverty we would also want to go further than the UK government to see a quality of outcome for groups who share one or more protected characteristic embedded in the Scottish social security system and look forward to having discussions with the minister around that one of the other things that I wanted to touch on is how we adjust the definition of what we regard as a terminal illness. I think it's fair to say that accepting the welfare reform act's definition would not set a good example or underline our ambition to create a better system than what exists today. Marie Curie and MND Scotland are clear that this right to have an application fast tracked should be on the face of the bill and the definition should not be a short six months. I'm told that while six months is sufficient for around 95% of cancer patients it's just not reasonable for someone with a varying conditions like those who suffer from MND. The chamber has made huge progress helping those with pallative care needs to include a better definition on the face of the bill would go further and ensure someone terminally ill can access the support that they need quickly and in a fair and dignified way. My colleague Pauline Neill touched on the tribunal arrangements, like tribunals, the offences regime and the area of the bill that deals with what you would call what happens when things go wrong. I think that you need forensic and detailed attention. We still take the views that errors caused by officials should not be recoverable from an individual while it would be unacceptable to pass a bill that criminalises those who fail to notify. We will take advice on how to rectify those provisions but I hope that the minister will be able to come forward with adjustments ahead of the Christmas break. Those amendments will of course require further scrutiny and time to digest. We will be supporting the general principles of the bill today. In my opening speech, I made the point that we have a fair amount of work ahead of us to get this right for the people who will rely on the new system. Those individuals, the young mums, are worried about their child being born into poverty. Disabled person with hundreds of pounds of additional costs every month and the pensioners are worried about heating bills this winter. I hope that this debate has helped to reassure them. Adam Tom, can you give us six minutes, please? It was all-party agreement in the Smith commission that said that we should devolve the aspects of social security that have been devolved. All-party agreement, no dissent. This has been a debate that has probably been the most consensual debate that we have had in the chamber since the last election on social security. I think that it is entirely appropriate that all parties in the chamber are agreed that the general principles of this bill should be supported. Many members who spoke in the debate this afternoon have said how important a moment this is for our Parliament. Alex Cole-Hamilton and George Adam said that. Ruth McGuire said that this is landmark legislation, and I agree with her. Pauline McNeill said that it is a new era for our Parliament making life-changing decisions. I think that the Parliament has already made life-changing decisions in the past, but it is certainly a new era for our Parliament. Mark Griffin said—and he was right—that we will have only one first go at this, so it is important to get it right at first time. I agree with all of that. Alexander Stewart said in his remarks that we should make bold choices in this legislation. I completely agree, but it has to be said that we still do not know anything very much about the bold choices that Jean Freeman and her ministerial colleagues want to make about devolved social security. There is still a huge degree of uncertainty about who will be entitled to what. There is no clarity about either of those questions in this bill. Jeremy Balfour was right to ask the minister—maybe she will respond in her winding up—when she proposes to bring forward regulations or even draft regulations that will begin to clarify and reduce some of that uncertainty. On assessments, Mr Balfour and the minister exchanged a view about that. It is not the case that medical evidence, which is already on the record for individual claimants, explains what the claimants need by way of personal independence payments. The medical diagnosis is different from the assessment of need, and there will be occasions when the new Scottish Social Security Agency will need to do a face-to-face assessment even when the claimant would prefer not to have to undergo one. It cannot always be just a question of choice for the claimant. Those are just some of the tough choices that the regulations that we are not allowed to see yet—we do not know when we are going to see them—will have to make. The sooner that the minister can be honest and upfront with the Parliament about what those tough choices are going to have to be, the better our social security system will be. There was a lot of comment during the debate about effective parliamentary scrutiny, and that is the key to the difference between primary and secondary legislation. I would like to thank, of course, my friend Stuart Stevenson for schooling me in constitutional law, or at least in the constitutional law that was valid in the day of David Lloyd George. However, the point about the difference between primary and secondary legislation was encapsulated most importantly in the intervention of Johann Lamont. She said that it is not because it cuts MSPs out of the question that we worry about the relationship between primary and secondary. It is because it cuts the people who come and give us evidence out of the question. We cannot take the evidence on a piece of delegated legislation—even a superaffirmative piece of legislation—to the same extent as we do in a stage 1 inquiry, which goes on for weeks. We do not have procedures in this Parliament that enable us to have parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation that goes on for weeks, and then here is the other important point. If Mr Stevenson wants to come to my office, I will let him in in a second. At the end of the debate, all that we can do with a piece of secondary legislation, even if it is subject to some kind of superaffirmative procedure, is say yes or no to it. We cannot amend it, so there is no ability for stakeholders or for users with lived experience of social security to come and explain to us that 90 per cent of the regulation is right, but it needs to be tweaked in the following regards. We do not have that power. That is the importance of the difference between primary and secondary. Stuart Stevenson I accept the procedural point that, of course, Adam Tomkins makes, but he is wrong in practical terms. If he consults with Ross Finlay, he will find that, on two occasions, Ross Finlay had to withdraw secondary legislation, at my instance, and to consult with stakeholders and bring back something that met the requirements of stakeholders and of Parliament before it would be agreed. It has happened, there is precedent, and there have been multiple committee meetings on certain pieces of secondary legislation. It is up to the Parliament to make the time available, Parliament can do so. Adam Tomkins Perhaps the Parliament will make a little bit more time available right now. The critical issue with the difference between primary and secondary is that the Parliament cannot amend secondary instruments. In making primary legislation, we have to be absolutely sure that the choices that ministers will then put before us in the form of draft regulations or statutory instruments are choices that we just want to say yes or no to without the ability to amend them. That is a critical hurdle that the bill does not yet overcome, but it will need to go overcome by the end of stage 2 if we are to support it further. The Government, in its response to the committee's stage 1 report, has said that it agrees that there should be a statutory social security advisory committee for Scotland. The one point that I want to make to the minister about is that the role of that committee must be about approving or helping Parliament ministers to approve regulations. It is not the role of that committee and it should not be the role of that committee to redress individual grievances. The redress of grievances is a different function from the function of helping with and rulemaking. Redress of grievances is the second big theme that emerged during the course of this afternoon's debate. There is widespread concern right across the chamber about what that social security charter is. There is no point in legislating for a human rights-based approach to social security unless the rights have remedies. They do not have to be remedies in a court of law, but they do have to be remedies. They have to be enforceable remedies. They might be with an ombudsman, they might be with a court of law, there will be a role for the courts to play in this. There does need to be more sharper clarity in the Government's thinking, if I can put it as impolitely as that, about exactly how the Government proposes to have a system of effective redress for the grievances. I know that the minister thinks that the new social security agency will not ever make any mistake. I share her optimism that it will make as few mistakes as possible, but from time to time claimants will not get what they think they are entitled to and they will want to make complaints about that and there needs to be an effective complaints machinery. I think that we need much greater clarity than we have got so far about the role that the principles will play and the role that the charter will play in the determination of those grievances. I will stop there, thank you. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Before I begin, let me again thank the committee and also for my part and the Government's part, thank Sandra White for her work as convener of the committee through a substantive part of the stage 1 evidence gathering and, indeed, which proved the foundation of the committee's report. This, I believe, has been a good debate and, in keeping with what I think we all recognise, that this is a historic moment in the life of this Parliament. I intend, if I may, to touch on some of the issues raised. I will not be able to cover them all in the time allowed, but I hope and am sure that members across the chamber will read carefully the Government's response to the stage 1 committee report and to our openness from that response to considering, in more detail, many of the issues that have been raised. Let me start with some of the points that Claire Adamson helped to raise in terms of the committee's report. She mentioned the role that social security could play in the eradication of poverty. I am, indeed, sympathetic to that point. I would need to make the caveat, of course, that it would be the Scottish social security system. Members have debated back and forward what our powers actually are here. 15 per cent of the spend, 11 benefits, of course we have a role, of course social security has a part to play, but we cannot be held responsible for those benefits and those powers that we do not have. Ms Adamson also raised the committee's point that ministers should have a duty to ensure that people are given what they are entitled to at the moment. As you know, the bill says a role for ministers and, again, I am sympathetic to that point. We will return to both of those when we come to Government amendments at stage 2. Let me turn, though, to the substantive question in terms of the balance between primary and secondary legislation. There is, of course, a reason for the approach that we have taken as a Government and the reason that I take members back to the points that I made in my opening statement about taking us right back to the consultation that we held in 2016 and the continuing consultations that we have had since, not only with stakeholder organisations but with people with lived experience of the benefit system, with key organisations providing welfare support and advice, our local authorities and many others, all of whom have consistently said to us that one of the fundamental problems with the UK legislation is that it is opaque, incomprehensible at times because it is contained in both primary and secondary legislation and, indeed, as Citizens Advice Bureau said to me, it takes longer to work your way through the UK legislation than it does to provide advice for your client. So our purpose in what we are doing here is to provide clarity so that you know what is in the foundation of social security in Scotland and the details that are in the regulations. That is our intent and putting eligibility criteria on the face of the bill will not, in my view, best serve the interests of the people who are receiving the benefits because it won't give us enough time via experience panels or expert group or any other means to consult as we have consistently committed to doing. We are not going to break that consistent commitment. I am not prepared to do that because I am convinced that it is the right way to build this new public service and the only way to meet the principles of the bill. That said, we are, of course, willing and I will look over the recess period. I should say, Mr Griffin, that the idea that we would bring forward all the amendments before the recess, that is Thursday, gave some of my officials who I am sure are watching this—conniptions—and that will not be the case, but you know that we have already begun to set up discussions with yourself and others. Immediately we come back to look at what those amendments from Government will be. I turn to the point in terms of balance where we have said that we will bring forward amendments to introduce a superaffirmative procedure in recognition of the difficult balance that, again, Mr Griffin has recognised before, that we have to strike on independent scrutiny and setting up a body to provide for independent scrutiny. Indeed, I wrote to the Social Security Committee in June asking them for their views on how we might do that and what such a body would do. I have always been consistently clear that I want an independent scrutiny body and I want a duty on ministers, unlike at the UK level, a duty on ministers to consult on any regulations or changes in social security that they want to introduce prior to doing so, with no exemptions and no fast tracking. We asked our expert group to consider that matter, and I am very grateful to them for the report that they produced. We will return to that in due course. I hope that, as I have asked the Social Security Committee, we will give me advice on that and, indeed, on Mr Tomkins's point with respect to how an individual can seek redress in terms of the charter. Mr Tomkins, I know, understands full well that legal enforceability is always on the table and is currently in this case. The Scotland Act requires Parliament's legislation to be compatible with ECHR. The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with the convention rights. It will also know of the ECHR commissioned report from Ulster University, which talks in some helpful ways about how the dignity and respect principles that the charter will translate for us are difficult to enforce judicially and make some helpful suggestions on how we might do that. I look forward to returning to the committee and to discussing with members about how we make that possible. It is, of course, a different form of redress from what you would expect any well-governed public body, our agency, to have in place in terms of complaints procedure. We need to make that distinction very clearly. I need to also say that it is not compatible to ask us to put detail into primary legislation because that cuts out Parliament's scrutiny, but also to ask us to put into our primary legislation a power to create new benefits. I do not believe that we need it. I have already explained that, but to argue for that, that power to create new benefits would be a very wide-ranging power for ministers to have, with absolutely no particular scrutiny other than through regulations. There is a contradiction there. Mr McPherson's point about DHPs was an important one, and one that we shall consider and look forward to discussing further. On redeterminations, we will come back to that matter, but can I say on the question of upgrading? We have already made the commitment that we will annually upgrade the benefits that are contained under disability assistance. We have also said in our response that we welcome the committee's urging of us to consider how we might also review the benefits in terms of the impact of rising costs on them. I need to make the point here that, in addition, the Government has already committed to a significant increase in carers allowance and, indeed, to the best start grant, which takes the current provision for the first child from £500 to £1,100, and for the second and all subsequent children from a current position of zero from the United Kingdom Government to a total of £800. We are already moving in the direction of making sure that, within the overall restrictions on our budget—I am very conscious of who is sitting next to me here—we are making significant progress and moves in terms of ensuring that individuals receive adequate support through the social security system. I must press on. I am sorry, Ms Lamont. I am actually coming to the points that you made. I could not agree more with Johann Lamont when she points out that there is a false distinction being made between those who pay tax and those who are in receipt of benefits. I am very grateful to her for the important points that she made and has asked us to consider in placing social security in a wider context. I am also very grateful to George Adam for reminding us all that our first priority in all of this is the safe and secure transfer of those 11 benefits in order to ensure that those 1.4 million people receive the support that they are entitled to on the day that they expect it at the right amount. Finally, I must conclude by saying that I have listened carefully and made extensive notes that we will consider all the points that are raised. We will come back and have discussions at the start of the next session. I know from what members have said today across this chamber that all of us will, at that point, be looking for solutions to those issues and will be able to reach consensus as best we can. There may still be points of difference, but our overall objective here is to create a social security system founded on good legislation that the people of Scotland can be proud of. That concludes the stage 1 of the Social Security Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 9.503, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the Social Security Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 9.636, also in the name of Derek Mackay, on an appointment to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. There are three questions. We have come to decision time. There are three questions today. The first question is that motion 9.629, in the name of Gene Freeman, on the Social Security Scotland Bill, at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 9.503, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the Social Security Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 9.636, in the name of Derek Mackay, on an appointment to the Scottish Fiscal Commission be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move to members' business, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on street pastors. We'll just take a few moments for members to change seats. More quick.