Our topic for today contemplates life without the Jerry Browns and the Hillary Clintons and the George W. Bushes of the world. I think we're all here today to consider that society might just get along just and work just fine without the wise benevolence of these beloved figures in the political class. So to that end I think we have a pretty enjoyable day plan for you today. We purposely designed shorter talks so we could have a little bit wider variety of speakers and allow for some breaks and hopefully plenty of discussion at your tables and a Q&A session later. All of our speakers here today will be happy to sign books that are available outside and we encourage you to take advantage of meeting them. Now to start this morning I hope to make a brief argument relating to the case for libertarian optimism and it's an optimism born almost of default as the reality of the state's illegitimacy becomes ever more apparent I think to all of us. Now following me this morning will be our own David Gordon. I don't know where David's sitting but if you haven't had a chance to meet David he's really one of our greatest assets at the Institute. He's a very interesting guy a very hugely knowledgeable person and I encourage you to reach out and get to know him if you don't already. David will speak about some of the great thinkers in history who have challenged state orthodoxy and I think it's important for us to recognize that the notion of a society without the state it's not something that libertarians or Murray Rothbard just sort of conjured up for the first time in the second part of the 20th century it's the question whether the state is necessary it's actually been examined throughout human history and I believe David will touch on that and if you don't touch on it then I'm responsible I suppose. But our final speaker this morning will be Rockwell our founder a man who needs probably little introduction to most of you. Lou will discuss his most recent book which is titled Against the State which really serves as a as a libertarian blueprint or manifesto if you will and it's perhaps the most concise book ever written about the fact about why we don't need the state. And of course in the afternoon we'll hear from our own judge Andrew Napolitano speaking on the concept the topic of natural law and it's very important for all of us to understand that natural law precedes and it exists independent of governments and legislatures and that a stateless society need not be a lawless society in fact far from it we see time and time again that states are the most lawless institutions in the world. And then of course finally this afternoon we hear from Dr. Ron Paul about how our personal liberty and how our freedom does not flow from the state in order to originate from the state. And of course Dr. Paul is probably well known to a lot of you but what you may not know is that he's actually a very very well read Austrian and someone who is influenced greatly in his own life by going to see Ludwig von Mises in the 1970s when he spoke in Houston. So all of these presentations hopefully will make us consider whether society could exist and even thrive without the state. This construct we call the state. So that's our goal for this morning and I hope that you all have an enjoyable time with us. Now getting to the topic at hand I promised you some optimism this morning. Perhaps one of the most optimistic libertarian warriors who ever existed of course was Murray Rothbard and he was a happy warrior if there ever was one and he was enthusiastic about the revolution of libertarian ideas because he understood fundamentally that liberty is the only manner of organizing society that's compatible with human nature and with human action. And it was this optimism that Murray had this unshakable belief that we're right and the state is wrong that drove him to produce what can only be called a staggering body of intellectual output in defense of personal liberty. Now let me stress that Murray Rothbard despite his reputation as an uncompromising intellectual saw his efforts as quite pragmatic not utopian. He understood he understood quite clearly that utopianism was the hallmark of the state's intellectual defenders not as detractors. He understood that utopianism and statism not liberty produced the great monsters and the great wars of the 20th century and most of all Murray understood that the true utopians are the central planners those who believe we can under overcome human nature and steer human actors like cattle. And to quote Murray the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power in the hands of the central government and then says limit yourself it is he who is truly the impractical utopian. In Rothbard's eyes a libertarian world would be better not perfect. So all our revolution is indeed intellectual is also optimistic and pragmatic. We should talk about liberty in terms of first principles and how those principles make for a better society precisely because they accord with the innate human desire for liberty. Let the status explain their grand visions. Well we offer a realistic vision of a world organized around civil society and markets. Now all of us who are liberty minded we've all in our in our lifetimes gotten some version of this argument from people who are not so liberty minded which is that you're unrealistic. This is overly impractical or too idealistic. You know they say libertarianism would be great in theory but you know that's that's really more for a late night dorm room discussion or that's for a philosophy professor and come on you know states have existed for as long as there have been human beings and and you'll never get rid of them might as well live with it. And some people would even go to so far as to say that there's a market of sorts for the state because states seem to keep popping up. But let's examine this for a moment. This argument of utopianism and impracticality. If you believe that the state is harmful rather than benevolent. If you believe that the state threatens individual rights and property rights rather than protects them. If you believe that the state decreases our chances for peace and prosperity rather than increases them. If you believe in some that the state is an overwhelming force for ill in our society. A force that makes us all far worse off. Why in the world is it unrealistic to work towards its elimination. You know I notice that this charge of of being too idealistic is never applied to medicine. It's never applied to crime. For instance nobody ever says to a researcher an infectious disease research. You know there's always been disease there's always there's always going to be cancer and and it's really noble that you're having you're having the race for the cure. And and everyone's going to run a 10 K and then there's still cancer. And and you know nobody ever says to the researcher clinician you know that's great but why don't you just spend your time trying to limit the duration of the common cold. Because we're never really going to get rid of cancer. Nobody ever says that. Nobody ever says to the police investigator. You know gee whiz if you look at society criminality always crops up in some form or another. There's always a mafia. There's always organized crime. There's always murder and rape in societies. So you know I don't I it's impractical and it's unrealistic that you spend all this time trying to eliminate crime in Costa Mesa or wherever. Now nobody ever says that. Everybody says you know what you're doing is great. And what is the cancer researcher do. What is the the the criminal investigator do. They roll up their sleeves and they get to work and they say to themselves you know we may never eliminate cancer we may never eliminate crime. But that's the goal. So why should we be apologetic or timid or less than fully optimistic in our fight against the state. We should not. Like the cancer researcher or the crime fighter we should be bold. We should be optimistic and we should be vigorous in our opposition to government. We should be every bit as certain as Murray Rothbard was in the eventual success of our mission. Because rest assured we will win. The state at least is as currently constituted in the U. S. and most Western nations is dying under the weight of its own sheer fiscal unsustainability. I'm curious as to anyone in the room. Of a certain vintage is knows the name Herbert Stein. Well Herbert Stein was Ben Stein's dad.  Well Herbert Stein was his dad. And Herbert Stein was an economist and he was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for both President Nixon and Gerald Ford. The Council of Economic Advisors kind of a cheerleading squad for economic news for presidents. So not my kind of economists apparently only faintly free market but still an economist and also apparently quite an interesting man. He in his later years he briefly wrote an anonymous dear prudence column for some print papers. But when he was working for the Council of Economic Advisors Herbert Stein came up with his own law. I don't know if he named it after himself which seems a bit cheeky but but he's got he's got his own law. It's called Herbert Stein's law. And it goes something like this. If something cannot go on forever it will stop. All right. Sounds simple. Sounds simple. But he used it just described economic trends at the time like balance of payments deficits. But he meant that no program was needed to stop something that would stop by itself. Something that could not be sustained. And clearly the US federal government the largest, costliest and most powerful government that ever existed on the face of earth cannot be sustained. Not in the fiscal sense. No way, no how. And we're not talking just about the 17 trillion dollars in nominal treasury debt that the federal US federal government owns to its creditors. We're talking about something we're talking about unsustainability on a much larger level. There's another economist named Lawrence Kotlikoff who uses a concept called the fiscal gap. And the fiscal gap is actually much more accurate and frankly much more depressing measure of what the government really owes. And the fiscal gap basically measures the net present value of future entitlement obligations against the net present value of expected tax returns. So Kotlikoff has come up with a fiscal gap number of more than 200 trillion dollars. I'm gonna repeat that 200 trillion dollars between what the federal government is going to owe people in the future or have some very nasty consequences and what it's going to take in in taxes. Now we don't have time today to discuss all the details of federal government's fiscal situation and how this fiscal gap came to be. I think we're all pretty familiar with that. But rest assured the reality is wildly worse than virtually anyone in government or the mainstream media will talk about. Now you have to understand there is zero political will in Washington to cut the big ticket items like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare entitlements and defense. Zero. I mean if you recall during the sequestration debates, the country was just in arms over just tiny proposed cuts. And if you consider the outrage that occurs when members of Congress merely consider cuts in the rate of growth of certain programs, the howls of outrage from our progressive friends in particular. There is zero political will in Washington for huge tax increases, which wouldn't help anyway. Kotlakov estimates we'd have to raise virtually all taxes by about 50% today and to be even making a dent in the fiscal gap. So politics will not solve this problem. Federal government's fiscal reality cannot be fixed politically or economically. We cannot grow our way out of it. The numbers behind Kotlakov's fiscal gaps that cannot be overcome. They can only be put off and made far worse by endless rounds of monetary expansion. I think everyone in this room knows that the only thing keeping this whole charade going is the Federal Reserve, which is more than tripled the monetary base just since 2008. And we all know that the current dollar policy marked by endless rounds of quantitative easing is not sustainable. Even Janet Yellen acknowledges this on some level in her press conference a week or two back. But even without more quantitative easing, there is no reason to believe the Fed will ever sell the treasuries that began buying up rapidly in 2008. The Fed almost certainly will, in fact, simply keep these treasuries on its balance sheet indefinitely. Or at least until the never ending undefined crisis ends. So in this sense, it really has just monetized a huge slice of the federal debt. And by the way, the St. Louis Fed is quite open about this. They produced a short paper they acknowledge that a permanent acquisition of treasury debt by the Fed would indeed represent free borrowing and spending by the US government. They just claim that there's a possibility that the Fed will, it's a magical future date, reverse these bond purchases, sell them back to banks, and reduce those banks reserves accordingly. But I don't think anyone in this room will ever live to see that day. So it may seem almost funny, but this reality should give all of us, at least in this room, cause for optimism. We know that the current arrangement cannot continue. So we as liberty minded people have a tremendous opportunity to recognize this and begin building the future. We don't have to labor under the delusion that everything will continue as usual. And the system will work if only we reform it, or tinker with it, or elect the right people. We can be honest and recognize that democracy doesn't work. It can't work. And the sooner it's exposed as a failure, the better. We should celebrate this. I really believe that we should celebrate this. We should celebrate this understanding because no progress towards liberty can occur until we understand reality and understand the problem at hand. But there's actually a deeper and more satisfying reason for us to be optimistic. The state is not only fiscally unsustainable. It's intellectually unsustainable as well. We should be optimistic because we're living what I believe is the beginning of what Hans Herman Hoppe calls a bottom up revolution. Bottom up because it starts at the individual and hope for hyper local level. Bottom up because it relies on radical decentralization and political secession. Bottom up because it bypasses politics and traditional power structures. Bottom up because it bypasses state schools, state intellectuals and state media. Governments and the political classes who run them are facing a nonviolent revolution of ideas that was scarcely imaginable even just 20 years ago. And this revolution will strike at the heart of these states only true asset, their legitimacy in the eyes of those whom they would govern. This bottom up revolution is based on informed individuals like those in this room who increasingly don't need elites, political, academic or scientific to run their lives. It is based on the recognition that national and global governments, governance schemes have failed to solve or even address huge structural problems like hunger, medical care, energy and economic development. It's based on radical decentralization, political and otherwise because the vast diversity of individual interest demands an end to top down government edicts and bullying by the 51% electorate. And I truly believe that this can happen and is happening without even necessarily a tacit acceptance or understanding of liberty among the majority of people. They simply see with their own eyes that the state doesn't work so naturally they seek another way. I think this is especially true of millennials, many of whom are not necessarily particularly libertarian in outlook but yet they're still deeply distrustful of the federal government. Technology of course plays a huge role in this bottom up revolution. Technology has given us the ability to find fellow travelers, sort of compare notes with people anywhere in the world and talk about what our would be rulers are doing. It's taken away the monopoly over the marketplace of ideas from traditional media outlets. It's enormously lowered the cost of learning and acquiring knowledge. I mean it has literally brought the vast store of human knowledge to our fingertips. In governments I think we'll have an awfully hard time keeping all this information not to mention the ideas of liberty away from people who are increasingly connected and hungry for a better life. The toothpaste is out of the tube so to speak. Now to be absolutely clear technology is not an ideology and technology is used by the state just as it is used against the state. I mean imagine someone with an appetite of J. Edgar Hoover with today's NSA apparatus available to him. And technology can never change the fundamental choice before us, liberty or stateism. There's no third way, right? Either humans deal with one another voluntarily through civil society and markets or they deal with each other using compulsion through crime or government. But economic means or political means the age old question remains the same. But the free and virtually instantaneous flow of information has radically transformed the world. If you watch the the Scottish independence vote at all, which I watched with great enthusiasm, governments like to talk about democracy. Well, they're about to get it good and hard. People are going to vote with their feet, their wallets and their mobile devices. They're going to do so across borders. I'm optimistic therefore that this global interconnectedness will pose a huge threat to the viability of many nation states into their political ruling classes as a result. People are now connected by ideas by interests by shared values by commerce, not so much by geography and nationality. In fact, geography and nationality are shrinking in importance every day. Of course, perhaps the greatest legacy of the online revolution will be the demise of state education systems, which I think everyone in this room can applaud.  It's all clearly unsustainable. Government schools cost too much and teach too little of importance like classical languages, rigorous math and science, skilled trades, personal finance and the like. What they do teach is often harmful and statist, the whole panoply of victims' rights. So liberty is just not possible in a society filled with ill-educated state indoctrinated people. And I truly believe that market-based education will produce actual results, the antithesis of government education. But I think we should all be very happy and very optimistic to witness the state's education model crumbling before us. All these happy developments are taking place at their own pace. None of us can time them. But I truly believe there's great cause for optimism that this bottom-up revolution is taking place inexorably before us. Now, in conclusion, I'd just like to say vis-a-vis our survey from earlier today.  All that matters is that you recognize and agree that the state is out of control, even if it's just in one area, like drug policy or foreign policy. All this required is that you understand and envision a free society. I think many of these labels and differences will seem petty to say the least. You know, Murray Rothbard used to use an analogy that he borrowed from the late great Gene Burns. I don't know if any of you remember Gene Burns. He was a longtime talk radio host in the San Francisco Bay Area, a very sweet guy, just a huge figure, tremendous intellectual. And Gene Burns came up with this metaphor called the Freedom Train. He said, you know, we're so far from where we want to be, from where anyone in this room would consider a free society, that we just need to get the train moving in the right direction. So just join us. Whether you agree with 60% of our ideas or 80% or 90% of our ideas, let's just get the train moving in the right direction. I think that's a very apt analogy for the time we live in. I like this metaphor. It sure beats putting ourselves into endlessly narrow boxes. And I'll leave you with just one last comment. The town where I now live, Auburn, Alabama, has a right-wing radio station. And during the day they play the usual lineup. But they, one of the syndicated hosts is none other than Herman Cain, the presidential candidate from the 2012 election, who both Ron and I had an opportunity to meet a very sweet guy. Politics aside. And for some reason my kids love his voice. They love, they think it's funny. They like to listen to you as a very deep, gravelly radio voice. So they like to listen to you in the car. And we were listening the other day as we were driving. A lady called in and she was complaining that her friends and family were liberals and that she was arguing with them all the time and she couldn't convince them of the correctness of the, you know, the Herman Cain view of the world, I suppose. And so Herman Cain said something that was very profound. I don't think he meant, he just said it as a flippant remark in passing. But Herman Cain said to this caller, he said, look, we can only save those who would be saved. And I think that applies to all of us as well. Far too often we let the status frame the debate. Far too often liberty minded people are defined by what we oppose the state than by what we propose, which is liberty. So be optimistic and make the case for liberty. Thank you very much.


Going on everyone Sam here with late and sports cards been 23 24 Bowman University chrome basketball the light 12 box case number 13 picker team style names and teams Brian L Marquette David H Purdue UCLA Louisville and Yukon Eric B with Auburn Florida State Baylor, Kentucky Hunter S with Tennessee Isaac G Boston College Pitt Notre Dame JDF Arkansas Illinois Memphis K State Miami St John's FAU Jacob C UNC John S with Ohio State Maryland, Oregon, Kansas Matthew N with Houston Villanova Virginia Virginia Tech Michael A with USC Navy Mike with Iowa Mike as Duke Texas Norfolk State Oklahoma State Richard R Indiana Providence Weber State and Michigan State Ringo N with Iowa State Robert S Arizona LSU Trace B with Creighton Gonzaga Florida Wayne S with Stanford and order number 275 892 with Colorado, Alabama, Michigan, so Good luck here everybody Can you guess the super fracture everyone? What's up golden? How you doing man? So golden What's going on Brandon? What's wrong? guesses Starts now everybody 30 seconds to guess a player in the checklist if you think we're gonna pull their super fracture Good luck. Yeah, so I bought all the bowmen. Yeah, I was gonna say all the Bowman University football. Yep Yeah, we're out of them man. We're out of them now I think officially unless we get more which is always possible, but guesses are closed five Four three two one there you go All right, so yeah, we'll do just autos for this one too and then just worry about Only one to really worry about sleeving and top-loading is any of the the randoms you have to do at the end You're in Nick you're good buddy.  Yeah, pretty much Ray wave to a hundred Dylan Jones To 199 Bob and Miller no, I get it. I'm just annoying driving me insane To 299 Reed Shepherd freaking tough bacon hour to 399 Tyson Chapman 299 Johan Roberts and then gold to 50 Kylin Boswell for Arizona Devon Royal first first dispenser Jones first the vulgar poplar that is a Cody Williams aqua to 150 Nice one there. Nice one here is gonna be a page beckers 299 on the oh 7th row back Congrats Yukon base first auto steel ventures for Gonzaga and then first your fracture out of 250 Coleman Hawkins But those Now it's gonna last Phoenix spots sold out as well and then prime racing will be at the end as well Orange Ryan caulk Brenda to 25 for Creighton to 199 AJ Ho guard for Michigan State 399 El Marco Jackson to 299 Milan mom Salovitch and Then to 399 Michaela Williams or LSU First we've got Kugel Strowmer Diamond Johnson page beckers image variation first base auto Tyson Chapman going to Ohio State Got first refractor now first base auto Dylan dice you go to Texas And then first refractor out of 250 at going to Memphis Javante Taylor So congrats on all those everybody very nice It's to 150 Jordan Dingle For St. Johns to 299 is Hannah Hidalgo For Notre Dame to 399 is Bronnie James purple mini diamonds the 199 Jawan Roberts and Then to 299 Trey Norman have you ever so have you ever had bacon on cheeseburg? Yes? Yes? I just grew out of it. I can't do it anymore. It grosses me out. I don't know why I can't do it Cody Williams Johnny broom Jordan Dingle, I say a collier sharp shooters. God nice base auto of Caitlyn Clark Going to Iowa congrats on that Hawkeyes Yeah, first lava auto to 199 is RJ Jones that is first base auto of Justin Edwards going to Kentucky And Sean Harris Smith going to Maryland to 75 On the first Carlos with a break tonight. Thank you, buddy. I can I can Give you a pass on not liking it. I'll give you a pass on that Yeah, saying that it's reserved for a certain time of day Just in my brain in my brain. It's up Jason, but I Used to do it when I was a kid Riley Cougal to 150. I just can't do it.  Let's go JD got Rukia Jackson Zaden high Zayed Lowry and El Marco Jackson as well First refractor out of Devon Williams the 250 for UCLA a first base auto El Marco Jackson going to Kansas Nice one there KU and then Dylan Dice you to 99 for Tejas. That's Texas That's one there as well. Can see a buck go to 99 Raise the shade of 399. This will be a random at the end the 99 max Abbas To 299 lead and blocker 399 Devin Williams and then gold to 50 Devin Royal six to go and icons PYT over on fanatics live everybody Michaela Williams Elijah Martin Blake Hinson and then a lava of Paige Becker's to 150 Got lava first auto to 199 Prince of Ligbet first base out of Kevin McCuller Jr. for Kansas And then green first auto Tyson Chapman for Ohio State. Yes, sir icons Indeed indeed Wooga poplar to 399 to 150 Brandon Garrison the 199 Spencer Jones 399 Isaiah Collier and Then to 199 299 Armando Baycott UNC got Cameron Brink steel ventures Santiago Vescovi and Chris Johnson to 150 Go into Texas Got nice DJ Wagner for Kentucky. There you go Kentucky to 199 great auto there First base auto for UNC is Cormac Ryan That is a refractor auto for UNC to 250 Armando Baycott And then gold laden blocker go to Arkansas first true old auto show F picking up a Maddox under wraps Jersey great red head style Grabby guys this link to Phoenix number 29 Ravens Broncos chiefs Titans for to go for Mac Ryan to 399 that is a loud array wave to 100 Brandon Garrison 199 Riley Cougal 299 Dalton net for Tennessee and then 399 Tyrese proctor As if nearly they're in green Zachary Risa Shay. So this will be a separate random We'll do all of the non numbered college cards or non-college Justin Edwards as well You've got an action hardaway first a base auto going to Memphis Just one there first refractor auto myro little to three 250 excuse me What a Baylor and then Santiago of Escovy or Tennessee first base auto Kevin McCulloch 399 green to 99 Coleman Hawkins for Illinois to 299 Devon Royal Ohio State 399 Jordan Dingle for St. John's and then to 199 Haley van lith Cormac Ryan Ryan Colkbrenner Tyson Chapman and Simeon Wilcher on the sharp shoes You've got autos AJ Hogaard for Michigan State first base auto nice one there a green Caitlyn Clark to 99 There we go, Iowa nice Congrats on that get that into a mag Very nice Congrats Iowa Hawkeyes, and then first base auto of Rob Dillingham really good box right there in terms of ink Congrats on that very nice I Thank you, Alexandros picking up the chiefs in number 29, so we're down to three Ravens Broncos Titans There you go, Mike. Let's go Mike. Go Mike Haley and Clark autos now for you, but Hawkins to 399 as well as a myro little 299 to Sean Harris Smith 399 RJ Jones and then 299 laden blocker about Georgia Amor first as well as Kevin McCuller Andres three Akavitch and a big kahuna page backers Very nice. We got Reed Shepard first base auto for Kentucky Kentucky again doing well here first lava laden blocker to 199 for Arkansas Got first base auto Tyler Colek going to Marquette Rich and then a true gold Prince of Ligbet to 50 for Boston College. I'm curious Good, how much you think That green Caitlyn Clark auto goes for That one just a green second year second bowman second bowman non-first Are you 350 probably on the money really 350 355 last one damn man second bowman to Unbelievable cow on real that's kind of wild.  Yeah, so awesome. Plus there's a base auto in there, too Yeah, exactly, so raw unreal it's crazy on real as wild unreal Aliyah Edwards at 299 To 399 is steel ventors to 299 Dylan Jones The 399 dusty stromer and a 199 Tyson Chapman. Nice one there Good God, man. That's crazy Thank you Richard with a spot as well Um Yeah, absolutely. Thank you Mike. Appreciate you, buddy. I'm gonna go change that right now stonislav. That's my fault I got you, buddy. All right stonislav that is matched in the last one. I just probably forgot to do that. So that's on me Boba Miller Jackson shell step Chris Johnson and Matt's Buzellus. This will be another additional random g league ignite to 150 Congrats on that one there whoever gets it and that'll be a separate random to go with the other two We got Armando Baker on the orange. Oh 708 throwback 13 to 25 for UNC Congrats, ump First base auto Hannah Hidalgo for Notre Dame and then a lava auto the Sean Harris Smith to 199 congrats on that Bacon, whoa. Oh, you can't send it to 15. Don't send the bacon emoji. It's over can't do that anymore Gotta wait Got another like 15 hours before it's like reasonably bacon again Like we missed our window today, man It sucks because I wake up pretty late usually so like if I wake up at noon, I can never have bacon I really can't that's tough, man It's tough Unbelievable Thinks that way got you stonislav. No problem, buddy to 299 Taryn Shannon the 399 Kevin McCuller To 100 is Jamari McDowell We've got to 199 is Michaela Williams 299 is Jordan Dingle into 75 Sean Stewart Yeah, they're all out there yet. Yeah, they all migrated not yet And he was like flamingo Sheed then with a leg bay Stefan Castle Chris Johnson first base auto nice when they're going to Texas Sean Stewart going to Duke to 250 on the first refractor auto And then Zaden high first base auto for UNC as well. Nice. Thank you stonislav appreciate you buddy So the Broncos are gone in 29 now It is clockwork Kyle you were not wrong about that at all not wrong about that at all It is really expensive right now Eric That is to 199 Quentin post the 399 Stefan Castle to 150 Jackson shell stat To 199 Wooga poplar and then it's you 399 Brandon Garrison Freddie Dilley own Trey Norman Armando Baker and Sean Stewart And then our last auto is to mirror young first base auto going to Maryland started soft here We've got first refractor auto to 490 to 250 is Isaac McNeely Got Ronnie James first base auto nice one there congrats usc. I would still Then a yellow Jared McCain to 75 for Duke All right, everybody got three randoms to do one for the Reese's shea purple one for the Boussilles aqua, and then one for all of the non numbered non-college guards for I know dude That's insane. Did you see did you hear about that too like the Caitlyn Clark cereal? She came out with like a cereal in Iowa. What? Are like, yeah, it's like a Caitlyn Clark branded cereal and it's like one in 30 boxes or 50 boxes or something you have a chance to win like an autographed ball or tickets to the game And there's people like camping out for them like that's what Eric said.  Oh my god. Oh my absolutely. That's insane Everybody doing the random for this real quick I'm gonna start off with all the non-collegiate cards. That'll be the first one Start off with the non-collegiate roll the dice we're gonna go eight times on that one two three four five six seven and eight That's still your pen real quick. Yeah, thank you, sir. Purdue UCLA Louisville. I will get that Summer's on $25 box. My god, man. Oh my god. All right, so that'll be the first one next up We're gonna do the random for the Zachary Reza shape purple to 399 Roll the dice and go nine times on that one two three four five six seven eight and nine I'm going to Michigan State getting the Reza Shay and the next up will be the Matt's Busellis aqua I'm gonna go nine times on that one two three four five six seven eight and nine going to USC All right Do a quick recap here start off with our base and refractors. We got Jamiro young Zaden high Chris Johnson Hannah Hidalgo Tyler Colek Reed Shepherd Rob Dillingham AJ Hogaard Santiago Vescovi Ashton Hardaway Cormac Ryan Kevin McCuller Elmarco Jackson Caitlin Clark Justin Edwards Dylan Dizou Tyson Chapman and steel ventures We've got a Refractors to 250 Isaac McNeely Sean Stewart Myro little Armando Baycott Devon Williams Javante Taylor Coleman Hawkins to 199 to Sean Harris Smith laden blocker DJ Wagner Prince of League Bay RJ Jones to 99 Tyson Chapman Dylan Dysou Paige Beckers to 75 Jared McCain to Sean Harris Smith to 50 Prince of League Bay laden blocker to 25 Armando Baycott base auto of brony James for USC and then a green Caitlyn Clark to 99 Break everybody. Thanks again for the Phil Phoenix coming up next


The friendships that I've made. The amazing teachers. The sausage sizzle and all the options they had. The friends, definitely. The campus. The food. The late night library sessions. Definitely all my friends. As much as studying sucks, I'm really going to miss the library environment of just chilling around, hanging, food time and studying at the same time. And the procrastination course. I really like that.


Welcome to the 11th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and we have no apologies today. Our first item of business for today is a decision to take agenda items 5 and 6 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Our next agenda item is consideration of the nominated appointments of chair and eight commissioners to the poverty and inequality commission. The Scottish Government has undertaken a competitive exercise and identified the most suitable candidates. All have agreed to be nominated for appointment. Under the Child Poverty Scotland Act 2017, the Parliament has a role in approving the Scottish Government's nominees. The committee has met with the selection panel chair to hear about the appointment process and has also had the chance to meet with the recommended appointees. I now invite members to share their views if anybody would like to come in, so I will invite Bob and then I will bring in John Mason. Thank you for the opportunity. I was looking to hear from those who are seeking to be commissioners in the new chair informally just before this meeting. I will make a brief observation. I was struck by the real diverse mix of candidates ranging from academia and policy research. Those involved in the coface of planning service delivery and those working on the ground with young people and families on a daily basis to tackle that poverty and those with direct lived experience. We want our commissioners to have that diverse range of skills and experiences to be a critical friend of Government and fiercely independent. As I heard this morning, I am really enthused by the candidates that are hopefully going to take up those roles. I was somewhat taken aback about how many people had applied to be both the chair and commissioners. It seems to be a very high level of applicants. I was also convinced that it has been a very thorough process to sift them down first to a short lead. The final nominees, which, as Bob Doris has just said, seem to cover a wide range of ground, so I am very happy to go ahead with those appointments. I echo the sentiments that have already been made. I think that it is an excellent mix of backgrounded skills that he heard from today, which is excellent. I just wanted to comment on Mr Sinclair, the proposed chair, his comments that there is going to be some serious work to do considering the child poverty delivery plan needs to be reassessed in the very near future, certainly within the next two years for that delivery for 2030. We have certainly come across a very good mix of people who will work hard to deliver that, but that is certainly a very specific timeframe that they are going to have to work to, certainly within the next couple of years. Certainly that came across very strongly. That is lovely. Anyone else like to come in? No? Okay. I wholeheartedly agree with all of you, and it was really heartening as well to hear about the amount of people that actually applied. There appeared to be, from speaking to the selection chair, just how robust it was, and it is really good to see a diverse range of nominees that were in the room and online with us today as well. I thank you all for your feedback as well. Are members content for the committee to recommend to the Parliament that it approves the appointment of Professor Stephen Sinclair as chair of the commission? Yes. Are members content for the committee to recommend to the Parliament that it approves the appointment of the following nominees as commissioners? We have Peter Costin, Kim Dams, Talia Dreak, Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Paul Fletcher, Louise Hunter, Ross McQueenie and Rami Okasha. We will consider a draft report next week. Do members agree that we will consider the draft report in private next week? Yes. I now briefly suspend the meeting to allow for the setup of the next item of business. Welcome back. We are now moving to agenda item 3, our last evidence session on the Social Security Amendment Scotland Bill. The bill is currently at stage 1, and today we will hear from the Scottish Government. I welcome to the meeting, Shirley-Anne Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and officials accompanying her, Ian Hunter, the bill team leader and Kayleigh Blair, Scottish Government legal department. Thank you all for joining us today. Before we move to questions, Cabinet Secretary, I believe that you would like to make an opening statement. Thank you very much and good morning, convener. I would like to begin by thanking everyone who has contributed to the development of the bill that we are here to talk about today. I am very grateful for the productive contributions to the Parliament scrutiny provided by the evidence given so far by our very engaged stakeholders on these technical and complex issues. That really has added to our engagement that we have already had through consultation, co-facilitated events and work with people on our experience and client panels. We have listened to the points raised both by stakeholders and by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I am pleased to say that we intend to build on those points with a number of stage 2 amendments to improve the bill, including to introduce new flexibilities for late applications in exceptional circumstances to extend further the range of regulations scrutinised by the Scottish Commission on Social Security and requiring Scottish ministers to consult on categories to be exempt from information requests as part of audits. The bill will enhance the Scottish system of social security in line with our social security principles that were set out on the Social Security Scotland Act 2018. Those principles were supported by the entire Parliament, and the principles particularly relevant to the bill are the opportunities to be sought to continuously improve the Scottish social security system in ways that put the needs of those who require assistance first and that the Scottish social security system is to be efficient and deliver value for money. The bill represents an essential collective investment in a system from which we all may need help from time to time. It is expected to generate savings of around £2.8 million in the first year of its implementation, followed by £3.5 million in the recurring annual savings. The projected implementation costs are estimated to be between £10.1 million and £27.8 million, and the large range is a reflection of prudent overestimates calculated in line with best practice for estimating project costs. The bill is drafted in eight substantive parts related to the two principles that I discussed earlier. Parts 1, 2, 5 and 8 will improve client experience. Parts 6 and 7 are focused on delivering value for money, and parts 3 and 4 speak to both principles. Some parts of the bill seek to amend or repeal sections of the 2018 act, and others seek to create new provisions in it. The bill aims in particular to introduce rights for people, save money by increasing efficiency and reducing unnecessary processes, improve the scrutiny of social security, take powers to improve existing benefits and introduce a power to create a new benefit for people with care experience. I am very happy to work with members of the committee and, with our stakeholders, to take forward this important set of improvements that we have in the bill. I am happy to answer questions from the committee today. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for that opening statement. We are going to kick off with some questions. I am going to start with theme 1, which is new forms of benefit, and that is part 1 of the bill. Does the cabinet secretary think that it would be beneficial for care experience assistance to be subject to the general statutory framework for social security, including the statutory principles, appeals, the take-up strategy, annual uprating and scrutiny by SCOSS and the Charter? If so, why not provide that in the bill in keeping with most other forms of Scottish social security? I very much do think that dignity, fairness and respect is something that should embed not just social security but how we provide public services in general. Where that fits in the statutory setting, though, I think very much does and should depend on the consultation that is moving forward on the care lever payment. We intend to use, in the first instance, the powers within the act to deliver that care lever payment, but the details on the delivery vehicle for that proposed payment have yet to be determined and will be set out in further regulations. Because of that, it is important that we have the space to work with stakeholders on how best to apply our principles. If I can give, for example, the Scottish welfare fund, which sits outside Social Security Scotland, which a recent review was undertaken of, and stakeholders did not wish that to be delivered by Social Security Scotland, and did not press for the types of statutory footing that are being talked about here, that are already in the principles of the 2018 act. At the point that we are at in our deliberations on the care lever payment, it is important that we have the statutory footing to allow us to take that payment forward but to leave Government with the space to work with stakeholders on the regulations in detail and see exactly what they would provide for us. I am going to take forward the level of detail that you are suggesting, convener, in your question. I am going to invite Ross McAulin for a quick supplementary. We took evidence from Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland that legally, to conform with the UNCRC, an increase to the age of a child to 18, that Scottish child payment should also increase to that age. I was wondering what the Scottish Government and your position, cabinet secretary, is on that and what response you would have to Michael Clancy of the Law Society. It is a very important point that has raised. What I would point to is that although the Scottish child payment is not available to young people over 16, our education maintenance allowance indeed is. It is not to say that there is not a payment and support that is available, it is a different type of support but there is support that is available for young people between 16 and 18. I am sorry just to confirm because it did sound on that evidence that this might actually be a legal position. Is that something that the Government has looked at and is it something that they are minded to do? At present, we do not have any plans to extend the eligibility of the Scottish child payment for older children. It is there to alleviate child poverty. That is an absolutely important principle of the Government but, as I say, there are other benefits including education maintenance allowance that is available for children or for young people that are over 16. I am now going to move on to Jeremy Balfour. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and good morning to your team. It is always good to have you here. The committee has heard that it would be beneficial if, for benefits that must be claimed within a certain timeframe, claimants were able to make late applications in exceptional circumstances. The committee has also taken evidence on cause to extend provisions for back dating. I wonder what your views are on those two areas. We absolutely agree that social security should be as accessible and accommodating as possible and are facing exceptionally challenging personal circumstances, whether that is upheaval in the home, vulnerability or ill health. Clients may indeed struggle to apply for assistance in a timely manner. That is an important point that the Government and the agency in the implementation need to be cognisant of. We are considering extending the flexibility available through the provision. We think that that is worthwhile. Even if it only helps a handful of cases, it is a handful of cases from people that are potentially exceptionally vulnerable in the most difficult of circumstances. I am very content to take forward investigations at stage 2 about how we can move forward with that. It is very important, as I said in my introduction remarks, that we look at exceptional circumstances and see what can be done in that matter. That is helpful. In regard to back dating as well, would that be a similar thing that you would be willing to look at? I think that, as with everything that I said in my opening remarks, one of the aspects that I am very keen and open to doing in social security is looking at that continuous improvement. We set the system up from scratch. Mr Blaffer was one of those people who assisted the Government in that with his points at that time. We must always be open to looking to see what needs done on certain issues. We need to look at it benefit by benefit to see what needs done. For example, there are some benefits where there is already a level of back dating. There are other benefits where eligibility is due because it is a top-up benefit. I am very happy to take away and look to see whether there is further work that can be done on that. What I would caution is a blanket approach that assumes what works for one benefit and will necessarily work for another, because there are very different circumstances and different types of benefits. However, it is something that I have asked officials to work with stakeholders on to see if there is anything that could be done that could be taken forward. We are now moving on to theme 3, which is challenging decisions. I am now going to invite Marie McNeary. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and officials. As part of our evidence session for the last five weeks, we have heard how confusing it is for people to access the security. There are suggestions being made that why do we not just have the same deadlines across for all benefits in terms of requesting a redetermination? I just wanted to know what your view on that was, Cabinet Secretary. I think that, in some ways, it follows on from the points that I just made to Jeremy Balfour. There are very different types of benefits in here if we move from a single payment benefit such as the young carers grant or we move forward with aspects around the Scottish child payment or disability payments. It is not necessarily the case that the same dates work for everything, but, as I said, I am more than happy to see whether there is anything that can be done to assist if there is any confusion in there. Clearly, as we develop social security, we did so quite rightly in an iterative fashion, where we dealt with it benefit by benefit. It is helpful at this point to have an opportunity to take a little bit of a step back and to hear both from clients with the experience of going through the system, but also from representatives, citizens advice, welfare rights officers, et cetera, that are going through this. If they themselves are finding areas that are perhaps overly complex, there may be very good reasons, as I said, why the different dates are in place, either for a client to apply or for Social Security Scotland to undertake the work. I give as an example the fact that a redetermination for a single payment in terms of how long it will take the agency to do that is very different for a single payment as it is for something like adult disability payments, where there is a great deal of evidence that may have to be worked through, supporting information that may have to be worked through as we go through that. It is very important again that there is not a one-size-fits-all policy to it, but a very much an openness from the Government and indeed from the agency to hear from clients themselves with the experience and also from those who have assisted them to see if there is anything that can be done to make the system any easier for them. It is very important, as we have said all the way from the start, that one of the key things that we want to do with Social Security is to make it as simple as possible for people to apply to ensure that there is no barriers. Anything that we can do around dates, of course, is one small aspect of that, but it is an important aspect that we are happy to look at. It has also been suggested to the committee that instead of redetermination followed by appeal, a simpler approach would be to go straight to appeal. Any unnecessary appeals could be avoided by lapsing appeals where necessary. Again, what are your views on that, Cabinet Secretary? I followed that line of evidence with great interest because Mr Balfour may remember that we had discussions at the time absolutely about ensuring that people had redetermination because they found tribunals intimidating, a process that can be time consuming and, of course, for the public purse more expensive. On reflection from stage 2, we think that there is anything that can be done. I am happy to look at that. However, as we have laid it out at the moment, I think that there is enough opportunity for people to have redeterminations in a simple and timely manner to allow that to be an important part of the process. It was something that we discussed in great detail when the bill was originally going through, and that was the reason that it has been set out in the way that it has. However, I recognise that people have said their points on that. I do not know if officials want to come in with any more details on the work on that. I would say that there are also things that the committee wishes to consider about, for example, doing away with the redetermination step and going straight to appealing that. We have to bear in mind about taking on what the cabinet secretary said about people's preferences. There are also the resource demands on the Scottish Scots and Tribunals service, so I know that the committee will speak into it next week. If we were to take out the redetermination step not only from the individual's perspective of preferring a redetermination to the more formal setting of a tribunal, there is also the question of, could this increase in tribunal numbers be handled by the Scottish Scots and Tribunals service? It has also been suggested that the current legislation is too inflexible because it requires appeals to be made in a specific form, and that was raised by Welsh Rights Scotland. What are your views on that? Easy to navigate form is automatically included with a redetermination notice. It can, of course, be done online and so on. This is one of the aspects where, again, we were trying to make it as easy as possible for a client, so it is not an opaque process, but we are not only saying that you can make a redetermination, but actually here is how it can be done. This is, again, attempts for us to be able to deal with this in a very open manner. The forms are also designed to collate all the information that the tribunal will require. Of course, clients can contact Social Security Scotland to talk about completion of any forms and, of course, people can be assisted in completing those forms as well. I think that the clearest way that I could explain this to the committee is that provision in the legislation is not about requiring a specific form as such, a paper form. It is about the information that must be included in order to be treated as an application rather than a blanket insistence on this form, like a form B2. It is about the information that is required by the agency to make a determination of entitlement. It is what is required rather than form X or form Y. I think that, obviously, from the event session that we took the other week there, that is exactly what we came back from, you know, the way for right Scotland, as they were saying that they are not accepting that form that they are putting in, so it has got to be a specific form. So, if we can take that back, that would be great. Some resolution there, too. I am happy to have a further consideration of that and to look at that. Thanks very much. The committee has heard some objections to individuals being liable for the good faith hours of the representative. Can the cabinet secretary explain why someone should be liable for an hour that was neither of their thought nor something a person might be expected to notice? I think that that goes back to one of those principles that I discussed in my opening remarks. That is absolutely out ensuring that we are running an effective system, but always doing so with those principles of dignity, fairness and respect underpinning that. We have a duty to steer those public funds responsibly, and a key part of that is about recovering assistance that is being paid out incorrectly, where it is reasonable to do so. That is the very important caveat that I can hope I can reassure Mr Balfour on. The decision about where you place liability really does hinge on two questions. Did the individual of their representative cause or contribute to the error, and was it the sort of error that a reasonable person would be expected to notice? If the answer to both of those questions is no, then neither the representative or the individual will be considered liable. It is very important that people are reassured that the system that we have in place is thurer. It will look very seriously at overpayments, but it will not do so in a punitive manner where there have been genuine errors made by people. If the representative made an error in good faith, but it was the sort of error that a person could reasonably have been expected to notice, that does mean that the benefit was paid out incorrectly. Therefore, it is important that it is recovered where possible. It is fairer in our view to place that liability for the overpayment on whichever party benefited from it. That is the important distinction between a person for whom the benefit is for and their representative. As always, what we will do in those circumstances, as we do with all cases of error, is look very much on a case-by-case basis. It is important that that has a statutory underpinning. It is important that the guidance that the agency uses to go through that is again worked on with stakeholders to ensure that particularly those who represent vulnerable clients are reassured. Those safeguarding measures are in place to ensure that the system is not punitive. It does not seek to get back overpayments in a way where there is a real detriment to the individual, particularly difficult financial circumstances and so on. Those safeguarding measures again are within the guidance, and it is something that the agency, when it is looking at the operational guidance on that, will work with stakeholders to go forward with. It is very important that we have a very strong and robust system, but we do so in a manner that is respectful and cognisant of an individual's case or indeed the representative of that individual's circumstances. That is helpful. Clearly, we do not want to overcomplicate the system, but there are different types of representation, so sometimes it will be a very formal one with a third sector charity, sometimes it may be a family member or a family friend. Is there some kind of distinction that we would draw between, say, CAB-given representation compared to a neighbour helping out somebody? Could that be more clear with the guidance? We have recognised, as the evidence has gone on, that there are concerns from stakeholders, and I again want to provide them with the assurance that we are absolutely not intending in this bill or anywhere else with making professional advisers who act on clients' instructions, such as well for rights officers or those who work in citizens advice bureaus. I do appreciate that it has been raised, and I think that it is very important that we reassure, which I am happy to do today, but also to see if there is anything else that needs done in tightening up off of this. Certainly, at this moment in time, I am content with how we are intending to go about that. A full list of the people within the definition representative will be laid out within the regulations, and absolutely this is, as I said, not the intention to pull into that, those who give advice, such as well for rights officers. I am happy to again work with the stakeholders to make sure, as we are going through the regulations as well, that that reassurance is not just given, but within the regulations. Several witnesses were concerned that many situations such as shared household finances would be difficult in practice to identify whether funds had been misused. How were such decisions made by Social Security Scotland? I think that it is important, and this goes back to what the cabinet secretary was saying. In the vast majority of cases, we expect that appointees that are helping people with their application for benefit will be acting appropriately in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, Social Security Scotland will proceed from the assumption that the representative will be acting properly, and that any of our payments should be covered from the client, because it is the client who will have benefited from that overpayment. I think that the alternative here is that a client who requires someone to act on their behalf in connection with their application for benefit is strictly liable for everything that that appointee may do. While I accept that, in the vast majority of cases, they will be behaving appropriately, they might not always be. Therefore, I do not think that it is right that a person who requires an appointee should necessarily be liable for money that they never saw the benefit of. I refer you back to comments made by the Alliance in its evidence. It noted that social security legislation is not on its own enough to tackle financial abuse. What the bill does is to ensure that the consequences of the abuse fall on the person who is responsible for it in the first place. On that point, Mr Balfour, in those rare cases where Social Security Scotland becomes aware that the funds are being misused, it would be able to oppose liability appropriately for those funds on the basis of that information. That would only happen in practice when that is brought to the attention of the agency. It would also raise other important questions about the appropriateness of that appointee, etc. Thank you, Mr Hunder. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Moving on to theme 5, appointees, I invite Paul O'Kane in. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to Cabinet Secretary and Officials. We have had a number of sessions where we have looked at appointees and had some evidence about the interaction between the DWP system and Social Security Scotland in terms of reciprocal arrangements of recognising appointees, essentially. We know that Social Security Scotland already recognises DWP appointees as part of the transfer process that has been under way. I think that it would be useful, because witnesses did point to this. How can we better streamline processes so that that recognition happens more easily and in the future will continue to happen more easily, so that if somebody has recognised in one system, they are also recognising the Scottish system. I do not know if the cabinet secretary wants to comment on that generally and then we will see if there is follow-up. It is very important that we look to share information with the DWP where it is in the best interests of the client and, obviously, following due processes. We have the back office systems that are there that will facilitate the sharing of information for both the case transfers, as you mentioned, and also for new applications. The powers that are in the bill will allow the speedy payment of a benefit if an appointee is already in place in the DWP. It is important that the agency goes through its own process, because what we have established in Scotland is something with more checks than is in the DWP. If we were to simply just accept a DWP appointee and not have our own processes in place, that would be, in effect, going against what we deliberated long and hard about, about the level of assurance that we would need about appointees in 2018. That would be having a less rigorous system. In essence, it would be easier if we did not have two processes, but that would mean that we would not expect quite rightly the DWP to change their system to match ours. They are perfectly entitled to make their own decisions. It would require the agency to lower the checks that we have in place at this point. As I said, that debate about the level of checks for appointees was something that has been previously discussed and agreed. On that basis, if we do still agree that we have that level correct here in Scotland, then what we need to look to do is ensure that we have the powers within this bill to recognise the DWP appointee but then move speedily to the checks that the agency would need to carry out. Therefore, we move forward on the basis of the Scottish system. I hope that that makes sense to that explanation about why we have two different levels of checks between the two different departments. I think that the committee wanted to understand essentially that we are not starting from scratch in terms of the information that is shared, but I think that it is useful to understand that extra process at Social Security Scotland. I do not know if, for the record, you want to say what some of those additional checks are for those of us who were not here when we introduced the bill in the first place. I am happy to provide some more writing to go through that, but, for example, it requires the agency to speak to both the client and the appointee when that is obviously possible. I would appreciate for some disability conditions that is not necessarily possible to speak to both. We have our local delivery teams who can go out on visits and make those types of checks that are different to what happens in England, but we can provide the full comparison by correspondence if that would help to assist members. I am moving on to theme 6, which is information for audit, and I am going to invite John Mason in. You may have picked up from the evidence that we have taken, cabinet secretary, that there was a bit of feeling around the whole area of audit. The overall feeling was that, on the whole, we have introduced a social security system in Scotland that is considerably more caring, adaptable and flexible than previously was seen from the UK level. When it comes to audit, it seems to be quite harsh some of the expectations. I wonder if you could comment on that. As I have looked at the evidence on that, I will continue to repeat the point that we absolutely have to do everything based on dignity, fairness and respect. That includes how we do our audit. Audit is exceptionally important due to our requirement, quite rightly, to ensure that we are using public funds correctly. I would point to the evidence, for example, by Audit Scotland, that is quite rightly ensuring that the agency has in place correct auditory functions to look at that. We have looked very carefully at the options around audit. We have not gone for a complete replica of what the DWP does, although we have looked at that because there are lessons to learn from the systems that are currently in place. I would say to one of the overarching concerns that people have about the requirement. Audit is not about tackling fraud, but, as you do an audit, you may see information about a case that may lead to a concern that there may be fraud. If you had a system of audit that was entirely voluntary, I would suggest that, if you are carrying out fraud, you are not going to volunteer for that system. On that basis, what you will have is, in essence, a self-selecting sample of people. That does not give us the ability or the agency the ability to carry out a full auditory process. We did look at different types of ways that could be done. We have undertaken a desk-based review on random sample of cases, desk-based reviews under a random sample with voluntary interviews, but I have given you, I hope, Mr Basin the slight difficulty with that. We also looked at a desk-based review on random sample of cases following that up with a mandatory interview. The aspect again that I reassure people about is what happens around that auditory process. Those are where the really important safeguarding measures come into place, about how we do not just take away somebody's benefit if they do not engage, how we ensure that we work with a client. We understand the importance of the audit process, but that is again done in a supportive fashion. I hope that that gives you a high-level explanation of why we have come to the decisions that we have and why I have gone through that process that I have to go through with the detailed suggestions that we have. Of course, if there are particular points that you want to pick up on, I am happy to do so or bring in my colleagues on those. I accept that it is difficult, and we are trying to get a balance here and not go to either extreme being too harsh or being too easygoing. I just wonder about the purpose of the audit. Audit to me, which is part of my training, if I was auditing Marks and Spencer's, I would go in there and be looking at their systems. If I found that they had been selling their shirts for the wrong price, I would be ticking them off and that would go in the audit report, but I would not be going to the customers and saying, give me the extra £10 that you did not pay for that shirt. If the purpose is to audit and see how social security Scotland is doing, that is fine, and let us do that. To then, it seems to move on, and you can reassure me that that is not really going to happen. I mean, if it is then moving on, and just because somebody has not engaged, they have been through some bad experience in the first place, they have probably had a whole process, as we have already heard, appealing and getting the benefits they are due. If they then just do not respond when they have done nothing wrong, of course we do not know if they have done nothing wrong, but if they just do not respond and then they get their benefits cut, that just seems to me about her. What I would point to is that I hope to try and reassure you on this point, is that it is important that we do audit. One of the reasons it is also important to audit is to ensure that correct decisions are being made as well. That is important to ensure that the system is not being overly generous, but it is giving clients the maximum that they are entitled to, but not more than that. Audit is an exceptionally important part of that process, which is why it is important to have that connection with the individual as well. What I would say again in terms of the safeguarding is that they will be told absolutely at the outset any individual that has taken part in that, that they have the right to support and to be signposted to how to access that. Individuals very importantly can ask to have a request withdrawn if they think they have good reason for that, and again happy to work with stakeholders about what the reasoning may be for those. If a request is not withdrawn and the individual does not respond, what we are very keen to do is work with stakeholders to see what types of safeguarding measures they think they should be in place. What I would reassure is that this is not one letter out and if you do not respond within a certain small time period then you have had it and you get your benefit stopped. Nobody will have their benefit stopped. You may have your payment suspended but that is very different to having your benefit stopped. We are also very keen to ensure that the agency continues to make contact with the individual. They will of course be signposted that if they have got past all those attempts to contact and are still not contacting the agency that people will have the right to challenge any suspension, which is not an absolute hard stop of a benefit. Of course the suspended assistance will be backdated if they then respond to a request. We will continue to work with the client to get the information from them that we require for an audit but do so in a very supportive fashion. What we are trying to do through this is to ensure that we have a full auditory process but with enough safety nets, enough safeguarding and enough support available to ensure that we do not get into the position, as she said, of someone who has had very difficult circumstances or who is going through very difficult circumstances at that point, having payments affected. Unless we make this a voluntary scheme, which I have explained the severe difficulties with, there has to be some sort of process that we have in place that requires an individual to take part. What we are looking at is the balance, I suppose. Again, I am very happy to work with stakeholders because I recognise that this is an area of concern. I recognise that this is an area where people could fall through a safety net. What I would like to do is work with stakeholders that have raised the concerns to see what more we can do, not necessarily in the face of the bill but when we are looking at the guidance and the implementation of that through the agency, that we are building in the types of safeguarding measures that people would quite rightly expect us to have. That is very helpful to be fair. Is it right to say that this part was not consulted on when the bill was being prepared? No, it was not in the full consultation. What we have done is, of course, try and consult with the stakeholders that will be most impacted by this or have the most obvious relation with clients who will be impacted by it. There has been targeted consultation, but it was not part of the full public consultation that was part of the bill. Did I pick up in your opening remarks that you said you were either open to or thinking of amendments in this space at stage 2? I am very happy to look at that, but it is also important to look at what is not necessarily right for the face of the bill but what should be within the guidance. We will look to see what more can be done. Again, as part of the reassurance that we have undertaken to make an amendment to the bill at stage 2, requiring a public consultation prior to the exercise of the regulation making powers. That, for example, will allow us to look at the groups that are exempted from the requirements for audits. Again, that is a very genuine attempt to build in some of those safeguarding measures to ensure that we are taking time to get this right. We are taking time to consult and to work through with stakeholders as one example who would be exempt from the auditory process. There will be quite rightly some people who absolutely should be exempt from the process. It just cannot move to the full fact that it is voluntary. I am moving on to theme 7, which is compensation recovery. I am going to invite Bob Dorison. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. In England and Wales, the Department of Work and Pension has already seen a system of compensation recovery. For those who will not be aware of what that is, if a person receives benefits as a direct result of injury action or disease but later gets compensation, then the compensator has to reimburse the WP for those benefits. I welcome that a similar system is going to be brought into place in Scotland in relation to the bill that we are scrutinising. If the compensator does not comply, the bill will make it a criminal offence, but the power to make it a criminal offence will be in regulation and in secondary legislation and will not be on the face of the bill. That was of significant concern to the DPLR committee and is not the normal way that those matters are conducted. I am just wondering what the Scottish Government's position is, why you have not taken the option to put the bill on the face of the bill. I mentioned it in my original statements, but I will put on record my thanks to the committee for the due diligence that they have paid as always to the bill, particularly on this issue. I hope to alleviate the concerns that have been raised. It is vital that, when offences are created in legislation, the terms of each offence are clear and properly understood by those who might find themselves accused of committing those offences. To that end, it is our intention to carry out an in-depth engagement with all the relevant stakeholders, including those from the insurance industry themselves, before we clearly lay out the details of such offences in regulations. One of the reasons for the approach that we have taken is to ensure that there is further and on-going consultation and work with those that would be directly impacted by the offences that are in the bill. We intend to ensure that the details of the offences created align with the investigatory provisions, which will also be in secondary legislation and apply appropriately to corporate bodies. It is about linking up different regulations to ensure that they are compatible with each other and coherent. Of course, the Parliament still has the opportunity to reject us if it does not appreciate what has come forward at that point, but it is not an unprecedented approach. A similar power was taken to make provision about offences that are already contained in the 2018 act, so it follows on from something that has already been undertaken in the 2018 act when we talk about offences. That is helpful, cabinet secretary. I am not suggesting that this has not been done in the past. The DPLF Committee looks at this on a week-to-week basis across all the legislation of the Government and it stood out as an outlier in relation to the approach that the Government would normally take. I think that we need to just mirror some of those concerns. If Parliament did decide that they wished this to win the face of the bill, I am very open minded either way, cabinet secretary, has work taken place already to flesh out what should be on the face of the bill? Importantly, the consultation has not taken place to the level that we would want to do it, or I would think that stakeholders would wish it to be done. Of course, they will speak quite rightly for themselves on this issue, but at this point I would feel much more comfortable with that consultation being undertaken rather than it being on the face of the bill. We will have to reflect on that. It may be as we are or we are, and secondary legislation might be the most appropriate vehicle, given what you have just said, cabinet secretary. Can you confirm for me what the level of parliamentary scrutiny will be for any secondary legislation in terms of negative or superaffirmative, so we can know what the level of parliamentary scrutiny there will be, given that it may not be on the face of the bill? We are just checking. My belief is that it is affirmative, but I want to absolutely make certain of that, and if it is not, then we can make it affirmative if it is not. My goodness, cabinet secretary, do you mean that I have actually got the Government movement within seconds if it is not affirmative? That is a first. We can certainly check that, Mr Doris, in case my assumption that I am working on is incorrect. You can claim it as a win, either way. I am not really that bothered, cabinet secretary, but if you can write us just to confirm that, that would be helpful. We did hear that there could be a little bit of uncertainty in relation to the appeal routes for recovery of Scottish and DWP benefits. I think that that was an understanding that there could be a separate Scottish system as opposed to a partnership agreement or an agency agreement with DWP. So it would be helpful if you could just clarify what that process will look like and whether you intend a partnership or an agency agreement or otherwise. It is our intention to create a recovery scheme that is consistent with the approach that has been undertaken in the rest of the UK. It is a long-standing approach that has been agreed with stakeholders. I am not entirely sure that I will caveat that. I am not sure that it was agreed when it went through with the DWP that it was agreed with stakeholders, but it is certainly understood by stakeholders. I do not see a reason for change from that point. I am happy to reassure stakeholders that there will be consistency. We absolutely are looking at that consistency because we want to reduce complexity and uncertainty. I think that that is an important aspect. Sometimes change and difference is necessary and sometimes it is not. I do not see a reason for that in this case. Can I just double-check? Does that mean that the system may mirror the DWP route that would necessarily be an agency agreement? Our intention is to work with the DWP on an agency agreement. That does not have to be what happens in the long term, but that is our intention at this point. I think that that was the clarity that witnesses wanted, so I think that they will welcome that. I did have other questions, convener, but it is not related to that. I do not know if there is any time to do that. We will go through them, and if we have time, I will come back. With your indulgence, convener, I will say that it is an informative procedure for the regulations. I should just very briefly follow-up in that. Again, we will have to reflect whether that is the right level of parliamentary scrutiny as well. To put that on the record, I was not suggesting that that would be the right level of scrutiny. I just wanted to know what the level of scrutiny would be. Now we are going to move on to theme 8, which is SCOSS, and I am going to invite Ross McCollum. I should have said hello to the cabinet secretary and my first questions are my apologies for not welcoming her to the committee with the team. In a written submission, CPAC pointed out that the bill includes a large number of new regulation making powers, which are not added to SCOSS's remit. They say that all should be subject to statutory scrutiny by SCOSS. Why does the Scottish Government consider that SCOSS scrutiny is not necessary specifically for compensation recovery or information for audit? As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am more than happy to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to extend the regulations that SCOSS will be more than happy to look at extending the role for SCOSS for some of the regulations that we have talked about today. I absolutely do recognise and am greatly appreciative of the role that SCOSS has played from day 1 in looking at regulations. I am very keen to ensure that its role is expanded, changed and developed as the system for social security moves on. Clearly, the committee will be aware that there was an independent review of SCOSS Government's arrangements and so on. That did identify some changes to ensure that SCOSS was resilient and fit for purpose for the future. The bill looks at implementing the recommendations of that, but I am happy to look at stage 2 amendments to bring more powers into the bill for the scope of the formal SCOSS scrutiny following the stakeholder contributions at stage 1. I am also following a very recent letter that I have had from the SCOSS boards themselves. I am working through all the details of what has come through from SCOSS very recently. I am going to ensure that I go through that in detail with my officials. However, we intend to move forward at stage 2 and I will bring forward aspects around the care experience assistance and the other areas that I mentioned earlier. Thank you very much. I look forward to looking at those amendments. Finally, I am moving on to the last theme, which is financial memorandum. I am going to invite Katie Clark. Thank you very much and welcome Cabinet Secretary. The name of the bill is value for money. Compensation recovery could cost up to £5.1 million per year and estimated income is up to £5.5 million a year. What is the financial justification for bringing in compensation recovery? First of all, I think that it is a very important principle that we should have within our system. What I have alluded to in my opening remarks is that recovery of compensation is a very specialised function. What we have looked at as I have drawn the financial memorandum together is what we can look at in terms of what happens in Northern Ireland, what happens in other systems to look and compare as best we can about what a Scottish system would look like. That has led to a very wide range of potential estimated implementation and running costs. That is because it is very important that I look at, as we are required to do, the overestimations that are built into delivery. It is important that we base the financial memorandum on that basis. The detailed analysis of the requirements that will be necessary to carry out the function that includes working with the DWP will allow us to have a much more accurate account of the costs once that work has been undertaken with the DWP. Of course, we will be happy to provide committee with further information on that, should the bill become an act and we move forward with the compensation scheme. I would point to the fact that it is also important that the delivery of the function is an important function of a social security system. I am quickly going to bring in Bob Doris and Jeremy Balfour for some supplementaries and then we will conclude our business. Thank you, convener. As a supplementary and many many others' line of questioning earlier on, it was in relation to whether the redetermination process should remain or whether individuals appealing should go straight to the tribunal service. It is fair to say that we are conflicting evidence from third sector and advice groups on that. Some people thought that it was vital that the redetermination process stayed and others thought that it got in the way. No one was speaking with one voice in the sector in relation to that cabinet secretary. I was wondering if redeterminations were, if you like, running tandem with the tribunal service. Let me just say a little bit what I mean about that, convener. If there are no redeterminations and things would stay straight to a tribunal, I think pretty quickly Social Security Scotland would do a very quick review of any application to make sure they got it right in the first place. A lot of applications to the tribunals would never get there anyway. Is it possible to have a hybrid system? Is that something that the Government could think about? I am not saying that that is well thought out. I am not saying that there are unintended consequences, but we are progressing this legislation as a hybrid system possible. Is that something that the Government could give consideration to? I see where the member is coming from on that. I suppose what I would say is that if you are running any systems at the same time, then you are still running and therefore paying for two systems. What you are not getting, and I would point to the difference between our review and a redetermination. One of the important aspects that we brought in with Social Security Scotland was that a redetermination is not just checking for errors in the original decision, but it is a fresh look at the entire case. The member would suggest that you are bringing in something that we do not do within the system, which is a review process that is not as thorough as a redetermination. Our review is more like what happens with your DWP session at the moment. As we discussed when the bill was going through, there are downsides to that way of working. That is why we have something very different within the 2018 act, which is a full redetermination, which is a look at the case entirely with an entirely different team to ensure that it is just taken very much with a fresh pair of eyes. I would caution that there are downsides to the public purse, but also to what the individual would be getting from that. That would be why I am my initial thoughts on that as I work through that, as I speak, is hesitancy about that approach. Cabinet Secretary, the reason for asking the question is to draw attention to the fact that the sector does not speak with one voice and what the best system should look like. Maybe that is something that the Government can reflect on to see if improvements can be made. Part of the sector says that redeterminations get in the way and others say that it is really important. We want to make sure that all people are serviced appropriately by whatever system we have in place. That is such an important point again. I go back to the thing that I have mentioned a few times now, which is about continuous improvement. We are now working through the processes, although still very small in number, given the number of cases around redeterminations and appeals. I appreciate that the committee is looking at that in other evidence. I believe that you have the agency, the tribunal service and so on, coming next week on that. That is a very important aspect. We will also ensure that we are looking to continuously improve what that looks like, whether it has to be done on the face of a bill or whether it is about practices. That is something that I am sure the committee will investigate, but I wish to do so by the agency on the operational matters that it has. Thank you very much. Jeremy, would you like to come in? There are two quick questions. This is an opportunity to reflect on how things have gone over the past five or six years. One of the areas that seems to be concerned around some of the evidence that we took was in regard to the information that has been recorded so that we can monitor that. Is that something that you might think should be in the bill where we may be more for statutory duty that information is recorded so that we can see how that is going because there is quite a lot of evidence that is not happening at the moment? I do not think that that needs to be on the face of the bill. The reason for that would be that there is a requirement for flexibility because the needs for that will change. In the future, when we have all moved on to other things, Mr Balfour, we are maybe obligating the agency to collect information by statute that they do not necessarily want to do. For example, we have entirely changed a benefit but we have something in legislation that requires them to collect information. It is quite a blunt instrument. The basis of the questioning is the fact that we need to ensure that we are gathering the right information. I would absolutely accept that that is correct and that this is a process that we are in development with the agency. I know that the agency themselves are keen to have more management information than the systems that are in place to allow the collecting of that management information for their own benefit and therefore for the client's benefit. I would say that I do not think that that needs to be on the face of the bill, partly because of that inflexibility. I think that you are pushing at an open door, Mr Balfour, on the fact that we all agree that there is more that needs to be collected. I am always happy to have suggestions from the committee about where that is because the agency and I often have discussions with the chief executive and the senior team on the level of management information that we have and what is possible to publish to allow full transparency on that. I sometimes have frustrations that at this point in time we cannot publish as much as I would like to be able to demonstrate how well the system is going. I will reflect on those comments. The second area is that we took some evidence in regard to the first-tier tribunal hearings. As you will reflect, we looked to us quite carefully when we put it. It was very much meant to be client-led whether that tribunal was going to be heard overly or on paper or face-to-face. I am interested in having an FOI came back just a couple of days ago, which said that there had only been one in-person tribunal in the whole of Scotland in the last year. We have heard evidence that people are finding it difficult to get that face-to-face tribunal. Clearly, it is there in the bill that that should be the person's choice. If it is not happening in practice, do we need to strengthen that legislation to make sure that people are getting what they want? Not being forced to go, but if they want to go, that is an absolute right and can we strengthen that in the legislation? I am certainly very happy to reflect on that following your question today. I would perhaps direct you if I could to maybe some of those that are coming to give you evidence and those and those from the tribunal service, and it is perhaps a matter for them rather than from Government. I hear what you are saying, Mr Balfour. I hear that you feel that that is a concern. I am happy to reflect on the evidence or the question that you have given me today and also listen carefully to the evidence next week, if that is something that I am presuming that you may bring up again and to reflect on what happens next week. I think that that is an issue for the tribunal rather than for Government. Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary and thank you to your officials as well today. This concludes this evidence session and our public business for today. The committee will now consider all the evidence received at stage 1 and report its findings in May.


Andrani's one film away from being done with what we watched the Deathly Hollows part one last night But you've never seen Harry Potter. Nope. What is wrong with you people? She's one away now I know but I showed it to you guys too. Well, so well, you'll understand this Do you know why I didn't see Harry Potter when it came out because of Satan?  Of course. I'm Rick. Why because the kids they're age Like right now would you be easily able to go see the Harry Potter films? Yeah, no Yeah, imagine three of what you've got. No, thank you. Thanks. What are we doing, Rick? Talking about Handmaid's tale We finished that you finished it. Yeah, the folder you're done. We're waiting out for season five. It's amazing. It's great You'll watch handmade sales are great. Elizabeth Moss is amazing. Oh my goodness. So is Ann Dowd Everybody everybody in the show is great, but yeah, and Elizabeth Moss does one heck of a job Directing speaking of Harry Potter Voldemort's brother. Yes. Yeah, that's right. I don't do you pick up on that with the last name fine The commander the commander Fred is Ray Fiennes brother who is Voldemort. Yeah They honestly they look very similar and they talk very similar they do But yeah Today, what are we doing stand up? It never gets old just like my butt. This is called falling in love. Oh Is it right? Gia Sethi stand up. I don't think I don't think we reacted to her. I don't think so But yeah, I think it was so do our subbers if it needs something. Thank you subbers for subbing the sub subbing Yes, sincerely. Here we go with the program miles My name is Gia. I am 38 years old.  I like she's a rebel. I was like, I'll be a mermaid At 38 good for you.   I didn't touch the hot vessel. I ate food International I used up a cut Nationally, it's called a tongue You know the kind of love where you lose yourself Confidence Oh, I was like, I'm amazing The kind of love you find as you're with a flower and I'm like, he loves me. He loves me not at 38 He loves me.   You know that's your best friend laughing because they live in your head Now what am I present? I wear them everywhere Because Pesa Vasuli iPhone, I'm like, no, just Airpods I'm looking for a guy with an iPhone 15 years ago, my other brother made a pasta one day for 15 years. We heard what a pasta Best pasta in the world I made a roti one day I was like, Shadi Nobody said round roti Yesterday my other brother comes up.   Papa hang all right for girls coming of age is when our mom gives us our first pad We should get a bill with that pad Yeah, must be a child Right girls at 15 16 17 18. I don't know what age they're having sex these days Will tell nobody Not even the best friend the best friends like you had sex. No No, I'm a virgin Excuse me.   I was like, yeah, my father's a peacock Thank you, Blau woman. Yeah, all those are even if she was speaking well done In English, I think yeah, she was speaking English for sure. Ah It's still difficult when you speak and so fast. Yeah, she's funny. She's very similar. I forget her name. She's this I Think I forget what Asian nationality. She is but she's a she's a small Asian comedian Who would be described as like a very raunchy kind of style of comedian? I think I know you were talking she was pregnant Yeah, I know you're talking about I forget her name. She's frickin hilarious. I forgot her name too But she has that similar style of kind of like a nonchalant. Yeah off the cuff. Yeah, I'm sure I'm yeah relaxed Just just you know was at home and then came to this. Yeah stage and here tell you that my thing Yeah, they were always prepared, but they all know right. Yeah, it's crazy how many different styles of stand-up You're literally telling jokes. Yes There's like a thousand different ways you could do it and how hard it is because like it's very different than say So because in many respects we've talked about this before it's it's like a one-person show You're writing your stuff, right? Yeah, but here's the difference in a one-person show You're not hoping right at the outset to get chemistry with your audience and get them to like you and Interact with you. You're presenting your thing and if they get it, they don't get it Okay The main thing is to be in your element and be performing right a primary criteria of stand-up comedy and think about this Think about going to a party and just meeting people and hoping you hit it off with the whole room within 30 seconds That stand-up.   Yeah, it's a hard Hard thing to do. Yep.   Yeah, you know Yep, bad stuff happens to yeah, so it's a she did great job Let us know what are the comedians we should react to Put down in the description below of an upload so I can see it and if it needs to be so we can send it to the team So let us know down below and thank you to our subbers for subbing all of our subbing subbing subs always and always