The first item of business this afternoon is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions. Question number one, John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it promotes the Parliament, its values and its work. Liz Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body promotes the Parliament, its values and its work through supporting members in our work and also through the work of a number of offices across the Parliament working together to deliver a public engagement strategy. Increasingly, I think we are seeing the direct benefits of this engagement work in the scrutiny of the Parliament's committees. Perhaps the most visible recent example of success in this area is the way in which the BSL bill was improved as a direct result of the Parliament developing a very close working relationship with Scotland's deaf and deafblind community. Many thanks, John Finnie. Thank you. I thank the member for that response and indeed the commendable work that is taking place. Lockheed Martin are the world's largest arms company and they've been given money by the Scottish Government. It's also been given publicity by the Scottish Parliament when they provided a prize for an award ceremony in this building. The Green Independent Group raised that issue and we were advised in a response that there were a public sector supplier of IT systems. The member will be aware that daily there's increasing concerns about pension investment. Nothing suggests that the Parliamentary Corporate Body or indeed the pension trustees recognise that. Recently we debated Trident, yet we invest in a company supplying propulsion system. Would the member agree that it's time for the Scottish Parliament to accept responsibility for our own affairs and not hide behind pension fund managers? Time to sort out our customer-client relationship with these fund managers and divest from arms, fossil fuels and tobacco. Will the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body agree to undertake and make public a risk assessment of the reputational damage such arrangements associations funding are causing to an institution? I know we all hold very dearly. Liz Smith. I thank the member for his supplementary and I also recognise his long-standing interest in this issue. Can I just be absolutely clear about this that under the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act of 2009, the day-to-day administration, including any investment strategy for the Scottish Parliament pension scheme, is the sole responsibility of the fund trustees and not actually of the corporate body. I understand that the fund trustees appointed by Bailey Gifford as fund manager for the scheme have delegated that responsibility for the day-to-day investment management to them. The pension's contributions are invested in cold fund, as the member is aware. Can I just stress that the independent fund manager, Bailey Gifford, has a day-to-day responsibility for management decisions? They operate an environmental, social and governance policy for its investments and it is also a signatory to the United Nations principles of responsible investing. Just to reinforce the SPCB's role in relation to this is really separated from the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act from that of the fund trustees. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it has given to the implications for its employees of the proposals in the UK Government's trade union bill. The SPCB is aware of the contents of the bill and officials have begun to assess what systems would have to be amended or put in pressure to be passed in the current form. We will continue to monitor developments at Westminster to ensure that we are ready to meet any resultant legal requirements on the Parliament. The corporate body values the strong relationship that it has with the trade unions and will continue to work with them in implementing any act resulting from this bill. Patricia Ferguson. I have to say that I find the answer from the corporate body very disappointing indeed. This bill is regressive in nature and will do nothing to facilitate good working arrangements within this Parliament. I would have hoped that the corporate body might have been willing to take the route that many local authorities now in Scotland are taking and ensure that, regardless of what legislation the UK Parliament passes in this regard, that if it is not amended or has significant changes made to it, it would be willing to guarantee that it will continue with issues like check-off and facility time in order to make sure that trade unions in this Parliament are treated in the way that we would all want to be as partners in negotiations and as worthwhile enterprises in and of themselves. John Pentland. I think that even though there was overwhelming opposition to the bill on Tuesday, I think that it would be inappropriate for the SPCB to take a position on the bill. The corporate body will continue to monitor developments and will, as with any legislation, take such steps as necessary to comply with any legal requirements placed on the Parliament. As I mentioned in my earlier quick answer to you, there is a strong relationship with our unions and we will do everything that we can to maintain this positive relationship, regardless of the outcome of that bill. Briefly, John Wilson. If the member and the corporate body are aware, we had a debate in this chamber on Tuesday where an overwhelming majority of members in this chamber voted against the trade union bill, our opposition to the trade union bill. Surely the Scottish corporate body should take that on board when making decisions and policy on behalf of this Parliament. John Pentland. Again, Presiding Officer, I would just say that this particular time is inappropriate for the SPCB to take a position on the bill. Question 3, Jeane Orkart. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what criteria it uses when selecting or accepting artwork for display. Linda Fabiani, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Artwork accepted by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body for the Parliament's art collection for display in the building is chosen in line with the art collection development policy. The selection and commissioning of artwork for display is guided by key themes, Scotland's identity and diversity and the Parliament's relationship with people, the relationship of the people with the land and sea and of course Scotland's history. We have placed emphasis on acquiring work from artists whose reputation is already well established and on acquiring works that represent key aspects of their practice. Thank you, Jeane Orkart. I thank you for that response. I personally know of people who have sought to donate works of art and have had a negative response and I can understand that it is a rare and sensitive thing to select art for such a building. What I don't understand is why the recent work of art service now hanging in the garden lobby passed any approval test. It gives a fence to many and not only artistically.  There are acclaimed artists, masters of art, art critics and art historians here in Edinburgh who might all have advised our Parliament and we might have seen the army in Scotland reflected as its history truly deserves. Would the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body be willing to consult with Scotland's acclaimed and renowned experts with regard to any future artworks? Linda Fabiani. Thank you. We do of course have a professional art curator and we do take advice where appropriate that already happens. In relation to that recent acquisition of service by artist David Rowlands that was gifted to the Scottish Parliament by the army in Scotland and of course was unveiled in October. We felt it was a unique opportunity to mark the relationship between the army and Scottish society through the years, especially at being a gift by the army. It was part of the First World Wars and Henry Commemoration and the commission was funded by voluntary donations from army communities right across Scotland. It was unveiled on the 100th anniversary of the battle of Luz and it will tour venues around Scotland during 2016. Many thanks. Richard Lyle, please. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its position is on the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme investing a reported 2.1 million in fossil fuels while the Parliament is trying to move towards renewables. John Pentland. Under the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act 2009 the day-to-day administration, including investment strategy for the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions scheme, is the sole responsibility of the fund trustees. However, I understand that investment in fossil fuels has decreased significantly from 11.05% in September 2010 to 3.23% in September 2015. Richard Lyle. I thank the member for that answer but in light of the recent press reports regarding the MSP and the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions scheme regarding what is being invested in. On that point, I agree with Mr Finnie. That has already had concerns for my constituents and we can't simply hide behind a fund manager. Can I be assured that discussions will be held with the investment company to clarify what that fund should be and should not be investing in? John Pentland. For the fund trustees to direct any investments they will need to change to a segregated portfolio arrangement but that would be a decision for the fund trustees given their statutory position. Thank you. Question 5. Jenny Marra, please. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, how it ensures that pupils from deprived areas have equal access to visiting the Parliament? Liz Smith. I thank the member for her question. The programme of education sessions both in schools and in the Parliament is somewhere in the region of 22,000 pupils each year and offers a very wide range of online and other curriculum-based resources and these are all provided free of charge. I think it's the combination of that outreach service in addition to inward visits programme that provides that great scope geographically and on a socio-economic basis to allow pupils to take part in parliamentary work. The team undertakes targeted work on activities to support our Parliament days programme as well as the specific events like this year's inspiring young woman conference at Holyrood and it helps to ensure a wider range of opportunities available to schools to engage with the Parliament in the best way that suits their needs. Jenny Marra. I thank the member for her answer. I'm sure she'll agree with me that visits to Parliament are particularly important to bring this place alive and bring democracy alive for children. I have a school in one of the most deprived areas in Dundee where a primary 7 class has been studying the Scottish Parliament and planning to visit. They face a £700 bill for a bus to Parliament, which they simply cannot afford. What data does the SPCB hold and track on how many schools in deprived areas actually get to visit Parliament? After all, this Parliament belongs to everyone in Scotland and should be accessible to all children irrespective of which school they attend. Liz Smith. I think that the member makes a good point about the accessibility. That's clearly very important for all pupils wherever they might be. We do have a good tracking system when it comes to which schools are using the Scottish Parliament. I think that the corporate body is very open to suggestions about how, at any stage, we could improve that. We're not in a position to provide funding for travel. There are two other members who have raised that in the past, and that's a difficult situation for the SPCB to attend to. Any suggestions that the member might like to make, we will take them on board. Many thanks. Question 6. John Wilson, please. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to improve the speed of server access from members' regional offices. John Pentland. The speed of the broadband services available to regional offices is dependent on the public communications infrastructure and varies from location to location. The corporate body ensures that local offices benefit from the best broadband service available to the office and have been piloting solutions that are independent of the public infrastructure to help address the situation where the public broadband infrastructure is not of a sufficient quality. In addition, we have rolled out our new software in supporting hardware to optimise the traffic from all regional offices to hollared servers to improve performance and furthermore, increase capacity of the internet connection to hollared on which services are routed. We are looking forward to working within the context of the new voice and data contract for fresh and innovative ideas to address the on-going challenge. John Wilson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I appreciate the response from the corporate body and particularly a renowned expert on IT as Mr Pentland, as he declared on Monday night in Motherwell. Despite the fact that internet connection speeds in the regional office are excellent, 50 megabyte speeds is almost akin to superfast broadband. The performance of the two PCs is excellent. When logged into the Parliament's servers and the Citrix online plug-in, there are speed and performance issues with using many of the programmes. That leads to staff being forced to work outside of the Citrix environment, which can then lead to safe conflicts in the shared folders. CPU usage often shoots up and causes severe system lag, particularly when attempting to use outlook search facilities. I hope that the corporate body could investigate this matter and report accordingly so that we can all get superfast speeds in all our regional offices throughout Scotland. John Pentland. Presiding Officer, I am sure that we are all aware of individual officers struggling with poor connection seeds. That is why the business IT will work with the individual officers to look at the different ways that they would work to see if anything streamlining can be achieved by changing the methods of connecting back to the service at Holyrood. I am sure that there will be a very detailed answer from the officer. Many thanks very briefly, Alex Johnson. I was going to ask Deputy Presiding Officer if any consideration is being given to alternative software strategies because the direct connection using the Citrix connection relies on the system being open all the time using the infrastructure. I am sure that you are familiar with the system being open all the time. Using appropriate software strategies we can escape that and we can escape many of the problems of the connections. John Pentland, please. Again, it is a very, very detailed question that I know will get the officer to give you a detailed response. Question 7, Patrick Harvie. Thank you. Can I ask the corporate body what action it takes to address staff welfare issues related to winter weather? The SPCB provides a number of initiatives to address staff welfare during the winter months, including flu vaccinations and support for individuals with health conditions exacerbated by winter weather. In circumstances where the staff are unable to attend work due to transport disruption as a result of severe weather, flexible working arrangements such as home working or reduced hours may be offered on a short-term basis. Patrick Harvie. I have never quite understood why one of our security staff has to be stationed halfway up the corridor to the chamber all the time when we are in session, but that corridor is probably the coldest part of the building and over the next few months it is going to be a very, very uncomfortable place for them to stand with little to do. I know that they have been given permission to have a small electric heater with them now, but could I ask the corporate body whether there is a need for security staff to stand in that empty corridor all day? If there is, can they at least be allowed to put a coat on? John Pentland. I take in board the question raised by the member and I will make sure we come back to put a relevant answer. Many thanks. That concludes questions to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. We will now turn to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 24560 in the name of Hugh Henry on the future delivery of social security in Scotland. Can I invite those members who would like to be considered to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please? And I call on Hugh Henry to speak to and to move the motion on behalf of the welfare reform committee. Mr Henry, eight minutes or so. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion submitted in my name. This is an unusual debate. We do not have a committee report to bring to Parliament for you to consider, to comment on and to debate. In a sense, we are actually looking for your ideas because we do face one of the biggest challenges that this Parliament and the Scottish Government has had to face since the creation of the Parliament in 1999. Effectively, not only are we going to have to make decisions about taxation, but we will have to set up a new system of social security and welfare. That will certainly cause problems, but also, I think, it gives us opportunities. So we do genuinely want to hear what members have to say.  What we are not doing in the committee, and we will have a report relatively soon, but we are not examining whether the Smith commission proposals are a cohesive and sensible set of powers. That's not what we've been asked to do. We're not examining whether the powers that are there in the bill actually reflect what the Smith commission intended, nor are we arguing about what the Smith commission should have said and what the bill should have said. Many of the other matters have been effectively dealt with by the Devolution Further Powers Committee and I'll leave them to take that forward. What we are looking at is how the powers that are in the bill should best be used, and that's where we're looking for ideas. I think it's important in something as significant as a new social security system that we do have consensus if that is at all possible. I realise that there will be arguments within the political parties about different aspects of benefits and what is or is not permissible, but I do hope that there could be certain fundamental principles that we can have agreement on. We want to try to have a social security system that not only will achieve some consensus but in establishing that will give it a degree of consistency so that it's not at the political whim at each election looking at fundamental changes. We've heard from a range of organisations and contributors to the committee and there are certain themes that come up time and time again. The words dignity and respect have been used and I think that there is a burning desire to have those aspects at the heart of any system. We've heard that people want a person centred system, there is huge frustration about bureaucracy and the fact that people often feel that they are treated as numbers rather than human beings. There is a desire to have a system that's based on personal and human rights and there is a huge demand to have where possible passporting so that people don't have to make a multiplicity of claims at different stages in the system. Last but not least, one of the things that we have heard is that people want the claims system to be simple. Try to use ordinary language that ordinary people can understand and avoid the legalese and the language of the bureaucracy. If there are other issues that people can identify then please let us know. We've looked at the legalese that is often used in terms of the application process. John Wilson? The comment there from Mr Henry about the making the language simpler would also be useful to make the form filling easier because some of the benefits at the present moment can be up to 32 pages long to actually fill in and make a claim. That is very much what we mean by making the process simpler. Some of those examples have been mentioned to the committee and, yes, where at all possible we want the forms to be relatively short, straightforward, simple easy to understand. On the issues of disability living allowance and personal independence payments which we will inherit is a huge scheme huge responsibility currently a budget of £1.5 billion a year affecting hundreds of thousands of people. How should that be run in the future? I met yesterday with Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Neil and I know that each of their respective areas of responsibility they are struggling to come up with specific ideas which they will hopefully bring forward to this Parliament relatively soon. There are huge challenges there but as far as disability living allowance and PIP is concerned what should the eligibility criteria be on carers allowance and that is something which does cause a lot of anguish and anger. Carers often feel that they are at the fag end of the process that people don't look at them, that the carers allowance doesn't properly reflect the input that they have. What should the definition of carers be? Should we change that and how should we operate that carers allowance because carers and I think we've heard time and time again in this Parliament just how much carers contribute through unpaid activity and effort. One of the biggest areas of contention is likely to be the work programme and work choice and we've heard a lot of contentious evidence from people who feel that the work programme has let them down that they don't feel that they've been given due respect, that they don't feel that they've been given proper support and I'm not here to defend the providers of that programme but to some extent they are there to deliver something that was set up and the constraints established by the Department of Work and Pensions so we will need to look at what area we want to establish for the delivery of that and we need to look at whether we're going to have a simple replacement, whether we'll have a national scheme or whether as there have been some suggestions whether there should be regional variations to reflect local labour markets in different areas. Now one particular area of contention in relation to the work programme was that relating to people with disabilities and people with disabilities felt that they were being forced into a process where there was no real intention to actually help them into work but the people that the bureaucracy concerned was simply trying to tick a box to show that they were trying to make people look for work and I think we do need to reflect on how we treat people not just with disabilities but with significant long-term illnesses and mental health problems Presiding Officer, I'm aware of the time so I will do I have time? Yes, I can give you time. So what should replace the work programme? I know that Scottish Government has been in consultation with the private and voluntary sector and they are interested to hear ideas about what any future scheme should look at and we're talking about huge contracts £100 million per year should it be delivered by private organisations should we be looking at a consortia of charities and voluntary organisations either on a national or on a regional basis and what about work choice that we often ignore in relation to people with disabilities and I mentioned that as well Regulated social fund covers a relatively small area of activity but there were some areas of concern raised funeral payments and one of the biggest problems that come up about funeral payments was actually the cost of the funerals and that isn't necessarily something that we would have locus for in our committee but there is a huge financial burden on families who are having to cope with their bereavement and how should any future funeral payment scheme operate. Other issues cold weather payments and winter fuel payments two different schemes operating in different ways should the schemes be universal should they be merged how should they work and should people who no longer live in Scotland necessarily be entitled to any of those payments in the future universal credit is one for the future but it will incorporate seven current benefits we won't be in control of that but there will be important powers in relation to the administration of that some issues will be housing benefit and I was pleased to hear from the minister or the cabinet secretaries that housing benefit can and will be paid where required to the landlord I think that's progress and perhaps the minister will confirm that today should it be paid fortnightly rather than monthly and could it be paid to more than one householder where necessary again we would seek your views on that. Top-up benefits and that's been a contentious issue in the last week or two in relation to tax credits but we will have the ability to top up devolved benefits but of course that then requires us to find the money to do that and that will cause and create a challenge for this Parliament Scottish Government are there particular groups that we should be looking at beyond those in receipt of tax credits how will we use our budget to look at who we would help and in what circumstances and finally in conclusion delivery which is going to be the key issue do we have a national system do we have local systems do we have a national system and local delivery the local delivery agents again we've heard some conflicting views some suspicion of some of the local agencies that are there and an aspiration to avoid a postcode lottery but equally people do want consistency but they want a more personalised decision making process that may well require some local input so how do we help people through the system from a Westminster based one to a Scottish based one there is undoubtedly people who could be affected as a result we need to look at transition systems and again we don't have a final view but we would welcome any comments on that so Presiding Officer those are just some of the issues that we've been looking at is having to contend with and we do have an opportunity all of us here to help create something that is entirely new and hopefully will work well for the benefit of the people that we represent thank you thank you convener and I call on Margaret Burgess minister 10 minutes or so thank you Presiding Officer and I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate is not an important debate and at the start I would just like to thank the welfare reform committee both for today's motion and for the work they have taken forward over the past few years the Scottish Government is pleased to work with the committee and hope we can continue to do so in the journey ahead and I also want to make it clear to the chamber that this Scottish Government will always use the powers we have to protect and benefit the people of Scotland we are also very clear about ensuring that the necessary financial arrangements are in place as well as the mechanisms to deliver new powers as we all know the UK Government's ideologically driven programme of welfare reform has been near the top of the political agenda and news in Scotland for the large parts of the last five years and with good reason we strongly support the committee's endorsement of the House of Commons work and pensions committee call and independent review of the sanctions system we also welcome recommendations that the UK Government publish a tracking study to examine the cost of sanctions, revise the sanctions appeals process and allow more discretion for DWP staff in dealing with vulnerable claimants at risk of being sanctioned and many other recommendations have been made to the UK Government and we fully support the spirit of those. It remains our ambition to develop a distinctly Scottish approach to powers over social security as promised by the Smith commission and through the Scotland bill to develop that approach we are listening carefully to the views of people receiving the benefits that are being devolved and to the organisations that support and represent them and I know the committee has also worked closely with many of these people and those organisations will be pleased that the welfare reform committee is now taking the issue of delivery of social security to the floor of the chamber today and that their views are being heard and I welcome that the committee is looking to hear from members about the principles and practicalities that we will want to see from a new social security system we like many others remain committed to developing a Scottish approach to social security which has at its heart a set of principles and values our vision is of an approach which is person centred and Hugh Henry referred to that which treats people with dignity and respect and we look forward to working cooperatively with the committee and other stakeholders in holding a united front against austerity measures and working together to bring the new social security powers to the Parliament we will continue to work closely with COSLA, the NHS and others across civic Scotland to understand the links between the benefits being devolved and existing services because we know that we can't deliver our aspirations on our own we need to take others with us and it has to be a joint approach the Parliament will be well aware that we recently published an update paper on what we've learned and it was a valuable exercise for us and demonstrates our commitment to listening to those people who will be directly affected by the new powers and it's worth reflecting on what we've heard as this triumphs with evidence heard by the welfare reform committee and disability, we've heard about the problems and Hugh Henry mentioned them as well caused by the delays and the assessment and decision process for the new personal independence payment and the impact that this is having on vulnerable people so we're working with stakeholders to look at how assessments can be improved and again I think response to John Wilson raised a question about simplified system I think we all want to see a system that's simpler that people can understand and that's in a language also that they can understand and that to access it any applications I will give way John Wilson I know you've taken on board the point about making the system simpler but many of the constituents that I come across that have benefit difficulties also have literacy issues and how do we get round the fact that some of the forms and the way that's presented doesn't matter how simple you make it because of the literacy problems they still have problems filling these forms in Minister I think the member makes a very good point and that's something that we're looking at with stakeholders it's about the help and support and assistance we give to people who perhaps are unable to fill in a form on their own and as the member said no matter how easy the form is it can be difficult for some people so we have to ensure that the system a social security system is accessible and that the right support's in place for people to ensure that they can access the benefits to which they're entitled and I think we've also shown in our approach we're working on how we can improve things how we want to take a fairer approach by for example abolishing the 84 day rule that penalises families of severely disabled children by removing DLA and carers allowance if their children are hospitalised for lengthy periods of time we've heard from a number of parties on the issues carers face and the First Minister's recent comments about beginning to raise carers allowance to the same rate as jobseekers allowance that reflects the importance of the role carers play on behalf of society in taking care of the people who need them and rely on them so we've made it clear we'll use the flexibilities again referred to by Hugh Henry on universal credit that the Scotland bill allows us to provide an opportunity to deliver a service which is more suited to the particular needs of Scotland and this includes the frequency of payments to those making claims and the payment of the housing cost element direct to social landlords and we've already given our commitment on that Importantly we'll also effectively abolish the hated and pernicious bedroom tax as we've heard this morning in the papers and seen in the papers there are areas of Scotland where this has hit badly and the Government is proud of fully mitigating the bedroom tax and investing £90 million to do so on the programme and work choice there have been over 200 responses to the consultation it's clear that the work programme is not working for those most in need in developing and implementing devolved employment support services from 2017 we intend to focus on those who are not well supported in the current DWP programmes and the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work will respond to the consultation shortly and make clear the ambitions of travel for delivery by 2017 I would of course have preferred that we were receiving powers over all employment support programmes because I see no reason why we have to wait 12 months before stepping in to help someone who's unemployed and this is an example of the qualifications and constraints that are imposed on the social security provisions of the bill including those and benefit sanctions on the regulated social fund we've heard a range of views in what should be done when those powers are devolved and the Cabinet Secretary has recently commissioned a report to look at ways of relieving the financial burden and debt that bereave relatives and families face when organising a funeral and we've asked them to come up with a series of recommendations to address the rising costs of funerals and this will inform the work being carried out and how funeral payments will be in a better way because again it's clear the current system is not working and we're pleased as the Scotland bill was forward that discussions between the UK Government and Scottish Government have borne some fruit the UK Government has admitted that the bill has introduced didn't deliver on the recommendations of the Smith commission which the Scottish Government has been saying for over a year the bill now contains a power to create new benefits which we welcome and this is something we've pushed for for some time Devolving existing powers with funding that goes to the resource that we already pay for through our taxation would always have been a better solution instead we are left with a sticking plaster approach to alleviate the Tory cuts However deputy to our presiding officer I'll take a brief intervention I'm grateful to the minister it's not a specific part of what she's been saying general shape of what I think Mr Henry was alluding to we are going to be responsible for about £2.7 billion worth of welfare expenditure in Scotland doesn't minister envisage some kind of shape for delivery like a responsible minister for welfare and a department to deal with that and has there been any thought given by the Scottish Government about what does come from a national level and what might be better delivered at local level Minister I think these are the very points that we're currently deliberating on and consulting on and the cabinet secretary said in the next parliamentary term he will introduce a social security bill so it might answer some of the questions the member has but I would just say when talking about social security Hugh Henry in his opening speech said the committee preferred the term social security to welfare and I also prefer that term naturally I might be the first and last minister with welfare in their title perception of welfare is not a fitting description of what people in receipt of benefits are experiencing experiencing we want an approach to social security that supports people and treats those who are entitled to benefits with fairness and dignity and I know that much of civic Scotland and across this chamber feel the same and members may be aware that the Scottish Government has used the term social security for some time now in the recently published stocktake paper that I mentioned earlier we specifically highlight that the powers we are receiving are over social security rather than welfare Presiding Officer let me conclude by saying that we value the work the committee has done and appreciate the time and effort so many stakeholders have put into providing both the committee and the Government with information and how ideas and how we want to see a social security system delivered in Scotland we are pleased that the issues coming through the committee's inquiry are similar to those being picked up by the Scottish Government in our consultations and I'm looking forward to hearing the members' contributions later Many thanks minister I now call in Alec Rowley, seven minutes or so please Thank you Presiding Officer I will also welcome this debate as Hugh Henry said in his introduction that it's a bit unusual that there is no report as such on a debate on what our views are My view is and it's perhaps to a point that Annabelle Ewing, Annabelle Goldie sorry, raised just now in terms about what is the shape I believe that we need to have an anti-poverty strategy in Scotland and these powers that we will have, which are significant need to be used as part of that strategy and joined up with a whole range of policies and what we need to see that often I believe is lacking certainly at UK level but also at Scottish level is joined up government where clear objectives and the clear objective for Scotland has got to be to tackle poverty there's a family centre that I have been a supporter of for many years in Kirkcaldy the cottage family centre in 2012 that family centre delivered 100 food hampers for needy children last year the figure was 500, this year it's expected to be over 800 last year they gave out 90 children for warm coats for the winter this year they've already received over 250 requests and 5, 24% of the population are deemed to be in poverty and in some of the poorest communities it's as much as 36% that's not just a picture of 5 that's a picture of communities across Scotland and the objective has to be to how are we going to tackle that it's also interesting I came across a YouGov poll which found that on average people thought that 40% of the welfare state budget goes to the registered unemployed that of course is a myth it's only 1.5% and 8% if we include disabled and single parents who stay at home with their children but an astonishing two thirds of British children grown up in poverty live in a family where at least one adult works indeed 59% of those children in Scotland are in working families where the main breadwinner works all ours that he or she can so it's a complete myth to suggest that the majority of pure children grow up in families lacking a desire to work when the hard evidence is that they would work far more ours and even more ours if they were able to do so and that's why we need to ensure that these joined up policies that we create also focus on how we can actually support people to be in work very often where people come off benefits to go into work such as at this time of the year where even though they're not the best jobs going there'll be jobs in my constituency and saying Amazon for example totally mucks up their benefits and then they find themselves in a difficult situation trying to get back on to benefits so we need to address those issues as we move forward I think also the point that Hugh Henry and the minister made in terms of there is an opportunity here to engage and involve organisation groups and indeed individuals right across Scotland in terms of what this new social security system should look like once such group is enabled Scotland who amongst a number of organisations have sent briefings in and I know have been talking to the committee but they say there is key opportunities as we move forward key opportunities the ability to amend the criteria to ensure that the main work needs disability benefit is fit for purpose the ability to improve the claim and the system making processes for disabled benefits to improve accuracy of the system making reducing the administrative and assessment costs and ensuring that claimants are treated with respect at all stages in the process and while John Molson talks about making it easier to fill in forms etc that question he being treated with respect he being supported and again we should have joined up working at every level involving local government how do we support people who are making claims who are often for the first time and find the whole thing to be very difficult the ability to remove the suspension of of payability of disabled benefits when claimants have been in hospital for 28 days so there are a lot of ideas and a lot of views out there to take on board as we move forward they do however talks about some of the challenges and they do say the full details of the fiscal framework for further devolution are not yet known the finer details of this will have a significant impact on the ability to use any of these powers I would say to the minister and I think it's an important point that she needs to reflect back to the government there seems to be private discussions secret discussions that are going on between Mr Mundell and Mr Swinney in terms of the fiscal framework I think it's important that we have more transparency around those discussions Mark McDonald member for giving way of course at the recent finance committee debate on the fiscal framework Mr Swinney said explicitly to representatives of the Labour Party the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that he was more than happy to receive correspondence from them on the areas of the fiscal framework discussions they wished to learn more about can Mr Rowley confirm if the Labour Party have corresponded with Mr Swinney to that effect I've certainly met Mr Swinney and made that exact point to him that it's difficult to comment on something that you're not sure we have Mr Swinney on the one hand saying that it's not a good deal for Scotland none of us in this chamber would want to sign up to a bad deal for Scotland I assume none of us would sign up to a pig in the poke but if the discussions remain private and confidential and in secret between Mr Swinney and Mr Mundell then it's very difficult to comment and I've certainly made that point to him I want to make some progress I also want to make the point in terms of in what poverty there is a new power in Scotland you know in the 21st century young people in their 20s including young couples whose income from work is low stagnating when their rents and living costs are so high and who fall into the poverty gap 30% of working men in their 20s and 35% of working women in their 20s earn less than the living wage and I would draw attention to a pamphlet that has been circulated for Jane Baxter MSP making the case for the living wage this Parliament has powers to be able to do more around the living wage and we should certainly be looking at the progress that we can make I certainly welcome those companies that are announcing that they want to be living wage employers but within the public sector if you take the care sector for example where there is a massive people 80% of the care sector is in the private sector and the majority of them are working for the minimum wage we need to address that alongside that we need to address tax coming from a Tory chancellor on tax credits which will drive more and more families in Scotland into poverty and we need to unite in this chamber yes to fight those tax cuts but also to say that if those tax cuts were to go ahead if those tax cuts were to go ahead then we would unite and use the resources coming and the powers coming to this Parliament to actually ensure that no one suffers and no one works off as a result of tax credits can also very quickly Presiding Officer the disability the work programme we need to recognise that in Scotland there are many people who are far removed from the labour market and the best way to provide the support at a local level is through local government and local government organising the work programme needs to be devolved and if it is devolved we could be more effective but my main point would be we need joined up government a joined up approach and an all out attack on poverty and inequality in Scotland Thank you now Colin Alex Johnston, seven minutes please Mr Johnston Thank you very much this is a debate I'm very glad to be able to become involved in it's on a subject which many of us have been involved in heated discussions of late in over recent years but I welcome the tone in which this debate has been introduced and I think hopefully we might at the end of this afternoon have a more constructive outcome than we've experienced at some previous debates when I say about welcoming the tone I acknowledge the remarks that were made by the convener of the committee at the outset about the terms we use to cover the subjects that we're discussing I think this is a huge opportunity for us because of course language costs nothing but if we get the language right it can achieve so much and if we can gather around a change in the language a change in the terms we use we can perhaps begin the process of building back into the system the respect which unfortunately research indicates has dropped out of it so often the great challenge we have when we're talking about the future delivery of welfare or social security should I say better get that right is that we don't have a great deal of time on our side the likelihood is that we may be in a position to begin introducing these measures that are available to us under the new powers as early as May 2017 that means that we're going into an election next year May 2016 at which we will have had to discuss policy and its implementation so we're right up against a deadline to start talking about how we'll deliver these new powers but many of the lessons about how these new powers will be delivered come from the experience we've already had and there have been one or two aspects of welfare which have been devolved in recent years and give us something to look at particularly the Scottish welfare fund which is delivered now in terms of crisis grants and community care grants that was perhaps devolved at rather short notice came as a surprise to many when it was passed to local authorities in England and became the responsibility of the Scottish Government here in Scotland the decision was made to pass that on to local authorities and we had an opportunity with the interim scheme to look at how that worked and then brought in a final scheme that delivered that more effectively in my view but the two things that taught us is firstly there is something to be said for doing things differently in different areas and whether it's the delivery of benefits in cash or kind or whether it's the opportunity to do so in person or over the internet different local authorities found different ways of achieving that and I think that difference and the fact that success was achieved in different ways in different areas is one lesson for the future Secondly by the time the scheme was properly up and running and the funding levels had or demand levels had stabilised it became clear that local authorities were an effective way to deliver the problem was of course that because of the size of the scheme and the staff required in local authority areas that too much of the money made available through the scheme was going in administration and the lesson there is that if they can do it effectively but inefficiently in cash terms one of the ways to recover that resource is to give them more to do so that the staff involved can actually operate more efficiently and make that money out but essentially what we need are systems to provide support which are easy to use easy to understand as the minister said in her opening remarks but also predictable and familiar because the final lesson we got from the devolution of the Scottish welfare fund was that many people who had previously relied upon it believed that it had simply been abolished and were unaware that the fund was still available in a different form and that's one of the reasons why uptake was so poor in the first year when we get to the major changes the change the universal credit and personal independence payments these are already controversial they are part of the welfare reform programme that is being driven from the south and has been attacked for many reasons not least the political ones but these will form the foundations of the welfare system that will go ahead and build upon here in Scotland I am delighted that changes have been made that will allow certain flexibilities in universal credit if we in Scotland feel it's more appropriate to pay more frequently than once a month if we feel it's more appropriate for us to pay housing benefit directly to a landlord then we should be able to take up that opportunity however on direct payment to landlords while I think it's vital that we do have that power and use it where it's required I don't believe it should simply be a system that has been abused as it has been in the past those who can manage their own affairs and have demonstrated that should be allowed to do so when it comes to tax credits they've sort of risen to the top of the agenda in recent weeks it is clear from statements that have been made by David Mundell that the opportunity exists under the systems devolved by the new Scotland bill that the opportunity to top up will be there there are certain difficulties about topping up benefits where entitlement doesn't exist but I believe that these problems can be dealt with through the discussions that are currently taking place around the fiscal framework that challenge is one that ministers of both Governments will have to rise to but certainly the Secretary of State for Scotland is keen to find a solution to that problem also on the subject of carers allowance being upgraded to match job seekers allowance I believe that it's one area where Ruth Davidson managed to get in just ahead of the minister and commit the derivatives to that policy before it was announced at the SNP conference the challenges we face are many we are in this side of the chamber closely related to the Government that is driving part of this agenda from the south but we also believe that it's right to devolve the powers that are being devolved and we want to see them used effectively the big challenge however to the bottom line and say if this Government is committed to increasing spend we do need to know where that money will be coming from thank you we now turn to the open debate speeches of six minutes or so please could members check that they have pressed the request to speak buttons if they wish to participate I call Kevin Stewart to be followed by my criticism the Tory social security reforms are wreaking havoc for many of our most vulnerable people and during my time in the welfare reform committee we've heard stories from affected people that have frustrated and angered me and during a recent session looking at the work programme we heard from Diane who said the biggest thing for me about the work programme has been the advisers the first one I had was terrible I had three meetings with him and he'd made me greet twice he was mean and a bit of a bully it's bad because all this takes place in an open plan office so everyone can see you greeting throughout the whole of my engagement with the work programme I've lived in fear of sanctions this has also not been helpful to my health people are certainly not being treated with dignity and respect that they deserve and in my opinion that's just not good enough I was pleased that when we passed the Scottish welfare fund legislation this Parliament accepted an amendment that I lodged on dignity and respect and I hope that we build this into every single piece of social security legislation that this Parliament deals with in future we'll soon have competence over the work programme and we must ensure that we follow the respect agenda in everything that we do however it is galling that Westminster will retain powers over sanctions which may blow a hole in our ability to ensure that folk are treated fairly and respectfully it would have been so much better if all aspects of conditionality had been devolved too and many organisations would share my view on this point Tania Gilchrist of the Shaw Trust said I certainly think that it will cause confusion we are talking about people who are already dissatisfied with the current service delivery if we have reserved and devolved rules potentially affecting such people that could ultimately cause confusion and more dissatisfaction and Kate Still of Employment Support Scotland said we advocated the devolution to Scotland of Job Centre Plus and all the related levers because we think that it would work better even with these fetters we must ensure that our work programme takes full consideration of individuals and what their circumstances actually are I'd also like to say that it is galling that the access to work programme as disabled people get the equipment that they need to get into work has not been devolved and I don't understand the logic of that particular decision but let's be honest for you many of the decisions that have been taken round about what to and what not to devolve defy logic we've heard today from the Labour benches and from Mr Johnson not minutes ago on the tax credits what we've seen this week in the House of Commons was an SNP amendment to the Scotland bill which sought to devolve all powers over tax credits which have passed would have meant the powers over all aspects and all resources transferring to this place was defeated by 477 votes to 56 a majority of 421 chose to go through the lobbies with the Conservatives to allow them to retain the powers over tax credits it's not at the moment it seems that the Labour party are willing to mitigate or want us to mitigate over tax credits but are unwilling for this Parliament to take control over the powers I have to say I have to say that that is somewhat bizarre but I will give Mr McDonald the opportunity to tell us why the Labour party took the bizarre decision to walk through the lobbies with the Tories on Monday I'm very grateful to Mr Stewart does he believe that this Parliament should use the powers that we will have to mitigate fully against the impact of cuts to tax credits The answer to the question is that I believe that this Parliament should use all of the powers at its disposal but one of the things which the Labour party seems to think is that we will be able to mitigate the tax credit situation but they have not taken account of the difficulties that there may be there and I quote from Professor Alan Trench of the Institute for Public Policy Research who appeared in front of the welfare committee this week he said I would take the view that legally there is a power within the framework of the bill to top up tax credits but the practical difficulties which Professor Spicker and David Isar started to elaborate seemed to me to make it hugely difficult if not utterly impossible to accomplish that David Isar the research fellow from the University of Stirling who appeared the same day said it's worth saying first of all of course that there is a time issue and that the tax credits will start to happen before these powers come to Scotland anyway it's not clear to me at the moment from the way the legislation is set out to what extent the Scottish Government will be able to top up these eligible rates with the work allowance and the taper still being reserved I'll take you in a little while Miss Goldie if you just wait because I want to finish this point it would have been far easier for the Labour Party to abandon their better together friends and the Tories and actually have gone through the lobbies with us to try and get these powers devolved to this place instead of us having to face these problems on whether or not we can mitigate and I'll take Baroness Goldie because she can maybe tell us why she voted for tax credit cuts in the House of Lords I thank Mr Stewart for giving way does he accept that the Bill, the Scotland Bill will allow topping up of existing benefits creation of new benefits in all areas of devolved competence and of course the flexibility of using reduced bans which a Minister for Finance and the Scottish Government can use to apply a new band or a reduced band if that's what the minister wants to do and how would Mr Stewart deploy these measures to address the issue that she's identifying Kevin Stewart That was a speech rather than an intervention I would say, Presiding Officer but I think that Baroness Goldie needs to go and have a look at what was said at the welfare committee this week and what the attacker said in political terms and economic terms it may be exceedingly difficult for Scotland to vary the terms in which benefits are delivered Some folks seem to think that the powers that we are getting are the panacea to almost everything that is not the case and the whole and all of that was blown this week by these academics that appeared in front of the welfare reform committee and the whole has also been punched through by many others who are very very wary about what is about to happen and we're discussing all of this today Presiding Officer without even knowing what the resource background to all of this is going to be because as has already been pointed out the fiscal framework has not been agreed so we may be being sold a pig in a poke here that is the reality of all of this so even if we wanted to top up and we wanted to mitigate there are barriers there and beyond that there are going to be resource barriers as well which were pointed out by Mr Eiser at the welfare reform committee on Tuesday 2 and I'll take Mr Riley if I've got time Mr Stewart you're well over time it would need to be extremely short Mr Riley two weeks ago you said we couldn't use these powers to mitigate the tax credits and now we are but would you agree that we need to in sparency around the fiscal framework Kevin Stewart we had difficulties in mitigating the bedroom tax and had to get additional powers to do so how easy is it going to be to get additional powers to deal with some of the flaws that seem to be in this bill in terms of the fiscal framework there is currently an inter-governmental negotiation going on you and others have been told by Mr Swinney that you can talk to him about any aspects I'm quite sure that he will listen to anyone who has any view on how we can get the best possible deal for Scotland out of that agreement however I have to say that I'm utterly skeptical and it would have been best if we had those powers before we move on can I remind the chamber to speak through the chair please and also if members wish to make interventions can they ensure that their microphones are facing the right direction thank you Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Christina McGill I did think that we had a settled albeit inadequate position on the bedroom tax from the First Minister at First Minister's questions last week but we now have I think what must be about the 10th position of the SNP on tax credits in the last 10 days should not be dominated by that because we know that debate will continue for many months to come in general terms I welcome the fact that over £2.5 billion of social security responsibility will be coming to Scotland and while I may have wanted a bit more personally to come to Scotland I think everybody will recognise that the Smith recommendations on social security and indeed on other matters have now been substantially delivered and of course the main changes this week and we have to give credit to the UK Government for the changes that they made on Monday but the main ones being the introduction of new devolved benefits, the top-up the ability to top up reserved benefits and also other changes which we won't list I won't list all of them but for example the removal of the restrictive definition in relation to carers allowance so I think all that in fact has been welcomed by most members of the SNP in other contexts of course there was some disappointment and there's still the House of Lords to come so we can be looking to Baroness Goldie if we wish further changes I think there was some disappointment that the restriction of the definition in relation to disability allowance was not changed so there is still some scope for that and also there was no amendments to the employment provisions so although the administration of employment programmes are devolved there are still some problems around for example access and the interrelationship with the sanctions regime now as the convener Hugh Henry said at the beginning the committee heard from a range of organisations and I was pleased to read some of those representations I couldn't read them all because there were such a large number of organisations clearly interested in this subject and Hugh Henry outlined and summarised some of the key principles that came forward in those submissions for example that we need a system based on personal and human night writes that there should be a passporting rather than a multiplicity of claims that the system should be simple and crucially that there should be dignity and respect at the heart of a person-centred system I was interested in fact in relation to that to see a comment from the poverty alliance who actually said that dignity and choice are closely related and they said that and this was critical of something that the Scottish Government have done already we have seen this in the delivery of the Scottish welfare fund with people feeling that they have been stigmatised by the lack of choice in how grants are awarded and that of course refers to the vouchers being given rather than cash Shelter also were enthusiastic about the principles I don't think I've got time to quote them but they felt that there were great opportunities to embed principles and respect and so on in Scotland's housing system and of course that will be reflected hopefully very soon after the powers are acquired by the abolition of the benefit tax but there were lots of I thought specific positive suggestions from different organisations even those who wanted more powers for example, Sam H wanted the access to work programme to be devolved as part of the employment programmes that more individuals with mental health problems should be referred to the work choice programme which will be devolved pointing out that that would allow a greater number of people with disabilities to access the specialist support that they require and the whole issue of disability of course featured prominently in the submission since the substantial powers over disability benefits are being devolved I thought one parent family Scotland made an interesting point that the control should be at a national rather than a local level and they were concerned about the erosion of entitlement among other matters so that's one interesting issue that we will have to debate subsequently I think sometimes it's better that something should be local but they are arguing for national national administration of that inclusion Scotland we're interesting as ever and of course some of their demands do involve extra money also are not related to more money for example they say that staff administering new disability benefits should have customer focus disability equality training that face to face assessments should become less common and in fact the benefits should be renamed social participatory benefits so all of that I found interesting and I'm sure we'll reflect on similarly the child poverty action group had many suggestions about the people saying we should dramatically reduce the use of face to face assessments ensure all assessments are performed by appropriately qualified people and so on so I think there are lots of really useful suggestions that actually don't have financial implications as well as those that do have now moving on and sticking with the child poverty action groups we forget that lots of smaller benefits such as maternity grants for example will be devolved and they're emphasising that the delivery of those should be linked to health services and made automatic as far as possible Marie Curie as we would expect emphasise that all benefits should continue to include a system of fast tracking for terminal illness and also for the carers of terminally ill people so lots of suggestions I think for us to reflect on but can I end with two final concerns one parent family Scotland raised the concern that any additional carers benefit such as announced by the Scottish Government might be taken into account in calculating entitlement to means tested benefits and of course that interrelates with the more general point that John Swinney has made in his letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland so that we still need some clarity about that issue because we don't want extra money spent by the Scottish Parliament to simply result in deductions from the individuals who are receiving deductions from their income in other ways so that's a very important point but finally I think and Kevin Stewart made this point we have to set all this within the context of the size of the budget and there are two issues here not just the amount of money that has transferred in 2017 I think that will be relatively simple to calculate the DLA PIP budget we have in 2017 at that point we will get that money transferred and an equivalent reduction in our grant but what happens subsequently is absolutely crucial what will the mechanism be for adjusting the budget and that presumably will be discussed as part of the fiscal framework we have a more or less agreed decision in relation to taxation and how there will be indexing income tax there's still some controversy about that but I think that there's general agreement about the way forward there there isn't such agreement on the way forward for adjusting the welfare budget and for example David Bell makes an interesting point in his submission he says if the indexation mechanism takes account of Scotland's growing share of the elderly population then the risk that claims in Scotland could only be funded by diverting funds from other priorities that the Scottish Government should be arguing for and of course that reminder of Scotland's growing share of the elderly population is something that feature prominently in debates around the independence referendum so I don't want to spoil the tone of this debate but I think we should just remind ourselves that when Kevin Stewart is assuming that full devolution presumably full devolution of the social security system and beyond that independence would subtly solve all these problems and be a panacea of course that is where we fundamentally disagree because without re-running the arguments of the referendum I think that for some of us the main objection to independence was actually the situation in relation to social security and other issues would actually be worse financially although no doubt we might make more enlightened decisions Thank you very much I do have a bit of time in hand but perhaps not as much as three minutes for each member Thank you very much Presiding Officer as a member of the welfare reform committee there is one unescapable fact the austerity agenda is at the cost of the most deserving and the most vulnerable in our society all of the supposed reforms are specifically designed to cut the already limited support available to people who for a whole range of different reasons find themselves not fit for work not able to take on full-time employment struggling on zero-hours contracts or to take on any form of ability to even find work whether they're either medically or mentally able to do that work either and people have come to the committee and shared their personal stories and I have to pay tribute to all of them who have been shown some absolute bravery to come along and share their personal circumstances that is not easy in any circumstance never mind in front of a committee of this parliament but each and every one of them have asked in the main for one thing a decent standard 11 and maybe instead of cutting benefits especially in-work benefits the chancellor should look at the announcement made in Canada recently of a basic income supplement pilot a social safety security net to stop families falling further into poverty and the main focus of that is that people need, this is the agreed criteria people need secure and safe housing food and a reasonable standard of living on 25 November the chancellor has declared that in his spending review he will deliver his intentions and while the action date may be shifted a bit we should be under no illusion about what lies ahead feeding in and adding to the confusion of all the complex issues around the Scotland Bill the 200 amendments all of the amendments that weren't supported that were put forward by the SNP MPs the government's refusal to admit any serious change that might bring the devolution of welfare powers to Scotland any nearer and the most telling of all the bill would allow us to top up existing benefits but not to control the system where people have already have benefits withdrawn we need clarity on what we can actually do and we need still more clarity on whether any of the top ups that we give will be clawed back we do not have that clarity there will be 80,000 Scottish families who will lose their benefits in April next year this is the on-going problem of the no detriment clause the Scottish Government's budget will continue to be reduced by Westminster and we will continue to be denied the opportunity to raise any revenue of our own without it being clawed back by the Treasury the fiscal framework needs to work for Scotland and I'm hoping that the Cabinet Secretary John Swinney is working extremely hard and I'm sure he is to ensure that the framework for the framework that we need in Scotland but within the current framework the Scottish Government is achieving a great deal in terms of helping to mitigate the bedroom tax the provision of the Scottish welfare fund and other funds that pay emergency payments to families in dire need but without that support can you imagine what that situation would be like for those families it would be even more critical than it is now and that's what we see at our committee every single week we don't get the power over to vary taxes but we won't have the power to define them taxes will not be devolved and if we can raise additional revenues in Scotland those will simply be deducted from the block grant which of course continues to be drastically reduced every year that's what no detriment actually means to us we need to give this Scottish Government the ability to raise revenues independently and without interference from the Treasury income tax we know we're getting some income tax but it's a very blunt instrument in how to deal with poverty in our society today and at the welfare reform committee in Tuesday Professor Allen changed from the institute of public policy research pointed out the whole situation is totally opaque and incoherent which is another theme that we have heard from everyone who's given evidence to the committee the incoherence they're calling it the ragged edges that's not the way to build a system so even with the power to top up benefits the logistics of doing so are complex and very very expensive each MRC would charge just under £10 for every transaction and each application may require at least four transactions a year the additional costs would be massive there are 349,000 Scottish families receiving tax credits such a tax would cost £140 million I don't know about you but I would rather that was spent front line on people not on a transaction tax so we need to identify ways to bring about cultural change as well the cultural change that stops seeing people written off is scroungers, is lazy or is wasters we need a system that puts dignity and respect at its heart what happens to my constituents I know what will be true many of my colleagues in the chamber is that through no fault of their own the rules and priorities have suddenly been changed and it could happen to any of us none of us are immune to the kind of change in our circumstances so in building a new social security system for Scotland for those who already have long term or even terminal conditions would we force them to go through mandatory reassessment I would hope not what about creating a system that tries for better first decisions and assessments to stop the merry-go-round of appeals surely that is better than stripping people of their dignity and throwing them into a current system that shows them no respect what about a key worker system that allows one point of contact and a form filling point of contact to ensure individuals are getting the correct support surely doing that first is the best way to do it and when it comes to employment why is the work programme contracted out to the private sector making huge profits on the backs of those individuals furthest away from the job market is just not acceptable surely it would be better handled by a Scottish Government agency such as Skills Development Scotland then supported by our brilliant organisations in the third sector they know what the employment landscape is like as SCVO pointed out in its submission to the committee and I quote we need to put people at the heart of employability support while paid employment remains one of the best ways in which people can take control over their lives solely focus on getting people into jobs is a mistake SCVO believes that we need to value all forms of contribution not just jobs and not just to tailor support to each citizen's capabilities we have to do that this includes the role as parents, carers, volunteers learners and activists the primary goal of employability support should not simply be how we get people into paid work any kind of paid work as soon as possible we need to give them good valuable paid work Presiding Officer with the Westminster's austerity agenda paramount in that place any human or compassionate interest is rejected and that's where we can make that change here as a society as a community this is a very dangerous and unhealthy position to be in and I hope that this chamber just doesn't buy it and brings about a system that puts people at the heart and gives them the rights and the responsibilities to have that one thing that the people have asked us to do for them is to give them a decent standard of living Thank you very much I suppose I should declare at the outset that my son is a recipient of disability living allowance and my wife a recipient of carers allowance so the issues and arguments and discussions that relate to the benefits system its interaction with individuals and changes that are taking place and how it is administered are not germane to me they are very much part and parcel of our everyday life and one of the issues that I've been considering because we're in the process of reapplying for my son's disability living allowance is that element of re-application and reassessment that many individuals and families have to go through not just for disability living allowance but for eligibility for other benefits and it takes a long time and it doesn't take a long time because necessarily the size of the form although that is a consideration it takes a long time because there's no other way to put it so it's utterly so destroying to have to fill in a form of multiple pages explaining all the things that your child is incapable of doing and that is an emotional burden that for many families there are results in them taking a very long time to complete these forms and as a result losing out on entitlements as a consequence because obviously until reapplication goes through entitlements cannot then be picked up again so the longer it takes for a family to go through that process the longer it will then take for them to receive the benefits to which they are entitled now I don't know if there's an easy answer to that Presiding Officer one thing which strikes me as something that should be looked at is whether the assessment and reapplication process should involve some form of advising whether there have been any changes since the application was last made which could be backed up by health professionals or others that is something I think would be worthy of investigation I make no commitment or comment other than that but I think it's certainly something that would merit investigation which would perhaps reduce some of that emotional burden but also reduce the length of time that for many individuals it can take to fill in those applications now other members have talked about the issue around interactions between benefits and that is an issue that I think is going to be extremely important for us to consider as these issues as these powers come into being and as policy and thinking around it develops because while as Annabelle Goldie I think highlighted in terms of the sums of money involved around two and a half to two quarters of a billion pounds is going to be devolved in terms of welfare responsibility there's still going to be around 15 billion pounds that will remain reserved at Westminster and some of those benefits particularly in relation to universal credit are dependent on interactions of benefits interactions around income and Christina McKelvie I think was entirely right to focus on the question of clawback and I noted during the debate at Westminster on Monday that when specifically asked by my colleague Mary Black MP as to whether he would categorically state that any additional top-up would not be clawed back would not be categorised as income and be subject to clawback the secretary of state did not answer directly to that question he did not rule that out and I think that is something that merits further investigation indeed I understand the powers committee letter which has been published this afternoon asks the secretary of state to give clarity in regards to that and that then would lead to a question around how that is going to be assessed and I think looking at today's announcement around HMRC I think one of the very real considerations and concerns that we should have is the impact that the decision around HMRC and the job losses that are going to be experienced will have on the capacity and ability of HMRC to undertake some of those what will potentially be very complicated calculations and assessments around decisions that have been taken here in Scotland and how those interact in terms of an individual's benefit entitlement and what role they will have to play alongside the DWP so those are considerations that are going to need to be fleshed out in order for us to ensure that the powers that we have can first of all be used to benefit the people we want to see benefit from them but secondly to ensure that any decision making around those is able to be done properly and is not necessarily constrained hamstrung or at the very worst mismanaged as a result of a lack of available staff and available time to undertake those assessments there's another question mark which arises particularly in relation to those areas of benefit where we have the ability to top up leaving aside the issue of potential clawback and income and that is how new claimants would be assessed and addressed because obviously where a benefit is reserved eligibility for that benefit will be the determination of DWP and UK ministers it will not be the determination of Scottish ministers and therefore while there are those who perhaps will lose eligibility for benefits as a result of welfare reforms there's the ability to either top up or mitigate in those areas if individuals in the future who would have qualified but are no longer able to even begin to qualify there's a question around a disparity there that would again need to be examined and need to be addressed now that is not to say that there isn't that you know that there is not things that can and have been done in Scotland to support the most vulnerable and mitigation of bedroom tax the establishment of the welfare fund the council tax benefit replacement that was put in place we also have areas within our own responsibility such as kinship care payments and educational maintenance allowance where we have seen very clear statements of intent from government and also funding to follow that but even in those areas there are questions around how future interactions around universal credit will be handled and I think the other thing that we need to bear into consideration is around personal independence payments and PIP because one of the very clear statements that we made in advance of the debate was that any roll out of PIP should be halted until it was devolved which would have enabled us the opportunity to shape our own system according to what we felt the needs of the population were and that has not happened and one of the difficulties that is going to be faced in the future and this is irrespective of who forms the government at future points is around the difficulties that are faced when you inherit a system and have to then look at potentially reshaping it and given that many people will have gone through the very difficult process of having their benefit entitlements reassessed re-evaluated reformed the difficulties that could be faced around redesigning a system in very short order after that versus the ability to design your own system and put in place your own system so that's another difficulty and another consideration that is going to be faced and underpinning all of that is the issue around the fiscal framework which Mr Rowley rather uncharitably suggested was an entirely secret process when the Deputy First Minister has said that he's willing to discuss with Opposition parties the areas that they want more clarity on and also which will be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament's committees in due course so there are questions around that and I think that the point of agreement I would have with Mr Rowley and with Mr Chisholm who's made the point in previous debates is that what we must ensure is deliverable but also ensures that Scotland is not hamstrung and loses out as a consequence and I think that if we are approaching it on that basis and it seems that we have unity of purpose in regard to that that can help to make a very strong case to the Secretary of State to ensure that he brings forward a fiscal framework that we can sign up to we can agree with and that can ensure that the powers can be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland Many thanks John McDougall to be followed by John McAlpine in generous seven minutes Thank you, Presiding Officer The Scotland Bill will give this Parliament for the first time significant powers over social security and I welcome the work of the welfare reform committee on this matter and congratulate them on focusing on how these powers could be implemented to deliver a fairer social security system for the people of Scotland This Parliament already has huge powers over Scottish public services but the devolution of social security powers will mean that members in the next term of this Parliament will have greater powers than ever to deliver a step change in our efforts to reduce poverty and tackle inequalities Not only do the changes allow us to put tackling these issues at the core of our social security policy they will also allow us to develop a uniquely Scottish policy that can be tailored to local and individual circumstances one that is simpler and quicker to deliver and accessible to everyone who needs it For example with the devolution of the work programme we can look to devolving it even further to local authorities who can then tailor it for their own area However we will need to consider how this will function given the responsibility for job centres remains reserved We should also be looking to adopt a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach One size does not fit all and under a Scottish social security system we need to move away from that approach and where possible move to a more tailored support that meets the specific needs of an individual With this in mind we should be looking to humanise our social security policy developing a joined-up approach Far too often people fall through the cracks and those with complex needs should have a key worker rather than numerous points of contact as it is at present Promoting more joined-up thinking needs to start now If we wait until the powers actually come to this Parliament it will already be too late In addition to this we should be developing a person-centric welfare policy that supports people and is receptive to their needs not one that is target-driven We should be focusing on helping people get back on their feet supporting them in getting over a difficult period in their lives whether it be finding work or recovering from an illness it needs to be a system that promotes respect and dignity rather than demonising those who fall on hard times through illness or through disability or having lost their job As the poverty alliance stated in their submission to the welfare committee there has been a marked increase in the use of stigmatising and divisive language by both politicians and the media In Scotland we will have a chance to reverse this With these powers we will have an opportunity to place dignity and respect at the heart of our social security system and crucially restore trust In particular terms in practical terms this debate has been highlighted over the past few weeks due to the Tory government's proposed tax credit cuts Currently around 11,500 families in North Ayrshire could be affected by the Tory tax credit cuts and I believe that we should be doing everything we can to protect those hardworking families The new powers will allow us to do something about it They will allow us to make the choice to reverse those cuts by top-up benefits and Scottish Labour will do just that so I urge the SNP to sign up to joining to doing the same We will have the power we just need the political bill to do things differently Just as we came together on Trident and the trade union bill we should now come together and say no to these tax credit cuts and reversing them if they do go ahead Grandstanding doesn't protect the most vulnerable in our society It's time to show that we can do things differently in Scotland and this should happen once the Scotland Bill is passed and once it is passed we will have clarity around the range of the powers coming to this Parliament and crucially what we can do with them However as I said earlier we shouldn't wait till the Scotland Bill has received royal assent we should be setting out our plans now not just on what we will do with the new powers but setting out a positive vision for the future of welfare I'm almost finished If you wish I'm grateful to the member giving way I certainly agree that where it is possible to outline plans and proposals at present we should seek to do so or at least to develop thinking However would she also agree that given that we have the autumn budget statement to come and there will be doubtedly before those powers are transferred here that some of that thinking is going to have to be on-going in its development because the grounds are going to shift before those powers come to this Parliament I think that's what I'm saying that we need to start thinking about it now we can't wait until it's upon us we need to have some sort of plan in what our new social security system will look like so we should be setting out a positive vision for the future of welfare in Scotland We need a welfare system that moves away from targets and puts people dignity, respect and trust at the very heart of it Thank you That's good So now call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by Roderick Campbell a generous seven minutes Thank you, Presiding Officer I want to begin with a quote from Bill Scott from the Charity Inclusion Scotland on the system that we are hoping to build He said the system has to be based on treating every person who comes into it as a human being like any other with dignity and respect that is missing from the current system which is all about saving benefits spend and so I'm very very pleased to hear that the Government is mirroring his words in terms of the system that we hope to design because as a member of the welfare reform committee as colleagues have said it's very clear from the evidence that we have received that the UK system doesn't treat people with dignity and respect In particular, the need for face-to-face assessments and repeat assessments of people requiring PIP is unacceptable and Mark McDonald spoke very movingly about his personal experience I also have personal experience of that through a member of my family and I think just that the act of receiving the form and the telephone calls is just incredibly stressful because you've got a relative who you know is not going to get better in their conditions not going to improve and that's something that needs to be tackled then we shouldn't have these repeat assessments and the lack of weight giving to the views of medical professionals in the PIP assessment has been repeatedly mentioned in committee and is clearly something that has to change There were some interesting suggestions made in the committee in regard to disability benefits and that the approach taken for example by NHS occupational therapists is the way that you should go about assessing an individual you should be asking what does this person need to live with dignity that should be the basis of the approach As others have said the excessive complex form filling is completely unacceptable it's unacceptable that most people couldn't fill in a PIP assessment without professional support and I'm sure that we can design something that's simpler and much less stressful Having said that the piecemeal devolution of benefits in this area means that we can only make part of the disabled person's experience better because of course they will continue to have to apply for employment support allowance and they'll continue to have to be put through many of the humiliating and the downright dangerous work capability assessments that come as part of that and of course as others have said by the time we receive these benefits 20% of the funding will have been cut and that represents a huge challenge as to how these benefits are delivered a number of people in the debate today have referred to a joined up approach and the role of local government and that's absolutely understandable however I would refer them to submissions to the committee by a whole range of charities including CPAG and Inclusion Scotland Enable who are very opposed to these benefits being administered by local authorities and not just administered but shaped by local authorities and I think I should quote CPAG on PIP disability living allowance attendance allowance and carers allowance and their submission says CPAG strongly believe the responsibility for disability and carers benefits should be held at Scottish national level and it should not be devolved to local authorities the risks associated with localisation of benefits are well documented for example in relation to England's local welfare assistance scheme previously administered at UK level devolution of this discretionary scheme at local level has resulted in confusion erosion of entitlement and a lack of transparency and oversight and other submissions went even further I mean the submission from Inclusion Scotland actually talked about you know repeating the poor law and the whole idea of you know the parish deciding how much money you were entitled to and I have to say since I've come to this parliament it's struck me that it's one of the key things that we're continually arguing about this where responsibility lies between the Scottish Government and local government and I think they mean to have a I mean only last week I was speaking in the carers bill and I took up the cause of carers charities who very strongly believe that the criteria to assess eligibility for carers benefits should be set at national level and I know the current position of the Government is to work with councils that it's set at local level I very much believe that it should be set at national level and I hope that we can get to that and I think those kind of tensions will continue to be repeated when we start looking at how we administer disability benefits in Scotland and I would just think that we need to take that on board and maybe look at examples from other countries in Europe where we can set a national eligibility criteria but obviously it's administered more at a local level because that's obviously a practical thing to do but I just definitely don't think that we should allow that to be hung up on ideology and it's what the disabled people and the claimants are the people who really have to determine and shape how this system is operated I also welcome the work programme being developed and I believe that we can make that better too the witnesses we heard at committee described very negative experiences of the work programme as colleagues have outlined they talked about feeling bullied and in one case being reduced to tears and in other cases the actual work programme stopped them moving into work and during a follow-up session to some of that very emotional evidence we spoke to the private companies who deliver the work programme and I was really shocked that when I quoted some evidence to these private companies about the number of people on employment and support allowance on the work programme who found a job as compared to those who were sanctioned officials figures show that 14,000 people on employment and support allowance on the work programme found a job up to March 2014 but 41,000 of those people on ESA on the work programme received a sanction so basically what that means a disabled person on the work programme was three times as likely to be sanctioned as they were to find a job and I was very shocked when putting that to working links in particular that they defended the sanctions regime and I've now written to Ian Duncan-Smith asking him to review these contracts which have already been extended to 2017 and I would echo the comments made by colleagues that when we do get control of the work programme I personally and I think that view is shared by several other members of the committee don't think that profit driven companies should be put in charge of these programmes and I would like to see them delivered either by non-profit organisations or by Government itself as with disability even if we design the best possible alternative to the work programmes here sanctions remain reserved and I think the fact that the UK Government explicitly singled out sanctions in their the bill as something that we couldn't ameliorate and couldn't top up I think that kind of reflects in a way the whole approach to the devolution of some of these welfare benefits by the UK Government that they're saying that they're evolving welfare but they really want to keep hold of that punitive culture which is the kind of defines their welfare to work and their approach to welfare which very much imported from the US and extremely punitive Finally I've just got the chance I would just say Thank you very much just to return other people have discussed the whole issue of tax credits at length I'd just like to make a point that Alec Rowley mentioned quite rightly his constituents at Amazon and the difficulties that they face around Christmas and the variability in income and how that can be addressed that would seem to me to be an obvious reason to devolve universal credit because it's universal credit that will help us to tackle the difficulties experienced by those people and the difficulties experienced by people in receipt of tax credits and that's why I was very disappointed that the Labour chose to vote with the Tories at Westminster not to devolve universal credit Thank you very much Thank you very much No call on Roderick Campbell a generous seven minutes Thank you Presiding Officer as a non-member of the committee I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on social security in Scotland whilst we may have differing views on the extent to which this Parliament should have control of welfare there's no doubt that the Scotland Bill does provide an opportunity for this Parliament Presiding Officer any social security system ought to exist to protect the most vulnerable in society and we should measure its success by its ability to do so we must have a get these new powers on social security right we must design a system which puts dignity and respect first my colleague Kevin Stewart has so powerfully suggested earlier on we need as a Parliament however to commit ourselves to powers that make a difference and we have to accept that we operate in an environment where the Westminster Government far from enhancing welfare is intent on making £12 billion worth of cuts UK wide the Scotland Bill will see us gain responsibility for over 11 benefits worth £2.5 billion a year we will also gain powers to top up those entitled to benefit payments and new benefits to step in the right direction if I may I would like to say a few words first about employment and the work programme with regard to employment we must continue the good work that we are doing in relation to fair work, the living wage and creating an effective and viable Scottish alternative to the work programme people must be placed firmly at the heart of it that's why it's important that the Scottish Government continues with its public discussion among service users, communities businesses, training providers and trade unions and how best to tackle existing challenges that employers and those looking for work face it's only by listening to these groups that we can shape our future employment services to the needs of job seekers and to the needs of the wider Scottish economy Presiding officer the devolution of the work programme and work choice is an opportunity to improve the fortunes of the most vulnerable Scots however there are significant obstacles to overcome as members will be aware the committee heard from participants because of how the programme currently operates the committee heard painful stories about how participants throughout their engagement with the work programme have lived in constant fear of being sanctioned under the consequent physical and mental effects that has had quite worryingly however the sanction aspect of the work programme will remain reserved to Westminster meaning that we as a Parliament are powerless to protect vulnerable Scots from sanctions in his evidence to the committee this week I think that Mark Willis of the Child stated that quote as we have seen sanctions are imposed quite unfairly in many cases and a lot of sanctions decisions are overturned there are huge concerns and much evidence of inappropriate use of sanctions Presiding officer the decision to retain sanctions at Westminster will create another problem confusion as Kevin Stewart has already referred to the evidence of Tania Gilchrist of the shore trust was that it would certainly cause confusion and there is certainly a case for the devolution of job centre plus that is being missed and I agree once again with my colleague Kevin that the system could be further improved the conditionality aspects of the work programme were also devolved the negative experiences I'll take an intervention there Alex Johnstone Given that we've got a wee bit of time in this debate I suspect I wonder if the member would take the opportunity to explain if he as many of his colleagues is so opposed to sanctions does he imagine a benefit system that would have no kind of measures within it in order to ensure that people engage in the process My own view is obviously we need to give thought to how this progresses but I think we should be talking about carrots rather than sticks the negative experiences of participants on the work programme is an indication that a future Scottish work programme must take account of individual circumstances and requirements and we must examine the evidence to understand what's worked well and what could be done better and build such lessons into the design and commissioning of future services I'd like to turn to carers allowance we heard this morning in the press about the contribution that unpaid carers make to our society estimated by the University of Sheffield to be saving the UK taxpayer £132 billion involving carers and for most of us contributing time in particular to looking after other members of our family is something we positively embrace but we need to recognise that carers need support carers allowance is as we know one of the lowest of all working benefits and the announcement in October that the Scottish Government will increase carers allowance is therefore in my view to be warmly welcomed carers Scotland while expressing disappointment that carers allowance was not that carers benefits were not to be fully devolved for the Scottish Parliament nevertheless took the view that the structure of carers allowance could be improved under the Scotland Bill we ought to ensure that access to carers allowance and understanding of it is improved so that carers and their families get the financial support they need but I'm also mindful of the evidence that Richard Mead of Marie Curie gave to the committee in September when he indicated with force that health, social care and welfare systems frequently fail carers particularly those who are caring for someone at the end of life yet carers are often amongst the most important parts of that package so in any new system I think we should take account of concerns such as those expressed by Marie Curie but it will cost money and let's remember that money spent on carers allowance will not be available to spend elsewhere that's why it's so important indeed crucial to ensure that the fiscal framework to go with the bill is fair and workable my colleague Christina McKelvie was quite right to mention the importance of a temperate detriment principle of only to look at what the Scottish Government is doing now however to understand why many of us take the view that social security is better in the hands of those who live and work in Scotland and most recently the Scottish Government began work to administer Scottish and Northern Irish independent living fund service users awards this was necessary after the UK independent living fund was terminated by the previous Conservative and Liberal Democrat administration ILEF of course provides financial support to individuals with a range of impairments to live their lives within the community this funding helps them exercise choice and control and enables them to live as independently as possible with the right support we've heard already references to the Scottish welfare fund that's obviously an experience that Scottish Government has at the present time and that's helped more than 164,000 vulnerable households since it began syndicates in my view that we have a commitment in Scotland to welfare and we have a track record that we can build on I sincerely hope that we will build on that track record in exercising the new powers moving forward we will need to look at practical suggestions about how the new social security powers may be used discussions throughout the third sector indicate that a new coherent approach to policy making is required which can integrate new and existing powers and the third sector has also been clear that those who will be affected by the new powers should be involved and that's a suggestion I believe to be eminently sensible to conclude, Presiding Officer, this bill in relation to welfare will open a new chapter in Scotland and one where I hope Scotland can lead the way thank you we now move to closing speeches and I would invite members who have taken part in the debate to return to the chamber and if they are so minded please and I call on Annabelle Goldie generous seven minutes Ms Goldie Deputy Presiding Officer, thank you this has been a genuinely interesting and constructive debate and I'm grateful to the welfare reform committee for making it possible I thought that the convener Hugh Henry got the debate off to an excellent start with both the tone and the content of his contribution indeed his willingness to share his speech with us in advance of the debate I thought was a very welcome and helpful innovation because it sets some sensible parameters to help to focus attention on key points and challenges and in fairness I think a number of contributors have welcomed the spirit of that overture and they have responded positively not least the minister Margaret Burgess Malcolm Chisholm I thought made some important points and I thought Mark McDonald made some very reflective points and posed some persuasive arguments because there is an exciting but formidable challenge confronting political parties and this Parliament as to how in Scotland we plan, provide and deliver social security under the new powers in the Scotland bill and we are talking about a welfare budget of £2.7 billion pounds so let me talk about ethos whatever that system is whatever benefits it is responsible for delivering I think we shall probably have our own concept of Scottish way of doing it we can do things differently and I suspect we will choose to do that I thought a useful certainly Mr Henry I thank her for her comments one of the things that she heard this afternoon was a concern that if those new powers that will become available to us are used to make payments for example to top up benefits otherwise lost will result in a clawback from Westminster could she perhaps use the privilege position that she's in elsewhere to seek some clarity on behalf of the committee so I thank Mr Henry for making that point and I was interested because it was raised and my understanding is that there would be no attempt to clawback that the universal credit provision would be provided to integrate in its own right but it is a point that I will seek to clarify Mr Henry for you I thought that a useful starting point in this debate was the list of principles to which Hugh Henry referred and other contributors mentioned that dignity, respect mentioned by Joan McAlpine having a person centred system and Margaret MacDougall talked about that making sure that system and human rights making sure that it's passported with eligibility for one benefit automatically leading to qualification for others and making it simple with documentation and plain English and I thought that Margaret MacDougall made a very telling contribution in that respect I think that all of this gets to the heart of what we do in creating our new Scottish social security system because that's where we're getting to about and that is why I was interested in the minister's take on that point I must say it's difficult to see how that brand operates without then concomitant political responsibility and accountability so to me the logical consequence of that is a minister in this parliament with responsibility for welfare and probably a parliamentary committee as well but a delicate balance has to be struck Deputy Presiding Officer whatever benefits are devised we need to have structures, mechanisms in place for delivery which are efficient and certainly are cost effective and if some structures already exist such as local authorities it may be possible to use them and the Scottish welfare fund is a good example but Joe McAlpine I thought posed a number of interesting points about some benefits perhaps being better administered nationally and I think these are genuinely important issues that we need to reflect upon it also is a case that the DWP will continue to have a presence throughout Scotland delivering universal credit and of course the question that raises in my mind is do we really want to replicate the DWP presence in all our communities by setting up a separate Scottish social security office to me in terms of sensible use of resource systems unwise but as to how we take that forward I think that's again a matter for discussion and then there's a challenging period of transition because that will require co-operation with DWP looking particularly at employability work training work programs it's worth reflecting that in most local communities local authorities carry responsibility for economic regeneration local schools educate colleges respond to both educational provision and the needs of the local economy and responsibility for business rates may be returning in some form to local authorities so in that context while I accept there may be a need for an overall Scottish government framework delivery of these programs might be much more effective at local level what I think is clear is a need for flexibility if these new powers are to work to best effect for the recipients of the support and where we have existing physical presences throughout Scotland it seems to me to make sense to try and harness that delivering or devolving where possible decision making and delivery of the provision to as local a level as possible now on the powers we shall have in relation to universal credit I have to say I'm very sympathetic that if the claimant wants the housing element to be paid directly to the landlord let's do that and I think there should be flexibility about to whom the universal credit is paid and if a thought mightly payment is easier for some recipients again why not do that because to me the really important factor is to find out what works best for a household what maximises their ability to budget and what minimises the prospect of difficulty in managing their finances Deputy Presiding Officer the Scotland Bill allows the topping up of benefits it allows for the creation of new benefits and areas of devolved responsibility it provides flexibility in relation to setting income tax bans and rates that includes a new band if that is financially affordable and these are very wide powers and I appreciate in this Parliament different parties may have different approaches to how they wish to both deploy and use these powers but it does seem to me and I would say this to the convener of the committee that we need to exercise some caution and I think if it's possible we should try and find some agreement across parties about structures and mechanisms and process before we plunge into specific proposals as to which of the new powers to invoke and in what form because the latter inevitably raises political choices but the farmer need not do that and I hope the welfare reform committee can continue Deputy Presiding Officer to facilitate this positive discussion because I actually think this has been a very good debate I think some very sensible points have emerged I think there is a recognition that we are in new territory that we have to be both exploratory and ambitious and I think if the welfare reform committee can be the ffocrum for that discussion then there is scope for a continuing and I hope constructive and positive dialogue. Many thanks. I now call on Alec Rowley generous seven minutes Mr Rowley Thank you Presiding Officer I also welcome the debate that we've had this afternoon and I think that there's been a real positive contribution a real desire to create a social security system in Scotland that builds on and improves what's already there and hopefully that recognises that that social security system can be used as part of a joined up approach to tackle inequality and poverty across Scotland and I can start maybe with the points that Joe McAlpine made because I think there were some important points there around localism and local government I certainly and I've read some of the evidence that was given around local authorities actually having responsibility for the decisions on local benefits and I actually agree with that point about the poor law and put part of Scotland I think there has to be a Scottish wide criteria that's put in place so that's not what I was arguing about as the work programme I'll come back to that but in terms of the point that Joe McAlpine makes in terms of the eligibility criteria absolutely I agree with the point and I have seen it in local government over many years that I was in local government where as the financial pressure comes on local authorities suddenly the eligibility criteria for home care for a whole range of services starts to be changed and tightened and it's been a way of local authorities addressing some of the cuts and the people that are obviously on the receiving side that are having their services cut it's not the right thing to do but it's an interesting point and it was also a point that was made in one of the briefs that was sent in where it was stated that present the social security budget is demand led with no set limit on the amount of money available and that this will not be the case for devolved benefits meaning careful planning must take place to ensure benefit entitlements are sustainable going forward and I would hate to see what I witnessed over many years in local government where eligibility criteria keeps getting tightened and people keep falling off being eligible for some of these services just purely because of the finances and the cuts that's been the experience in local government what I would say is that if you look right across Scotland at local government you will see some really innovative projects some innovative works that are going on to be able to get people and support people far too many people and it's a recognition that's not in place with the current work programme which is about ticking boxes people that are far far removed from the labour market and in many cases even the basic skills the skills for life if you like and it needs intense programmes that are put in place to support people and that point has been made by a number of briefings for organisations that have come in previously now there are third sector organisations out there that are very good at this work but it needs to be co-ordinated in my view not from from this parliament and not Scotland wide and local government has a key role to play in the co-ordination of that as part of a wider economic strategy that needs to be in place a regional economic strategy that needs to be placed in place right across Scotland and that's the important role of the local authorities and I would hope that the minister would not be ruled out the local authorities having a key role to play in the strategic direction of the work programme and they can pool together the third sector but importantly if we're really going to make this work we need to involve business and industry and so they should be partners coming together and it should form party an anti-poverty strategy in Scotland because if we are serious about tackling inequality and tackling poverty we need to recognise that giving people the ability to be able to get the skills and get the work done. I have said time and time again that through the history of the Labour movement people never marks for benefits the marks for jobs they need the opportunities, they need the skills if we're going to tackle poverty and we need decent jobs and the example of Amazon that I gave and Joe McAlpine referred to I speak to people that are now trying to go through the agencies to get jobs in Amazon because they're desperate and that type of employment that's there we've got to replace and that's why I come back to the living wage but even the living wage when it's so and Annabelle Gollby sums up but she didn't talk about tax credits and the fact is that the cuts in tax credits and the point I think was made that George Osborne coming forward was next round the cuts in tax credits will drive hundreds of thousands of people in this country to go further in what poverty I agree completely and utterly with Mr Riley on tax credits what I can't understand is why the Labour Party chose to walk through the lobbies with the Tories to have tax credits remain reserved when this place which is much more progressive could have done much much better if that power and the resource along with it came here well the same point was made by Joan McAlpine when she said about the universal credits and why would it not have been better to have the control over universal credits I can only say to you that my view is that we've got to start to talk seriously about how we're going to use the powers that this Parliament has the significant and substantial powers that this Parliament is going to have but I'm absolutely clear about this that's for me not the end of the road I support home rule for Scotland I'm absolutely clear that we're on a journey devolution is a journey and if we need more powers then we need to make the case and we will make the case on that journey to wherever that journey eventually takes us to but right now I believe the people of Scotland we've got the Scotland Bill gone through the Parliament it's been agreed through the Parliament we now need to start to set out very clearly how we're going to use those powers to tackle the inequality the poverty and share the wealth better within Scotland and that's how we need to move forward the point was also raised by Joan McAlpine about sanctions and Alec Johnson comes in and makes a point are we saying there would never be sanctions and most walks of life there is some type of sanction there the point is that the sanctions that have been introduced through the welfare reforms the Tory government are absolutely unacceptable and you just need to meet people and families out there in communities and my constituents say in the county and my constituents say I'm sure across Scotland and hear their stories to know that they're barbaric people are being picked on people are being singled out and people are being starved families in this modern day being starved and driven to food banks that cannot be acceptable so do we oppose Tory sanctions absolutely we oppose Tory sanctions and that comes to the heart of the point that Margaret McDougall made because Margaret McDougall's made the point in the Scottish social security system sitting at the heart of that has to be respect and dignity and that's what we need to build that respect and that dignity so the point that Joan Wilson made about it being easier to fill forms but also people being treated with respect and treated with dignity I would sum up the Presiding Officer by just making the point that Hugh Henry made and I would finish on this point Hugh talked about the winter fuel allowance and the cold weather allowance these were policies that were introduced by Gordon Brown as Chancellor as was the tax credits and what we need to think about is the principles that were put in place what were the principles when these policies were put in place in terms of the winter fuel allowance the cold winter payment the principle was that older people will tend to be in their houses during the winter they're not out they're not out working therefore they get cold and therefore it was right that they shouldn't be in fuel poverty so we need to look at some of the principles that work in there when these types of things were brought in place by the last Labour Government and ensure that they stay in place no matter the colour and administration in this place thank you I now call on market budgets 8 minutes please thank you Presiding Officer and I think like others across the chamber there's been a lot of consensus and a number of issues particularly the type of social security system that we want to see here in Scotland a Scottish social security system based on dignity and respect for the individual and person centred as Margaret MacDougall mentioned but also during this debate I think we'll recognise there's opportunities with the new powers coming to this Parliament but there's also some considerable challenges and we can't shy away from those challenges and there are challenges when you get partial benefits devolved that creates real challenges and I think Kevin Stewart and Christina McKelvie highlighted those challenges very well and I would just say before I respond to some of the other points that were made in terms of tax credits which has been mentioned by a number of people and Kevin Stewart mentioned it again there he showed very clearly and it was demonstrated very clearly at the welfare reform committee yesterday just the difficulties there are in having that benefit partially devolved and I like Kevin Stewart and others on this side of the chamber would much have preferred to have tax credits devolved in its entirety and that went that was an amendment that went to the UK Parliament on Monday and I was very disappointed extremely disappointed in fact and I always couldn't believe it that Labour went through the lobby with the Tories and voted basically to retain the power to cut tax credits at Westminster to allow the Tories and Westminster to cut tax credits at their will and then expect the Scottish Government to make up that difference and pay for it and I just was so disappointed at Labour's position in that and I'm just going to say that there's going to be to try and assist families low income families and it's not straightforward as was said by Christina McKelvie she showed us very clearly and illustrated clearly the difficulties there are and Mark McDonald did the same in terms of trying to help those low income families that are going to drop off perhaps in April this year but I will now respond to some of the other points that were made that require a bit about localism in it and Joan McAlpine came from another point in that and I think that that is a genuine honest debate that we're having the Scottish Government at the moment is looking at appraisals and options for delivery and looking at the process for consulting with COSLA we want to take time because we've got to get it right and of course it will come to Parliament we have had initial discussions with representatives including COSLA local bodies, people with expertise and knowledge as well but any system have I'll take a brief intervention Alex Johnson Would the minister agree that if we are going to trust local government to do some of this we must trust local government to do enough of it so that we can get efficiencies in the delivery network and that just a small bit is going to be inefficient and cost more money than it's worth? Margaret Burgess I'm just going to carry on and say that any delivery has to be cost effective we cannot spend the money in our social security system administering it we have to make sure that the money goes into the pockets of the people who need it so of course it has to be cost effective it has to be a high quality service and it also has to be very customer focused I think that is the kind of service we are looking for and we have to align delivery to local services and if it's appropriate for any social security to be delivered through a local local government we have to make sure that it's properly aligned and that there's flexibilities to deliver it in different ways so all of that's an on-going discussion and something that we all have to look at and that's one of the it's a challenge and an opportunity as to how we take that forward Mark McDonald and others talked about how we can make better use of medical evidence and I would say that that's something we're currently looking at how we can make the assessment process that people have confidence in because we understand and we heard outlined from a number of people I think that Roderick Campbell and Joan McAlpine and others and I think also it may have been Malcolm Tism just talked about the difficulties people face getting into the system and we need to involve the stakeholders in this and that's another important thing of any social security system the system has to take on board the views of those and at some point we may all be that so we are looking at that how we can make it accessible and how it is much more customer focused and a point that was made by a number of speakers which I really have to say in case we don't get the opportunity and I think it is an absolutely crucial point and that's a point of clawback of any benefits the Scottish Government or any top-up that the Scottish Government agrees or provides unless we have absolute clarity and it's not enough just to and I appreciate Annabel Goldie said she would take this up with her counterparts in Westminster but we need to have an absolute clear commitment from the UK Government that there will be no clawback and that will be absolutely crucial to any fiscal arrangements that are made that is if there's any clawback there is absolutely then there's no benefit to the people we're paying to administer something that's not going to help the people that desperately need the help from the system so in that basis that would be absolute that would be a red line for me so I just want to say another couple of things I can say I'm not getting much time but I think we all agree in the chamber and I think that that was useful to have that kind of commitment that putting people at the heart of social security will go some way to lifting the fears and rebuilding trust it also illustrates an important point and one that I want to make again is I believe that we all have a stake in a social security system it's not a system that belongs to the Government it doesn't belong to the administration it doesn't belong to local government it belongs to each and every one of us and we all have a stake in it and at some point in our lives we'll all have to ourselves or our family or our neighbours our friends may need that system at some point we need to have confidence in that system and we need to know that the support will be there and there will be no stigma attached to it and many people face additional challenges and costs in their daily lives because of ill health or disability and then it's right absolutely right that society as a whole helps to meet that challenge and we meet it together so I hope that this is the approach that we all agree is the approach to take forward we also want to take the chance that the Government's strong record in taking action to mitigate the worst of the UK's welfare reforms to protect Scotland's citizens and our current and plan-filled funding is an investment of ar