 Ieithio â'r ddechrau, mae'r awdurdodd yng Nghymru. Rwy'n gweithio, ac mae'r pethau ymddangos o'r rai gyflwyno, ac rai'n cael ei ddiwyddiant, yn swythio'r ddiwylliannau o'r modau cyfrifol. Dwi'n i wych i'r ddim yn oes am ychydig, a'r cymdeithasol o'r clyw bushau ar gyfer y gwirion. Felly, mae'n cael ei ddweud o'r byw. Yn y gallu ddweud y dystod, byddwch gweithio'n cyd-dwgol Argymwys yng Nghymru a'r Gwldy Annabell. Argymwy o'r gweithio'n cymdeithasol, mae'r cymdeithasol, Cymraer Llywodraeth Cymru, a'r cymdeithio'n cymdeithasol, Alex Johnson, ac yn cyd-dwgol y gwaith o'n cymdeithio, Felly, mae Ynw i gefnogi'r Cynol a Alex Meddwl yn symud o gwrtnaeth llythio. Felly, mae'r cerddio cerddio i'r gwleidwad o cerddorol. Mae'r gyrraeth â'r newid o gyrraeth o'r newid o'r gwleidwad hynny i teimlo i'r gwleidwad. Mae'r gwleidwad o'r gwleidwad o'r gwleidwad gyrraeth yn lle gyda'r gennydd y ffinoeid o'r gwleidwad. 저'r anabell efallai at gwpwn o'r gwleidwad? Yn fwrdd o gyrraedd trafnol o'r gwleidwad. No relevance interested to clear. Efin i.] I plea gyd o ran gwyfodol interject oion rai ei bod hefyd. Gweithgau i ymlaen nhw i ddweud â'r cyfnodd yn ddigon ni, gan cyr exitingan ymateb y mae bwysig ymlaen nhw. Mae'n rhaid o'i wneud i'r cwmwyllfa a'r gwahanol y ddiogw��d y ddiogw��d gyda chi ar gyfer y byd Styll y cefnog yn ymlaen nhw a wedi gwelio gael eu cwmwyllfa. Mae'n ddigon i ddweud i ddim yn i ddiogw��d yn lleolion â'r cyfreth, ac mae'n grannol yn llawer near has been because in spite of many legitimate political or personal differences, there's always been a willingness to act constructively and consensually in the interest of those affected by current welfare reforms. The practices that we've developed and deployed have served the committee well and I can understand that new members to the committee might not be aware of the approach to dealing with correspondence and information which we've However, even if you are not familiar with the processes, all MSPs must be aware of the confidentiality requirement under section 74 of the MSP Code of Conduct, which clearly states that when members will be required to treat discussions, documents or other information relating to the Parliament in a confidential manner. In paragraph 7.4.6, it states that, at the very least, members are requested to exercise their judgment as to what should or should not be made available to outside bodies or individuals. In cases of doubt, members should seek the advice of the relevant clerk. I have checked with the committee clerks and no such advice was sought in this instance. I find this situation completely unacceptable and I do not tolerate that type of behaviour, so I expect this to be the first and last time that I have to make such a statement. With that, I move on to agenda item 3. That is a discussion with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners' Rights. Before us, I welcome Alex Neil, the Cabinet Secretary, Leslie Fraser, director of housing, regeneration and welfare, and Ann McVeigh, team leader for the Scottish Government. Welcome to you all. The committee would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Neil on his new role as the Cabinet Secretary, and we look forward to hearing his views on his new remit and plans for the future. I will pass over to you, Cabinet Secretary, and let you take us forward from here. Thank you very much indeed, convener. Since this is my first appearance in light of your congratulations and my new appointment, I should declare in relation to pensioner rights at the moment that I have no interest to declare, just for the record in case some people might think otherwise. Thank you very much indeed for inviting me, in fact, to come before the committee. I am new in terms of ministerial portfolio, obviously, to the welfare role, but it is an interesting brief to say the least, and obviously one that is subject to change. I would like to put in context my overall approach, and I have tried to keep this fairly short because I want to maximise the time that members have to question and to debate the issues that we will all be facing in the months and years ahead. Can I start by just acknowledging the very valuable work that this committee has in fact done in its short period of existence? I saw from the parliamentary debate in December just how some of the areas have been brought to the public's attention as a result of the committee's work and how important research is very important, whether it is sanctions, food banks, bedroom tax or whatever. Given the austerity measures being brought forward by the UK Government, your work, obviously, in my view, will continue to be very necessary indeed. In terms of how you will find me to work, I hope that we can work openly and co-operatively. In the debate before Christmas I was struck by the willingness of all parties to work with each other and I very much hope and I certainly intend to continue in that vein. Whilst I am sure that you will rightly press me and my colleagues on issues in the future, I know that the intention comes from a very real desire around the table to improve the lives of the most vulnerable members of our society. This morning I want to talk about my vision and what I want to achieve from a new portfolio area, particularly on social justice and communities. I also want to, since this is my first occasion in front of the committee, since the Smith Commission was reported, to give you a broad overview on where I think we now take that process in the future, particularly in relation to welfare. The pursuit of social justice and strengthening communities is relevant to every aspect of Government, so I am particularly pleased that I have been able to take on this challenge. There areas very much of the heart of what this Government was used to achieve both in helping people and communities fulfil their potential and recognising the enormous beneficial aspects of an economy that would be released from this. Because we firmly believe that Scotland's greatest asset is our people and our country's riches, our more should be done to share our wealth. In my role as Cabinet Secretary for Health, I once said that I believed everybody was a stakeholder in the health service. I believe that this equally applies in my new portfolio. I strongly believe that we all have a part to play in building a fairer and more prosperous society, and it stages in our lives almost all of us are relied at some point on the state for assistance. That's why I so firmly reject the idea of scroungers versus strivers that has become so unfortunately apparent in some of the rhetoric from some of the UK Government, and it's clear that too many in our society don't feel that they have a stake in it, and that's something I hope we can all agree we need to address. In my previous ministerial post I've also been clear that I see a preventative approach as the best means for challenging inequality. Too often monies are focused in dealing with the outcomes and the symptoms rather than tackling the root causes of problems like poverty and inequality. Important progress has been made in changing our thinking and approach with the closer integration between health and social care being a good example of that, but much more needs to be done. The reasons for inequality in our society are many complex and varied, and there are no silver bullets or easy answers to many of the deep lying problems that we are faced with. Nor can any of us be satisfied with an existing system that condemns so many people to poverty and deprivation. In terms of the Smith Commission, I think everybody in this Parliament welcomes the additional powers. We will always do what we can with these powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, and we're pleased that the powers that have been recommended are coming to the Parliament, and hopefully we will see them arrive sooner rather than later. We will work co-operatively inside the Parliament and indeed with the UK Government to make the transition of the powers as easy and smooth as possible. There's no doubt that in the Government's view, Scottish Government's view, it is a missed opportunity to give the Parliament more meaningful levers to tackle the real long-standing problems facing our country, a view that's shared by many of our stakeholders. However, I know that you'll be keen to ask me what the Government intends to do with the new powers that are to be transferred, and the powers that are coming do present some opportunities to do things differently. I believe that, for example, with powers over disability benefits, we can introduce a system that treats people with dignity and respect. The expert working group in welfare has already suggested areas where change may be possible in this area, but it is worth the word of caution. There is a process involved. Powers will not be transferred overnight. I think that we all have a responsibility to recognise that and work together to ensure that powers are transferred with the full budget that they currently hold. Negotiations in the details are still to be had with the UK Government. We need to fully understand the full financial and legal implications that are involved in the process before we make any detailed commitments. The draft clauses due next week will be a start to that process. I'm pleased to say that I had a very useful meeting last week with the Minister of State for Scotland. A joint ministerial working group in welfare between the Scottish and UK Government is now being established, and the first meeting of that should take place in week 1 February. We have agreed a work programme for that, timetables, modus operandi, membership and so on, and I'm happy to share that information with the committee this morning, convener, if you so wish. I will certainly be keeping the committee updated, as indeed Mr Mundell will be, because I believe he's appearing before you in a few weeks' time as well. In the meantime, I believe that it's only right that we consult widely with those who will be affected by the new benefits. We will ensure that we do this and take forward plans for engagement with those with an interest, and I'm happy to take on board any suggestions that members and the committee as a whole have for doing this. One final thing I want to clear up is on the Smith commission and universal credit. There were some concerns expressed that any benefits we introduced could be offset by a cut in reserved benefits. That's paragraph 55 in the Smith report. I'm now clear that the purpose of paragraph 55 is to provide a guarantee that the benefit of anything we do in the Scottish Parliament should not be undermined or negated in any way as it affects the individual. This is certainly my interpretation, and I expect the UK Government to honour this in full. I'm now happy to answer any questions, convener. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I have a very positive statement. I think that the committee has always worked closely with your predecessors, and there has been a lot of consensus around because there is a genuine concern about the impact that the welfare reforms are having, and I think that the more constructive we can be in that regard, the better. We have shared a lot this committee and the Government before in terms of research. We have commissioned more research because we want to get the best picture we can, but I'd be interested to know in areas such as the impact on women or the impact on disability groups. The Scottish Government has done some work in that before. Is that on-going or is there going to be more work so that we can drill down as far as we can into the impact of these specific groups? There will be an on-going programme of work, convener. I'm very keen that once we're absolutely sure, and we'll see that next week on 25 January, when the clauses are published exactly what the clauses are saying, and then we'll be in a much clearer position to know exactly what powers are going to be transferred. My next priority is to make sure that the budget transfers with those clauses because we don't want to end up in a situation like Northern Ireland have ended up in, where they've got powers but don't have the budget to go with the powers, and that's had a terrible impact on the rest of the Northern Ireland executive's budget. I'm very clear that what I want to do is let me make two general points here. The additional powers that are being transferred as a result of the Smith process, I don't see us just taking those powers and then within that envelope looking at how we move forward. I also think we should look at the broader picture in terms of the existing powers and budget of the Scottish Government. So how can you take the whole package and make it much more effective in tackling poverty, inequality, and all the other challenges that we have? Now we know there are many particular groups, you've mentioned women, disabled people, there are two groups in particular that have been adversely affected by the welfare reforms that have taken place in the last five years. Another group that is particularly affected are those living in the severest poverty. If you look at the standard definition of poverty, those people living below 60% of the median UK household income. If you look at the numbers actually now living at below 40% of that figure, it is very substantial. There's 230,000 people in Scotland living in severe poverty as defined as the 40% threshold rather than a 50% or 60% threshold. So I think they, for example, also have to be a major priority in terms of how we lift people out of the most severe poverty which those 230,000 people are in. And what's particularly worrying about those figures isn't just the figure itself, which is a very substantial figure for people living in severe poverty. The figure is rising, the trend is increasing, and indeed the trend in that has been increasing over the last 10 years. It's not just over the last five years, it's actually over the last 10 years. So that's an area that I, it's one of the areas along with the ones you mentioned, would be ones that I would want to focus in on because I think by definition we want to help those at the bottom of the income league as a priority and get money into their pockets so that they can live a better standard of living. That's really helpful. In relation to the Smith agreement, you said that you've already started to look at where we might be able to improve the existing situation. Has there been any indication yet or any approaches from particular groups about additional benefits that might be required to fill holes or address some of the issues that are coming forward? Well, a number of stakeholder groups are already beginning to indicate there are areas where they think we could do things differently or do things better or get a bigger bang for the buck. And I'm very keen to look at where we can get a bigger bang for the buck. But it's far too early, I think, to start giving any kind of indication because, first of all, we've got to be absolutely sure that we know and get the definition of the powers being transferred and we'll get that in the 25th of January. We need to know where the budgets are transferring with them. And then, thirdly, I think what we need to do is, I don't intend to just issue policies without consultation. I think this has to be a very engaging, participative, iterative process involving the stakeholders and involving this committee because there is a significant time barrier between where we are now to when we actually get the powers. It's at least a two-year gap because it will be 2017 with the best will in the world before the powers are actually transferred to this Parliament. There may be some powers in the interim. For example, some of the flexibilities around universal credit it may be possible to transfer them earlier because it's not the case that they will all require primary legislation. But broadly speaking, these powers are going to be the subject of primary legislation and that legislation, as we know both in this Parliament and in the UK Parliament, could take up to two years to actually pass. And I think we need to productively use that gap so that we plan ahead. I would actually also be very keen, convener, to try to maximise the consensus on the changes that we make because I think one of the great problems as a constituency MSP and I'm sure you will be exactly the same, one of the biggest problems that the recipients have had is the instability of the benefits system because it seems to change every five minutes and people find it very difficult to access the benefits to which they're entitled. Now, if we make the system more accessible, simpler, easier for people to access, easier to understand, then some of the money we're currently spending on having to explain the system to people could perhaps be redirected towards actually putting money in people's pocket. I think that would be a better use of the money if we can get there. So I would rather take our time, we've got time to look at the big picture, to consult, to try and build the consensus on the reform agenda so that, by the time the powers are actually transferred, we're able to hit the runway ready to fly. I'm sure you'll agree that a good welfare system is one that helps people to get back into work whether they can put that term for themselves. Would you therefore agree with the calls for the work programme to be given to the Scottish Parliament immediately? Well, in the meeting with the Minister of State with David Mundell and his colleagues from the Department of Work and Pensions last week, we again iterated our view that the work programme should be transferred quickly and that the new contract should not be signed. The new contract has the extension, rather to the contract, has been signed to 2017. Now, that obviously places some degree of restriction on what we can or cannot do. Now, there are options. We could cancel the extension in Scotland, if it's transferred quickly enough. We could renegotiate the terms of the extension and so on and so forth. But, to be honest, these are going to be more cumbersome and more difficult to do than it would have been had the extension not been signed in relation to Scotland in the first place. Unfortunately, it has. An early subject for discussion in the joint ministerial group that I referred to in my introductory remarks will be to look at the work programme and see how quickly it can be transferred and what flexibility we have in the short term. Obviously, in the longer term, beyond the extension period, we will want to look at the work programme and indeed work plus, which is the other work programme that's been transferred or being transferred to see how we believe we can make more effective use of the work programme. I think we all accept the work programme has not been the raging success that we'd all anticipated, and hopefully we can do things better. It's a very good example if you can look at the work that's being done, for example, with Skills Development Scotland, of how we can take a much more holistic approach so that it's a one-stop shop ideally for people who are on welfare trying to get into work or people in work trying to improve their career prospects. So they don't need to get around the houses. I would like to see them being able to go into one-stop shops and get the range of services they need and easy access to the services to make it easy for them to get from welfare to work, or if they're already in work to improve their career prospects. OK, we might take that up directly with the Minister when he comes in front of us in a couple of weeks. I'll open up to the rest of the committee. Now I'll go to Joan first, followed by Kevin. Thank you very much. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. You invited questions about how the new power is devolved by the Smith commission. The future should be used. I'm co-conviner of the cross-party group on carers, and I wondered if you hadn't given any thought to carers' allowances and what could be done once they're devolved. Well, as you know, we made a commitment in the white paper that had we had a yes vote, one of the early things we would have done was to significantly increase the carers allowance and would have brought it up from the current level, £64.61 to equate initially to the jobseekers allowance, which would have been a significant increase percentage-wise for those in receipt of the carers allowance. But clearly the point about the budget is very important. Before I can make commitments, I've got to be sure we're going to have the budget transferred to do that. I'm still very keen to do much more for carers than is being done at the present time. The transfer of the benefits like the carers allowance will help us, hopefully, to do that. And it's an area where we will be looking at where can we deliver a better deal for carers using our existing resources and combine them with the additional resources coming from the carers allowance and any other relevant benefits as a result of the Smith process. I'm not in a position today to make any specific commitments because I'm not going to, and the Government's not going to make any commitments, A, until we know what the powers are, on behalf of January B, to be sure the budget is coming with the powers and then C, to consult people on the most effective way in this case to get a better deal for carers. Thank you very much. That's very encouraging. You talked also in your introductory remarks about the need to simplify benefits. I've been reading some of the evidence to the Devolution and Further Powers Committee by Professor Nicola McEwen and she highlights some of the difficulties in devolving a small proportion of welfare and leaving the bulk of it with Westminster and suggests that this will result in more complexity and in particular she talks about benefit interdependence and expresses concern that entitlement to some benefits depends on eligibility for others and if the eligibility criteria for devolved benefits are altered it could affect entitlement to UK benefits. Do you think that that kind of thing is going to emerge as a problem? Well, I actually agree with Nicola. I mean, I think any MSP who is dealing with people that certainly sees the interdependence of benefits and indeed these days the interdependence between the benefit system and the tax system because tax credits are obviously a major part of the benefit system these days. So there is no doubt about that and I think as long as the other benefits, some of them the more major benefits remain at Westminster in making any changes to the benefits that we are getting transferred to the Scottish Parliament under the Smith process I think we've got to be cognisant of the very problem that Nicola McEwen has highlighted and therefore try to minimise any problem or address existing problems where people are not getting the full panoplate of support that they're entitled to as well as improving the benefits themselves and how they work and how they interact with the Scottish Government's wider agenda we've also got to look at the administration so that we make the administration as easy as possible for people who have to rely on benefits and I think one of the problems we have at the moment even where the benefits are quite reasonable sometimes people don't know about them and if they know about them so these are issues that I think we've got to look at how can we improve that so that people who are entitled to benefit know about the benefits they're entitled to and can't get more easy access to the benefits they're entitled to and that's all part and parcel of that analysis that Nicola McEwen outlined Thank you very much on the same thread you'll obviously be aware that this committee has produced some quite devastating reports on the rise in food banks and obviously sanctions as well and sanctions are not going to be devolved by the Smith Commission however as we talked about earlier the work programme is and again Dr McEwen has raised the possibility the difficulty that by leaving sanctions with the UK Government on the aspects of employment it could emerge as quite problematic Well I don't think it's any secret that I and the Government would like to see all the benefits transferred both to all tax and all benefits transferred to the Scottish Parliament for amongst other things the very reasons that Nicola McEwen has outlined because it's much easier if you've got access to all the levers to have a more comprehensive and joined up approach to the whole subject of social security in its widest definition that would be the ideal and I would hope that maybe after the elections in May that we might be in a position to see substantial additional transfer of these powers above and beyond what has been recommended in Smith but for the time being I'm planning on the basis of the Smith recommendations if we can get the additional powers good and well I have to say also my experience as an MSP and again I know colleagues across parties share this that one of the most difficult periods for many of these more vulnerable people financially vulnerable people is when sanctions are applied A because they go through a period when they have no income in many cases no income whatsoever and become very very reliant on food banks and support of families and so on but also during the sanctions period during the benefit during that period they're building up debts and it's very difficult given the low level of income they have even when benefits are restored to actually on top of everything else pay off the debts they've acquired during the sanction period so the sanctions I think are a pretty inhumane approach I am the first person to say anyone who deliberately defraud the system should be dealt with and dealt with severely because they're bringing the whole system into a very small very small minority of the people who are in receipt of benefit that's my experience and I think all the evidence shows that even the wildest estimate of the level of fraud as a percentage of the total budget and as a percentage of the total number of people in receipt of benefit it is a very small problem in relative terms and therefore I think we've got to get into a position where people, you know sanctions, I mean I've seen people sanctioned for totally ridiculous reasons totally unacceptable reasons but trying to get out of the sanction period is extremely difficult and actually during the sanction period these people can get into even more dire poverty and it's even more difficult for them to get out of that you know I think the sanctions are something personally I don't think the way the sanctions are working is very efficient and it's certainly not humane Thank you very much Evan to be followed by Christina Thank you very much convener and good morning cabinet secretary At the weekend we've seen 57 civic organisations and charities calling for a stop to the roll out of universal credit here in Scotland Cabinet secretary if you have continued to put pressure on the DWP to halt that roll out in Scotland and if you could comment any further in the discussions that you or your officials have had with the DWP in that regard I mean again I did it last week we've asked for the roll out of UC to be halted until we have a chance to look at it we've made a similar request in terms of the personal independence payments to PIPs which are replacing DLA and we certainly want those transferred before there's a planned 20% cut in the PIN and the rate of PIP that would take over £300 million out of PIP payments in Scotland a year if that 20% cut goes ahead excuse me now we have not had an undertaking that on either of those we haven't had any positive response yet from the UK Government what I did get agreement on last week from the Minister of State was that there should be no pre-emptive light with the work programme no pre-emptive action taken by the UK Government for those powers that are to be devolved which could have an impact on how we want to run those programmes both in the short term and in the medium term so if they stick to that principle my interpretation would be that PIP would be transferred before the 20% cut would be an explicit commitment either in relation to the roll-out of PIP or in relation to the roll-out of universal credit thank you and we wish you well in trying to put a halt to these things in terms of universal credit the bulk of that remains in the hands of the UK Government but Sunder Smith it's envisaged that we will be able to deal with some of the housing elements of universal credit we've seen in various reports a major problem in terms of rolling out universal credit with computer systems, IT systems which don't seem to be working and talk of writing off almost £697 million that's been put into IT thus far the major projects authority told the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee that this roll-out was still amber red as far as they were concerned is there can you foresee any problems in terms of this parliament if it gets the power over the housing elements being able to do very little about that because of systems which won't allow those alterations and have those discussions to be led with the DWP to ensure that if we come to different arrangements and different policy decisions that we will be able to implement them even though their systems don't seem to be able to do what they're supposed to do at this moment first of all I'll say the level of detail of those discussions are really starting now because we had to get the agreement as we came out of the meeting last week to move ahead on a ministerial basis and it didn't have the resources or the remit to do it so a lot of the very detailed discussions are about to start in terms of universal credit first of all I do think that the Alicard approach to universal credit is nobody clever I think it defeats the purpose of universal credit and it would have made absolute sense for all the benefits incorporated into universal credit including the jobseekers allowance to be transferred in total to the Scottish Parliament quite frankly and I think through time that will happen just because common sense has to prevail at some stage secondly the two bits that are going to be transferred from universal credit as a result of Smith are some policy variations of flexibilities around for example housing benefit and secondly administrative flexibility for example how often payments are made now there are some things I believe that once we get these powers transferred that we can do that actually wouldn't cost any money for example when I was minister of housing five years ago at that time Gordon Brown was introducing pilots on changing the system of payment of housing benefit from direct payment to land laws to payment to tenants now let me say I absolutely understand and empathise with what the objective was which was to encourage personal independence and so on and so forth so I'm not challenging the motivation I think the motivation was right but the reality is somewhat different and certainly when I was minister of housing the last time and I think there's still indications that this is happening at that time under the old system 96% of housing benefit was paid direct to the landlord who wanted it paid direct to themselves could insist and 4% didn't insist that they got it but when you introduce a system where you kind of automatically pay it to the tenant and the default position is to pay it to the landlord there was clear evidence that there was an increase in rent arrears amongst the people affected certainly anecdotally at that time some private landlords were telling me they were pulling out of what they referred to as the DSS business and their debt ratio was going up and couldn't justify the risk and similarly in the social rented sector and housing associations at that time there was a concern that if rent arrears increased as a result of that change then the credit rating for the housing association would be affected adversely and that would adversely impact their ability to raise money and could adversely impact on the rate at which they could borrow money in the future now these are all kind of anecdotal there's still evidence if you talk to people individually but I personally think one of the early things we should look at is reverting to the old system where the default position is to pay to the tenant and you pay to the landlord and if the tenant insists you then can pay to the tenant I think you have to have the right to do that but I think reversing that I think would have a lot of support and would very quickly hopefully mean that we would see a reduction in the number of evictions arising from rent arrears because people haven't been able to manage their money and haven't prioritised their rent if you've got the money in your hand for the rent and it's time for the kids you're running up to Christmas and the kids want something or it's running up to the start of the school term and they need new shoes and that's what you're going to do you're going to buy new shoes and you're going to let the rent money wait so I think there's some issues in there we won't do anything until we've consulted the committee and the stakeholders but it strikes me that that's a fairly simple reform that wouldn't actually cost money I believe through time would save money because the more people you make homeless through rent arrears the bigger the call on the public purse as well as all the disruption you have to individual families so that's the kind of thing we might be able to do quite quickly in agreement with people that won't actually cost money and actually in the margins would save some money Thank you and I'm glad to hear that more detailed discussions will go on and in terms of your last point the committee itself at very early stages heard from tenants at Dunedin Cammore who took part in a pilot project where monies were paid directly to tenants and some folk were very honest about the situation including a man who admitted that he had alcohol problems and he'd stayed sober that day to speak to us but he said that if he had the hands on that money then he knew that he would drink it within two or three days so I think that there's been a major failure on the part of the DWP not listening to people in that regard and the programme for government indicated that there would be an independent adviser on poverty and inequality Can I ask cabinet secretary will that adviser look at UK government policy and the impacts on the people of Scotland as well as Scottish government policy and how would you envisage working with that adviser to get to the best possible policies for the people of Scotland within the powers that we have? Well the First Minister will be reasonably soon and hopefully will be appointing that adviser and obviously we will be working very closely with him or her because clearly that will be a source of expert advice to us on the way forward and the key issues that need to be addressed and help us prioritise this work because it can't all be done in one go it will need a rolling programme as the convener referred to right at the start a rolling programme of research because I'm absolutely determined that any changes we make are evidence based and not just are made on a whim and I think that's been part of the problem in the past that there hasn't always been the evidence I mean the thing I've just referred to about the change in the arrangements of paying the rent to the tenant instead of the landlord there was no evidence to suggest that that was the right thing to do quite frankly so I think it has to be evidence based absolutely the new adviser will have a key role to play in terms of looking at UK government policy as well and not only that I'm very keen that we'll look at how they do things in other countries as well because there are some things we've got right and some a lot in this area that's I think wrong that needs to be sorted but there are other countries that have done very well in terms of how they manage and particularly I mean a very good example of that is the Danish labour market system where they have a very very very proactive labour market policy so that people the period they have on unemployment is absolutely minimised because you're very quickly if you're made redundant for example you're very very quickly put on a training or retraining programme if they can't find your job and it's a training or retraining programme that's geared to job vacancies now I know for example there's no responsibility for housing one of the major potential constraints we have to house expanding the house building programme in Scotland is already the shortages showing up in the construction industry in terms of brickies and joiners and all the rest of it now one of the things we can do for much more joined up is actually if you've got a very proactive labour market policy as you can very quickly get more people no matter what their age if they're in their mid forties they can still train to be a plasterer or a joiner or a brickie because they've still got 20 or potentially 25 years of working life life so these are very good examples of where they can pull the thing together I think the beauty is because you're managing a population of 5 million instead of 60 million you can be much more nimble in your feet much more joined up than it's possible to be if you're in a nation and this is organised for a population of 60 million instead of 5 million that's a good example of how that can be done the Danish labour market policies my responsibility directly is Miss Cunningham's but again Miss Cunningham and I are working together because the core objective is to get people off welfare and into work people who can work and are fit and able to work we want to get them into work so between the benefit system and the services and the responsibilities of Miss Cunningham we want to be joined up so that we're maximising the ability of people to get out of welfare and into work, not work with poverty wages but into good well-paid work with good prospects thank you cabinet secretary Christina, to be followed by Annabelle thank you very much good morning cabinet secretary and welcome to your new role and no doubt many appearances in front of this committee given the remit that you have the convener asked some opening questions about the work programme and one of the concerns that I had a good few years ago now was about how the work programme was being managed in total and the impact that was then having on opportunities for young people and especially the young people who were furthest away from the labour market and I tended to find some third sector out and creating the opportunities would you envisage that if the work programme is devolved to Scotland that the work programme would be repositioned away from private companies where it sits right now to third sector companies who seem to understand a lot more the needs of the constituents that they're dealing with I mean it's not my direct responsibility to be Miss Cunningham's but my view would be you would go where the most effective way of operating a programme would be and not only that I actually think we you know in this area before it became an MSP I remember programmes like for example a very innovative programme run by the old Strathclyde Regional Council with European funding support called TAGS training and employment grant scheme and that took that said to employers we will give you a subsidy on your wage bill for I think it was six months if you take somebody who's unemployed to fill vacancies particularly longer term unemployed people I think they had to be unemployed for six months or more if they were disabled and unemployed the subsidy doubled and I pick that as an example that was a very very successful scheme and you know I think sometimes we just reinvent the wheel when we don't need to reinvent the wheel I think if you look back in the weeps programme working employers premises the whole range of other programmes we know what works and who's poor at delivering and my view is that you again coming back to evidence base we've got loads of evidence of what works and what doesn't in terms of getting people effectively back into work and remember many of these people people who've been out of work for a long time they've lost the discipline of work if they ever had it in some cases they'll be getting into work for the first time so the body of evidence is all there so I think we redesign it in such a way that we improve the whole effectiveness of getting people off welfare into work One of the the clearest impacts and something that no doubt you've heard me and many others have heard me talk about is the disproportionate impact on women of any of the welfare reform and I believe that the figures that I have is 86% of all the cuts which amounts to £4 billion are levied against women whether they're women single parents or women on low pay and interestingly women carers who have maybe got children with disabilities account for a 400% increase in the use of food banks and you know every day I'm astonished and I shouldn't be but I am because I can't believe it when you hear people like Lord Freud and I want to quote him he said it's difficult to know which came first supply and food banks if you put more food banks in that is the supply clearly food from a food bank is by definition a free good and there's almost infinite demand and I would suggest that to say it's a free good for the constituents that I've dealt with and the food bank that I have in Hamilton is that it's not free because the cost is dignity and the cost is self respect because people have been pushed almost to the point of destitution and I know that one of the plans that the Scottish Government has is poverty impact assessments and child impact assessments and I was wondering if you could give us a bit more detail and how we use those assessments and the impact of these things on that specific group these people who have been pushed sometimes they're in work in very low pay and on work benefits and they go to a food bank therefore losing their self respect and their dignity All the proposals that we come forward with and discuss for change will be assessed in terms of the equality impact assessment on women, on disabled people on ethnic minorities and other groups as well so absolutely because there's no point introducing something if the assessment is that it's not having the impact on the most vulnerable groups that we desire so it has to be evidence based both in terms of the evidence available about the current system but also what the estimates are in terms of the impact for any new proposals we have to properly assess that make sure before and I'm always in favour of piloting programmes not over a long period but long enough to know that they're going to have the desired impact and time to work out any unintended consequences and I think the more we talk about what's on this they know what works we don't need the PhD on it they know what works and what doesn't work so let's use their expertise I brought it down to my experience as a constituency MSP let me give you two examples of what I've been dealing with and I know other members will have examples as well I quite recently had a single mum come to me on a Friday with three children every one of those children the department of work and pensions had left her that weight with 18 pounds you know to look after now I saw her on a Friday she had no money she had no food she was pretty destitute she still had her house managed to keep the shelter her house over her head she didn't live near relatives she didn't have a big family network to rely on either and she really didn't know about food banks to get enough food to see her over the weekend and the kids until the Monday Tuesday we managed to get some emergency funding from the local authority over the weekend and if it's after 2 o'clock on a Friday it's very difficult to get emergency funding we managed to get emergency funding and then we get welfare rights involved as well to try and get assorted PDQ at the start of the week when the DWP offices and everything were open again you know another example was an old guy in his mid ffifties he'd worked all his days and had developed severe arthritis in his early ffifties and had been out at work for a number of years and he can't work because he's got severe arthritis and he came to my surgery and his only question was I hope you don't think I'm stinking alley and I said why would I think that he said I haven't had any money to put in the metre for the last three months I haven't had a bath for three months because I don't have enough money to put in the metre with the money I'm getting from department of work and pensions bail enough to feed myself and pay the rent and the other bits and pieces that shouldn't be happening in the 21st century but that is where we are we've turned the clock back 50 years in the last five years in 2015 Finally, and that was a really nice segue into my next section your stories but I believe that we have all had had situations like that but some of the most harrowing ones I've had are young people who didn't receive a letter to tell them they'd be there were for illness not able to attend and sanctioned for 12 weeks and some of the young people that I've been dealing with locally in my constituency who have faced sanctions have been left destitute because generally maybe they're in a family where there is a lot of pressure anyway so for them not to be bringing in any money at all then it causes real tension within families and sometimes family breakdowns and you see very very vulnerable young people who have maybe got learning challenges or disabilities or social challenges completely and utterly destitute and a lot of them are young men and one of the things that my local authority South Lanarkshire to their great credit have been doing is trying to track some of these young people because they track very closely with the young men suicide rate as well which is absolutely horrifying and what they get flung in their faces oh well maybe it's that you're a fraud, you're this, you're that you're young, you should be fit you should be working that type of stuff for £1.2 billion and tax evasion accounts for £32 billion then we've got a real disproportionate inequality the situation on our hands I mean I would love nothing better than this Scottish Parliament to be able to end sanctions for people like that to actually start treating people especially young people who are vulnerable like human beings because what then happens is they become completely disenfranchised and marginalised and very very wary of the system and some of the young people I know have told me they've had to turn to crime to feed themselves now how do we, you know with the limited powers that are coming from Smith how do we extend that and you mentioned in your opening remarks about using all of the powers you've got and all of the methods you've got and I really commend the fact about working across portfolios or a bit y tick and time bomb here with some of your young people and how do we fix that how do we support them and how do we give them the opportunities that they need to thrive I think the way we try and fix it is to make sure that we support them and try and make sure until they find work that they have enough income to live on and are treated properly and in their search for work or training that they've got the maximum and easy access to all the support that's available and where we need to enhance the support we need to enhance the support I mean that's how we do it but it is very difficult if we only have some of the powers some of the budget instead of all of the powers and all of the budget and I think there are very practical reasons why if common sense prevailed all of these powers would be transferred to the parliament even if I were a unionist and not a nationalist I would still be arguing on the new instead of looking at the total picture I think is not maximising the possibilities for improving the system and improving it quite dramatically thank you convener I will to be followed by Margaret convener thank you very much and good morning cabinet secretary may I too congratulate you on your new role convener before I pose my questions to cabinet secretary something rather glaring occurred to me not everyone but I am of pensionable age and perhaps that should be mentioned as well how gallant of you cabinet secretary cabinet secretary thinks the men in the middle age are old so I did notice his reference to that which was rather discomforting to me but my apologies for that lack of clarification earlier on cabinet secretary it might surprise you to learn that actually found myself agreeing with a considerable element of what you were saying and two of your early observations were that preventative measures are best and we do need to concentrate on welfare to work and I was struck by that and you also interestingly mentioned the Danish labour market approach and I wondered if you could ask a general question about and it's not making a political point we accept there is a school shortage in Scotland and we are responsible in this parliament for the provision of education and schools is it going to be necessary to review the approach to colleges because many of the people that need help to get back to work would benefit from the availability of part-time courses and I emphasise I'm not making a political point here I'm simply speaking from awareness of the people that are needing additional skills where they live and where they'd be likely to access these skills and the answer probably is the local college my view is that we tailor whatever services whether it's colleges, universities, schools whatever we tailor everything to try to help people get on the job ladder and if they're already on the ladder to get up the ladder as much as possible because it's not just about unemployed people it's also it used to be the concept in Scottish Enterprise before skills development Scotland was separated out from a Scottish Enterprise thing called the skills ladder and they had policies designed to get people on the ladder but they also had policies designed to get people up the ladder who were already on the ladder and I think you need to do both actually because the more people who go up the ladder the more opportunities you're creating at the bottom to allow people to get on the ladder so my view is that whatever we need to do and it will vary from industry to industry and indeed maybe job to job you know how you would train a plasterer who could be pretty well trained fairly short period of time would be very different from how you would train a joiner or an architect obviously that would require a five year degree so the whole system has to be as geared as much as possible to maximising the opportunities for jobs, for career development to get people of welfare into work to get people who are in work to be able to develop their career and enhance their career opportunities so my view is whatever services we need to provide in whatever sector we should if the evidence is that we need to do something more differently or something that's not there already or expand a programme then let's do it I mean as I said earlier I certainly anecdotally from talking to people in the housing and construction sector are telling me now they can see that there is a shortage developing of the most basic construction skills and that's the pattern after you've had a recess a lot of people leave the construction sector and it's very difficult to persuade them to go back you therefore need to replenish those people who've been lost but also you need to train more people to be able to carry out the extra building as a result of increased demand for owner occupation and new houses or in the social renting sector so my view Annabelle is we do need to have all of that joined up and do whatever we can it's always very difficult to quantify it I remember as a very young man not that long ago doing work for the manpower services commission which was the old training agency and employment agency combined away back in the 70s and it was how to try to forecast what the shortage would be and how many people would need to train and the conclusion I think everybody reached very quickly was it's very very difficult to forecast these things accurately but you know if in doubt you train the people to do the job and there's no doubt at the moment there are opportunities emerging in the construction sector and I think the college sector and other private trainers the whole skills development Scotland infrastructure all of that now needs to respond to meeting those skills shortages and use the opportunity of a skills shortage to get more people off welfare into work I gather from what the cabinet secretary said that there is a recognition by him that there may have to be a review in consequence of the very welcome transfer of powers which are coming as to how we better dovetail what we're trying to do at the Scottish end in terms of preparing people to try and get back to work and I think that's a positive a positive response by the minister The work programme gives us an opportunity because these the people who are the customers of the work programme and put it that way are people who are trying to get off welfare into work and I think there's a real opportunity there to do more to get them into not just into work that's temporary and filling shelves in a supermarket but if there are real opportunities for well paid shops as plasterers or brickies or whatever then get as many of them as possible into these good jobs with long term prospects a revised work programme would be a good way to do that On the scale of the changes coming I appreciate that members of the committee or some members of the committee and no doubt the cabinet secretary too feel the welfare changes proposed of the Smith agreement are not enough and I respect their right to hold that view I don't agree with it but I do respect their right to hold that view The one thing I can say convener is that the Smith commission detected no appetite really from anywhere for example to devolve state pension I mean in my delicate stage of life that's maybe an interesting perspective but there was a recognition both on the economic front and also on the social mobility front that there was merit in the state pension remaining reserved and some of these arguments did extend the provision of a core welfare provision and the question behind my observation cabinet secretary as is DWP has and we'll have a presence in Scotland which will also include the provision of a lot of important data about many vulnerable or potentially vulnerable citizens The Smith commission was quite clear that there should be a willingness by the Scottish government to be prepared to work as constructively as possible with DWP to try and ensure apart from anything else that we're not duplicating effort we're trying to conjoin initiatives to benefit from one core retention of data and also that we're trying to work cooperatively with these different agencies to ensure that at the end of the day we're trying to give the best delivery of service that we can to the people who are actually looking for and need that service so can I ask, I was interested in your reference to the joint meetings that are going to be held with the Scottish office or the Scotland office rather but do you have a programme in mind minister to establish a relationship with counterparts at Westminster in DWP and would you like to comment, A, on the regularity of the meetings with the Scotland office and B, how you envisage growing a relationship with other ministerial departments at Westminster? Sorry, maybe I should have given more information to start. The joint ministerial group will be the lead minister from the UK government will be Mr Mundell and I will be myself but on the group will be probably Mr Hock Jock from the Treasury, Treasury Minister and Lord Freud are likely to be, they'll certainly be attending if there is a matter under discussion affecting their department. Similarly Mr Swinney and Ms Cunningham will join me in the group as well so it's a joint ministerial group it's not just myself and Mr Mundell although I'm sure we can solve all these problems between Mr Mundell will agree with that but I think it makes sense to have a wider ministerial representation both from the UK government and the Scottish government and if other ministers from either government need to be brought in we'll bring them in as and when required so it's not just Mr Mundell it's not just the Scottish office the Doubt Department of Work and Pensions they were involved at official level in the meeting last week on the work of the Department of Work and Pensions we also agreed in principle last week that we will share data and share information between the Department of Work and Pensions and the Scottish government because that's essential to a smooth turnover because we're both absolutely determined that whatever happens that the transition should not result in any recipient losing out or missing a payment or anything like that we've got to both of us work together which we've agreed to do to ensure that there is a smooth transition of the powers and that means sharing information it means agreeing with every step of the way what needs to be done who's doing what when to switch the computers when that's necessary there'll be a period when we'll need to rely in the Department of Work and Pensions computers probably even for the devolved areas until we build up our own computer data infrastructure all of that's going to be part of the agenda of this joint group the first meeting is going to be week one February the second meeting is week one March now obviously the UK government named us into PARDA but it's agreed that in between times Mr Mundell and I will deal with any issues that need to be dealt with respectively in the UK and the Scottish government so it is a close working relationship and Mr Mundell and I work closely together on the Enterprise Committee in here as well as more recently when I was doing health and he was part of the Cobra setup for the UK government in dealing with Ebola so Mr Mundell and I have also agreed that if any issues arise that require quick action that we will just lift the phone and not let any issues fester and we don't want any mountains will hills becoming mountains we want to try and resolve any issues that need resolved if something is urgently needing resolved lift the phone and get it resolved and he and I will talk and involve the other ministers as necessary but the ministerial group this meeting is going to have at least three ministers from both government, each government thank you and finally Mark Zina and good morning cabinet secretary and welcome to your new position thank you and perhaps I should also have stated that I am of pension or age as well so I know so here we go yes sorry yes indeed maybe a bit more cranky but I'm more creaky as well but I'm sure we've got lots to add I wanted to go back to the universal credits discussion we were having around the housing cost elements and one of the most devastating changes to the welfare reforms was the under occupancy charge or bedroom tax as it's been known as I know it's early days but what are your views on how are you going to deal with that because you do now have the control to reduce it or abolish it well the government's position is very clear we want to abolish the bedroom tax end off story now of course the issue comes back to budget and as you know we're now spending £144 million on welfare mitigation measures this year over the three year period from the last financial year to the next financial year the total that we will spend on welfare mitigation is of the order of £296 million now we would prefer and this is again why I am in favour of having all these policies here not having to spend money on welfare mitigation getting the policy right in the first place because it seems a bit daft that one government spending money on the policy then has a knock-on impact which requires another government to spend that level of money on welfare mitigation I would like us to get into a position where we didn't need welfare mitigation but until we get control over all the levers they don't see that happening but the government's position is absolutely clear and that is we want to abolish the bedroom tax no ifs no buts so it will be abolished if we have the power to do it we need to wait to see what the clauses say on the 25th of January and that is another priority because I mean it certainly is one of the ones that has affected women and children most and disabled people particularly as well and the disabled yes which I am because of the lack of housing that there is I mean I welcome that so could I perhaps then move on and ask what your considerations have been on introducing new benefits well again this is going to be part of the clarification and the budgets will then be in a better position to look at how we can reform the system in terms of what is being transferred and tie it in with existing commitments so part of my function for example is looking at communities and community empowerment and we need to talk to the local authorities as well because they are involved in providing a range of local services as well now I think in a lot of cases if we had a more joined up approach then we could get a much bigger bang for the buck I mean for example local authorities provide some discretionary grants to children for certain things so it should we include those as part of a reform system or should they continue as they are should we get local authorities involved much more than the delivery of some of these benefits or should we have a single national agency to provide a range of issues that need to be addressed now I am not coming to this with a closed mind I am coming with a very open mind because I want to find out particularly from the experts but also particularly from those at the receiving end the biggest stakeholder in all of this are the people at the end of the line who are the benefit recipients what do they think would work a lot better what could be done to make it easier for them they feel to get into work to get off benefit and into work so I am very very keen that we talk to the people who are the customers that we are all trying to serve the people we are trying to serve of course we have got to talk to the stakeholders because they have got professional expertise and I want to also have a very open and cooperative relationship with the committee so that we can I am happy to come and bounce ideas with the committee before the government commits itself on that but I am very clear we need a programme of work ready to run so that by the time the powers are transferred we are all very clear what we are going to do with those powers along with the existing powers and budgets to make life better for more people that is the objective OK, thank you Thanks Thanks very much cabinet secretary I am not just paying lip service to the committee I am very keen and I know this committee has taken a very bipartisan approach in the past and I would like us to get into a position where we take as much of the party politics out of this as we possibly can in terms of moving forward and policy development because I think we are all trying to achieve the same objective and we may have different views on how we get there but I think the more consensus we can build in the way forward the better apart from anything else I think getting long term stability into the welfare system has to be one of the key objectives because certainly in my experience and notice you were nodding agreement when I said that that one of the big problems for the people at the receiving end has been the instability of the system and the rapidity of changes that has left them not knowing what they are entitled to these are the areas I think we can work together on very constructively I totally agree with you cabinet secretary and perhaps with the exception of the constitutional issue I think we are singing off the same hym sheet on a lot of aspects of this issue and we will continue to move forward in the way that we have done in the past and I am glad you have picked up on that from the previous experience but thanks very much to yourself and I won't necessarily get the opportunity to make a contribution this morning but I welcome them to the committee this morning and with that I will close the committee to the public and just point out that our next meeting will be on the 27th of January when amongst other things we will be considering stage 2 of the welfare funds Scotland built but thanks very much