 The sixth meeting of the Social Security Committee in 2018. I welcome everyone who took the committee, especially staff and members, who have made a herculean effort to be here this morning. It was much appreciated. I remind everyone to turn their mobile phones or other devices to silent. We have received apologies from Pauline McNeill and there will be no substitute for Pauline this morning. There's only one item on today's agenda, a continued consideration of social security bill at stage two, the martial blessing groupings covering all remaining amendments with the committee, and we will continue where we left off last week and a reminder that we have to finish at the very, very latest at 11.40 this morning. Welcome the minister and welcome our officials when they arrive this morning to committee committee. Before we start, it's my understanding that the amendments in the name of Pauline McNeill are to be moved by Mark Griffin. Can you confirm that mark? I'm happy to move Pauline's amendments. Thank you very much. We will now move to the first group, Offences, and I call amendment 94 in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings list, and I ask Mark Griffin to move amendment 94 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 94 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Amendment 94, along with the other amendments in this group and Pauline McNeill's names, are sponsored by and lodged on the advice of Justice Scotland and respond to concerns raised about proposed offences in the bill. As we have discussed at stage one, the offences as drafted are overbroad and imprecise and criminalised conduct, which is careless or negligent rather than dishonest. At stage one, we heard that, while the policy memorandum makes clear that the policy intention is not to criminalise genuine errors, the bill makes it an offence to fail to report changes when a person knows that it might affect entitlement and also when they ought to have known. We feel that ultimately the bill sets a test that is too low. It is not that they intended to commit an offence, rather that they can make an offence without knowingly have done so. The recommendation that this committee made was that the bill was to be clarified to ensure that genuine errors or misunderstandings will not result in someone being criminalised. Having considered the amendments that the Scottish Government proposed, we are not fully content that that bar has been adequately raised. We should remind ourselves that the section that is presently drafted would allow the conviction of an honest claimant who was deemed should have known that change would have resulted in a change to the entitlement. It criminalises behaviour or conduct that is careless or negligent rather than intentionally dishonest. Additionally, the safeguard of a requirement for proof that benefits would have been affected is absent. We also have concerns about the use of language that the Government proposes. I quote that the person does not have a reasonable excuse for failing to do so. I would ask perhaps if the minister was able to elaborate on that particular line, perhaps the detail on its existing use in Scots law and what a reasonable excuse has been interpreted as. Any support that we would offer for that amendment is done so reluctantly and only because it improves the situation, but not as much as we would like it to be improved. The focus of justice Scotland's advice has been in comparison to the UK offences framework. We should not be looking to replicate the UK system. I feel that the test and the bill are out of step and are more severe than those in use in the UK system. I am happy to move those amendments in this group and have the debate today to see if we can come to a common conclusion, perhaps not at this stage but perhaps in advance stage 3, as to any room for further improvement. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 46 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Before I do, I express my thanks to the convener and members and staff for being here this morning and allowing this session to go ahead. On this particular section, our policy position is clear that we will treat people fairly with dignity and respect and pay the assistance that they are entitled to receive, but we have to strike the right balance and we have a duty to ensure that public funds are protected with consequences for those who choose to intentionally defraud the system. My amendment in this group seeks to do that by introducing into section 40 the ability of a person to defend themselves from prosecution if they have a reasonable excuse for failing to notify a change of circumstances. I have listened to stakeholder concerns about this section and the views of the committee and have brought forward amendment 46 to address them. Section 40 in the bill says that an offence is committed if someone fails to notify a change of circumstances, which, under section 31, they have a duty to notify and the person knows or ought to know that the change in circumstances might reduce or stop someone's entitlement to assistance. The concern is that a person might have a good excuse for not notifying a change in circumstances and should not be criminalised for an honest mistake, a concern that I share and understand. That is why my amendment addresses the point. It is all that is needed to address stakeholders' concerns. The amendments proposed by Ms McNeill to section 40 take a different approach, but tip the scales so far in the other direction that they would render the section ineffectual. Her amendments risk making offences so difficult to prosecute that nobody will take the risk of prosecution seriously. The Scottish Agency will be clear with people up front about the reasons why they have been awarded assistance, what types of information and changes of circumstances they should report and how they should report them. That differs from the approach that is currently taken under existing UK legislation, where the DWP is under no obligation to provide this level of detail. I understand that, in certain circumstances, DWP in practice provides detail, but the key part is that, under UK legislation, they are under no obligation to provide that. The use of knowingly in DWP legislation rightly sets a high legal burden on prosecutors to prove a person's subjective knowledge in not notifying a change of circumstances because people are not required to be told precisely what they have to notify. That makes it easy for a person to make a mistake. The Scottish system will be fundamentally different. People will be clear about what changes must be notified so that all is required to ensure that persons who have a reasonable excuse can give their explanation. If a person has a reasonable excuse, they would have an opportunity during an investigation by the agency to explain the mitigating circumstances. Those factors are then taken into account before officials of the agency concluded their investigation. Where a genuine error had happened, prosecution would not take place, but if prosecution were to take place, the excuse is the defence against conviction. Ms McNeill's amendment 94 about what a person knew when providing false information is unnecessary. Section 39 refers to an intention to cause assistance to be given incorrectly. To intend something, a person must know that what they do will cause it to happen. Section 41 has no need of the additional words of her amendment, which would confuse references to what a person knew or ought to have known. As I have said, we will tell people the changes in circumstance that they need to notify, and it will be clear what they ought to have known. Finally, we come to section 42. This section allows senior figures in an organisation such as a company or partnership to be convicted of an offence if the organisation commits offence because of the connivance, consent or neglect of the senior official. Amendment 101 would remove the neglect element of that. Section 42 is worded in the usual way for a section of its kind. The same wording can be found in, for example, the Air Weapon Offences, Air Weapon and Licensing Act 2015, environmental harm, Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006, and, again, is a further example, the criminal justice and licensing Scotland Act 2010. There are other examples, but the question that I have to ask is why senior officials of an organisation should not be held personally responsible if they neglect their duties, allowing their organisation to commit social security fraud. A company director who has been turning a blind eye to an organisation's involvement in fraud should have a case to answer. I cannot, therefore, support amendment 101, nor, for the reasons that I have given, do I support the other amendments from Ms McNeill in this group, and I would urge the committee to reject them. I move amendment 101. Thank you minister. Does anyone else wish to come in on this issue? Mr McPherson? Briefly, convener, thank you. I just, in similar terms to the minister, have concerns about those amendments with regard to the burden of proof and also what prosecutors would be expected to prove and how that would be undertaken if, knowingly, the position that they had to evidence was the position. I think that the minister's amendment is sufficient in terms of making sure that there is protection for those who are claiming that they are not prosecuted unduly or unnecessarily, and I would urge McGriffin not to press these amendments. Thank you. Ms Johnson? I would like to hear further from the minister. Certainly organisations who have contacted me have pointed out that under the current UK system it is not an offence if a person does not actually know that a change in circumstances might affect their benefit or the information that they have provided is wrong. However, as it stands, the bill means that an individual in Scotland will, even with the Government amendment 46, be at risk of prosecution. I have been given a couple of scenarios that illustrate that point. For example, if I may convener, here is an example. Ian lives in England, his sister Mary lives in Scotland and they go to visit their mum overseas. They have both got caring responsibilities and they get carers allowance. Neither of them tells the respective carers allowance authorities that they are going abroad, but, when they come back, they are both told that they have been overpaid carers allowance and the decision makers in each case take the view that they should have asked whether the absence abroad would affect their entitlement. Ian lives in England and he has a £50 penalty imposed and has to repay the overpaid allowance, but he cannot be prosecuted because he did not know that going abroad would affect his benefit, even though he could have found out if he tried. Mary also has to repay her carers allowance. On top of that, her case is passed to the Procurator Fiscal's Office for consideration and she can be prosecuted for fraud even though she has only made a mistake and has not acted dishonestly. It is my view that Pauline McNeill has tabled those amendments to ensure that there are the same safeguards in Scotland as there are in UK law and that the person would actually have to know that a change could affect their benefit, that they would have to know the information that they had given us faults. The offence is that the individual cannot be prosecuted unless the prosecution can prove that he or she knowingly acted in the way that you have described. Is it not the case that such offences would, in practice, never be prosecuted because the prosecution would never be able to prove that? It is clear that there are areas of concern that are being raised by organisations with us and that is why I am asking the minister for clarity. It is clearly the case that we seem to be looking at to—obviously, we have different systems in Scotland as we do down south on a range of issues, but I am just interested as to why that should be the case in this particular instance. Before I answer the specific question that Ms Johnson has raised, I want to say that Mr Tomkins helpedfully got to the heart of the matter in terms of what is required by the word knowingly, in terms of the burden of proof on the prosecution, which, as I said in my statement, makes it virtually impossible to prosecute, which takes me back to my point about the need to strike the balance between ensuring that we have a fair and reasonable system where people receive what they are entitled to but also being mindful of the need, the duty, in fact, to protect a public purse from fraudulent behaviour. We should be clear and sensible and expect that, in a new system, as well as in any other public service system, there will be individuals who will seek, in a concerted manner perhaps, to try to test that system in terms of its capacity to identify and prosecute fraudulent behaviour. With respect to the specific question that Ms Johnson asked me, without the benefit of having anything more than just hearing these two scenarios, I say first of all that I disagree with the interpretation of the case with respect to England. As I made clear, I think that the individual could be prosecuted because, in terms of the UK legislation, there is no requirement on the DWP to identify in detail what an individual should report as changes in circumstance. I disagree that Ian, in this instance, would be beyond prosecution. With respect to his sister, Mary, my amendment precisely prevents Mary being prosecuted if she can provide a reasonable excuse. Mr Griffin asked me, so I shall take this opportunity to respond. As I understand it, I am sure that Mr Tomkins will correct me that he understands these things better than I do, but, as I understand it, there is a fairly standard test in our Scottish courts about a reasonable person and what would be considered a reasonable excuse. Of course, that would be the test that would be applied, the standard test in Scottish courts about what is reasonable and reasonableness. If the agency considered an excuse was not reasonable and wished to then pass the matter on to the criminal justice service, which is what it would do, it would no longer be the agency's role, then, of course, our procurator fiscal service would exercise their good sound judgment in determining whether a case was viable for prosecution and likely to be prosecuted. I would imagine that, in the vast majority of cases, our prosecution service set a high standard in terms of what they believed should be prosecuted and would not proceed. I think that Ian, in this instance, would not be in the fortunate position that he is in the scenario, but Mary most certainly would be. Thank you, minister. I invite Mr Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment. Thank you. I fully support the minister's aim in protecting the public purse, where someone is intentionally defrauding the system, but I still have a concern that, where that happens, unintentionally someone is still at risk of prosecution. I take on board what the minister and other members have said about the balance that needs to be struck and that, if the balance in Ms McNeill's amendments would leave the situation that minister outlines, it has been impossible to prosecute and to protect those public funds from intentionally defrauding. I would seek to withdraw amendment 94, but I look for the Government to continue discussion with Pauline McNeill and other organisations who have concerns about how the balance would still remain with that amendment ahead of stage 3. Thank you, Mr Griffin. The question is that the committee agrees that 94 be with Tom. I wonder if—I do not see that there is any need for this issue to be revisited at stage 3. I think that we should take a view on it now at stage 2. The process by which that would happen would be for you to move the amendment, Mr Tomkins. Am I allowed to move an amendment in the vote against it? Yes. Yes. I move the amendment. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are all agreed. I move to division. The question is that the amendment 94 be agreed to. Can those in favour place your hands? Those against? Any abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division is two votes for, six votes against, then, therefore, that amendment is not agreed. The next question is that section 39 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 95, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 94, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Not moved. The question is—oh, sorry—a call amendment 46, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 94, and asked the minister to formally move. Formally moved. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Call amendment 96, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 94, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. Call amendment 97, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 94, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Not moved. The question is—oh, sorry. The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 98, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 94, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 99, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 94, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Not moved. Call amendment 100, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 94, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Not moved. The question is—that section 41 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Dim bydd yn ddiwethaf, lecholi yn gwneud ar y cael mwyllai gwahogau amser 1.1 o dd�mion i ymddillewinol Cymru, yn ddefnyddio'r cadw, mae rodd yn ddod i ddod i ddechrau'r gwyffin a ddod i ddod i ddiddorol. Ar y gymryd o'r pryd, mae'n rhaid i ddyntio ei ddydw i ddiddorol a ddiddorol. Rhoi ddoch yn ddiddorol. Fel y gallwn ddiddorol a ddiddorol, mae'n ddiddorol er mwy 갔e. I call amendment 47 in the name of the minister, grouped with the amendments shown in the groupings list and invite the minister to move amendment 47 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have always been clear that we will maintain spending on disability and employment injury assistance through annual operating so that what people receive is not eroded by inflation. That is important to the people who rely on these benefits. I am pleased to support an extension of that commitment through Mr Griffin's amendments to my amendment 48 so that the duty will also apply to carers assistance. The bill allows implementation of this policy through the rate-setting powers within the regulations for the individual types of assistance. I do not support Mr Griffin's other amendments which would introduce unnecessary procedures, result in complexity and slow matters down. I welcome to committee's recommendation in stage 1 report, which suggests a pragmatic approach in terms of annually reviewing the rates of assistance having regard to inflation. Therefore, my amendments put the Government's policy commitment and the committee's recommendation on to a statutory footing. Those would commit ministers to annually review the rates of devolved social security assistance, having regard to the impact of inflation and explain our decisions in a report to Parliament. They also place a duty on ministers to bring forward legislation to annually operate the value of disability and employment injury assistance by inflation, and with amendments 48A, B and C would now include carers assistance to that group. That is in addition to the 13 per cent increase that we will deliver as our first benefit following the passage of the bill, bringing carers allowance in line with job seekers allowance. My amendments set out very clearly that ministers are going to do what ministers are going to do on annual operating, but I have concerns about the other amendments proposed. They do not fully commit members to operate. They just require ministers to explain which assistance types will be upgraded and to provide reasons for those who have decided not to operate. That said, there are many similarities between my amendments and those numbers 2 and 3 from Ms Johnson. In a broad sense, they look to do very similar things, but my amendments do not require a bespoke power to implement upgrading decisions that simplifies the process, and they also clearly commit ministers to operate disability and employment injury assistance and with Mr Griffin's amendments also carers assistance. Amendment 2 would not require ministers to do that. I am also unconvinced at operating any top-up benefits that may be provided through regulations under part 3 would be a good idea. The top-up amounts are likely to be relatively small in comparison to the underlying benefit and would result in extremely modest increases. I would therefore invite Ms Johnson not to press her amendments 2 and 3 and to support my amendments instead. I would urge a committee to reject amendments 1 3 3, 1 3 4, 1 3 5, 1 3 6 and 1 3 7. Those would result in an overly bureaucratic and process-heavy system for annual operating. My amendments are clear on what ministers have to do with regards to operating, whereas those amendments say more about how operating should be done through powers to make regulations about other regulations. It is difficult to see any advantage in this approach. I believe that the process of annual operating should be a simple operation and must be responsive to ensure that individuals receive any increase in assistance as quickly as possible. It is in no way certain that this could happen with the requirements placed by those amendments. Before upgrading regulations to increase rates could be laid, the regulations setting up an upgrading framework would have to be agreed with the Parliament. That would require at least 60 session days, but if Parliament said no to those regulations, a further lengthy process is needed. That seems highly unresponsive and I would urge committee members to reject those amendments. I ask amendments to support the amendments in my name and move amendment 47. Can I invite Mr Griffin to speak to amendment 48A and the other amendments in the group? We welcome the Government's substantial movement on this issue, while we appreciate that it has always been the Government's policy and intention to provide operating to disability assistance. It has been a fairly recent change that should be included in the legislation. We absolutely welcome that change and support it. Amendment 48A to C in my name seeks to modify the bill to ensure that carers assistance is upgraded and that guarantee is secured in the bill as a standard practice under the UK scheme for carers allowance. We assume that the Scottish Government will soon take on the full delivery of carers assistance at a combined higher rate, at which point it would exercise powers under section 48 to repeal the temporary provision. Those amendments seek to ensure that a fully devolved carers assistance then tracks inflation. Clearly, the law of the formula under section 47 forces the Scottish Government to pass on the UK Government benefit freeze because of the link to the GSA. We appreciate the Government's support for those particular amendments in relation to carers allowance. Amendments 133 to 137 seek to improve the Government's attempt to fulfil the recommendations made in the stage 1 report. My amendments seek to provide a robust transparent framework for operating benefits. Specifically, it would require ministers to consult publicly on regulations that establish an operating system. It requires those regulations to set out the mechanism, the frequency and the form of assistance to be upgraded. Crucially, it requires ministers to draft, consult and agree a system of those requirements before operating starts to take place. I would ask members to support all amendments in this group. Thank you, Mr Griffin. I invite Ms Johnson to speak to amendment 2 and the other amendments in the group. Amendment 2 provides for an operating mechanism that applies to all the forms of assistance that the bill outlines. The amendment is closely based on the provisions of the 1992 Social Security Administration Act 1998, which provides for operating of many of the current reserve benefits. It asks ministers to ascertain whether the value of any form of assistance has changed relative to the general level of relevant prices and then operate the benefits accordingly. What the relevant price is, general living costs, the cost of energy bills, the cost of funerals and, how that is calculated, is left to ministers. I am not trying to tie ministers down to a specific index of inflation, for example, but I do believe that this is a very important principle. When assistance is provided, it should be at a rate adequate for the purpose for which it is paid. If there is a change in the cost that the assistance covers, then the rate of assistance should increase with it. Dignity and respect are rightly forming the basis of the new system, and there is a link between dignity and respect and the adequacy of the assistance that is being paid. A system that pays relative to increasing prices less and less every year is not a system that respects recipients and offers them that dignity. According to research commissioned by the committee, by 2020, £300 million has been cut from 700,000 Scots households because the UK Government has set aside the requirement on it to operate benefits. That is £450 per year for each household on top of all the other cuts that are being made. For example, a sure start maternity grant has only been operated once since it began, and so the value of those payments has been dropping every year while other prices increase, as maternity action argued in a submission to our predecessor committee, the welfare reform committee. Although the minister has made a range of very welcome improvements in the new best start grant, I would ask her to comment on whether she would consider operating best start as prices changed. That is particularly crucial, given that we now have statutory child poverty targets. I very much appreciate that the minister does recognise the issue and is offering her own amendments. They are a good start and an improvement on the original draft of the bill, but they do not create a requirement to operate all assistance. The requirement is for disability assistance, and there is a requirement only to consider the issue for other forms of assistance and not to operate. The bill is setting up a system that could be radically different to the one that it replaces, and one way that it can do that is to ensure a guaranteed, reliable, real-terms minimum payment each year, and that is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I move the amendment. Thank you, Ms Johnson. Do any other members wish to come in in this grouping? Can I invite the minister to wind up? Thank you, convener. My amendments on operating put our policy commitment to operate disability and employment injury assistance on a statutory footing. I am happy, as I said, to support Mr Griffin's amendments 40A, B and C to extend that commitment to carers assistance. My amendments also take into account the committee's recommendations. They provide the flexibility to take different decisions for different types of assistance, in line with the wider budget-setting process of the Scottish Government. With respect to Ms Johnson's amendments, I believe that my amendments respond most directly to the committee's stage 1 recommendation. Mr Griffin's amendments 133 to 137 would result in a bureaucratic process that would take a significant amount of time when what is needed by those who are relying on this financial support is a quick and clear process. Operating should be a routine procedure that does not require massive machinery behind it. I urge the committee to reject those amendments and to support the amendments in my name. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 48 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 47 and asked the minister to formally move. I call amendment 48A in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48A be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 48B in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48B be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 48C in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48C be agreed. Are we all agreed? I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 48. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 45 and 46 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move to the next group, top-up child benefit. I call amendment 202 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments 110 and 111. I ask Mr Griffin to move amendment 202 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Cymru. I move amendment 202. The first test of the child benefit policy was before recess when that initial amendment was accepted where I made the argument that there is a place to consult parents who receive child benefit because of the power to top up. Following on from that decision committee, we now move on to the substantive amendments that would put in place the mechanism to top up child benefit and give effect to the Give Me Five campaign call. We are debating this amendment in the same week that the Poverty and Inequality Commission published its first report ahead of the Scottish Government's delivery plan for meeting its child poverty targets. It is simply as possible that the overwhelming message of that report was that significant use of new social security powers is required if it is going to meet challenging targets to reduce child poverty. When we passed the child poverty act last year, we basically said that we refused to turn a blind eye that the time for acting on those sentiments is now. By Easter, the Scottish Government's first child poverty act delivery plan will set out how, in the face of the transition to universal credit, the benefits freeze and more austerity, we can set a different path. Taken together with the provisions for early years assistance, that proposal supplements that policy direction. As families across Scotland face inflation of 3 per cent weighing down on their weekly budgets, with child benefit losing its value for another year, that would assist over 500,000 families struggling from the impact of Brexit and Tory Government-driven austerity. More importantly, 30,000 children would be lifted out of poverty immediately. The IFS predicts that, by the time of the next Holyrood elections, one in three children will be in poverty. With the rate resolution passed, we acknowledge that the SNP budget has failed to secure the budget to pass on a top-up in 2018-19, but legislating now could ensure that the provisioner commenced in future years or if any of revisions can be found this year. I feel that failing to legislate at stage 2 would be shortsighted, and to delay a decision would also mean that we are content to wait while children suffer in poverty and misery with all the associated impacts that that has on health and wellbeing, educational attainment and future earning potential and their ability to get themselves out of poverty. The key to the Give Me Five campaigns work is the recognition that the near universal uptake and eligibility criteria of child benefit make this the most appealing option to have the most immediate impact. The commission noted in recommendation 23 that the Government must consider, and I quote, the greatest financial impact alongside other relevant factors such as cost and complexity of delivery, take-up rates, income security and potential disincentives to move into work or increase earnings in order to identify the most effective option to impact on child poverty. Although the committee has passed amendments to deliver a new strategy to boost the uptake, the number eligible for and claiming tax credits has fallen. Topping that up would support fewer and fewer families as Tory welfare reform accelerates. Alongside that, the complexity of topping up the means-tested system, which is going through a period of transition, is huge. That alternative topping up child tax credit would also require the Government to top up universal credit and income support for the medium term. To quote the commission again, doing so would be particularly challenging given the current problems with the way that universal credit is being delivered. The commission notes that increasing the child element of universal credit appears to be the most cost-effective way of reducing child poverty, assuming 100 per cent uptake of universal credit. That is, of course, an impossibility in the short term. We will not have a clear idea of how and when the full transition to universal credit will take place until the end of this year. Simply, convener, I think that this is the most cost-effective and best way of lifting as many children out of poverty as we can. I hope that members will give serious consideration to the amendments in this group in my name. Do any other members wish to come in on this? Certainly. I would like to speak in wholehearted support of Mark Griffin's amendments on topping up child benefit. I fully support the aims of the Give Me Five campaign. I think that we are all aware of their work and the efforts that they have made to raise awareness of the issue. As Mark Griffin has pointed out, child benefit has decreased markedly in its value since welfare reform was introduced. The £5 top-up would probably go a little way to addressing that. The fact that the measure would lift 30,000 children out of poverty immediately will bring around cost savings in terms of their health and wellbeing. If we are a country that seriously wants to address the attainment gap, that is something that we cannot turn away from. If we are going to hear, as I am sure we are, arguments against universality, I would remind members of other parties that the Government is, rightly in my view, committed to that principle when it comes to prescriptions, when it comes to free access to higher education for the very same reasons that we should support in this case. We know from child poverty action group and others that child benefit is often the only income that families are dependent on, such as the complexity of our welfare system. That is well evidenced. I think that this would send a really strong message that Scotland is taking this issue very seriously and really wants to strive to end child poverty. If we are looking at one in three children living in poverty in the next election, it is an absolutely horrifying prospect. Here, I understand that there are costs attached, but there are real costs attached to not doing it. Again, I would stress the importance of universality. There is nothing better that we can really be doing than ensuring that our youngest people have the best possible start in life and, I think, child benefit. It really is at the heart of that. Colleagues, you make compelling emotional arguments. I quote from the commission, however. The commission also says that it is not recommending that the Scottish Government top up a specific benefit, and it points to looking at other options as well. The bottom line for me is that this framework bill is not the place to put something that commits a substantial amount of money to something and rides roughshod over the budget, so I cannot support that. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for bringing this important matter to the attention of the committee, not least because, like Mr Griffin, the Scottish Government's very considerable power to top up reserved benefits is a very important part of devolved social security for which the bill is legislating. Last year, this Parliament unanimously and with all party support passed what I think is a very important piece of legislation in the Child Poverty Act, which the Scottish Conservatives, like everybody else, supported and tried to make stronger as the legislation was going through Parliament. As Mr Griffin said, the first delivery plan under the Child Poverty Act is shortly to be published by the Scottish Government. That legislation, very importantly, takes a holistic approach to child poverty. It does not think that the only relevant measure of child poverty is income and it does not think that the only solution to child poverty is increasing the value of benefits. We need to think about education and the attainment gap. We need to think about families and work. We need to think about a huge variety of issues. We need to think about health and mental health as well when we are thinking about child benefit. I think that my friends and colleagues on the political left need to absorb and confront and reflect on the key finding of the Joseph Rantry Foundation in 2016 that increasing the value of benefits without tackling the underlying drivers of poverty has failed to address poverty in the United Kingdom, including in Scotland. That approach is advocated by Mr Griffin and Mr Johnston, which, according to the Joseph Rantry Foundation, has failed to address poverty. If we are serious about child poverty and we all are serious about child poverty, we need to get serious about addressing its underlying drivers, its underlying pathways, its underlying causes and not really focusing on the value of benefits as those amendments do. The final point that I would make—absolutely. I think that Mr Tomkins, I am aware of previous amendments and so on. You have suggested that perhaps drug addictions and other issues are the causes of poverty, but do you accept that very often poverty is the cause of those issues themselves and that if we want to close the attainment gap, I think that it is very difficult—I understand that you are passionate, as we all are about education—to attain your potential if you simply do not have enough foods in the morning or if your family is really struggling. I see that the two are entirely interlinked and I think that we should be pushing for both, not one of the expenses. We do not actually disagree about that. I think that each can be a cause of the other. I do not think that poverty drives the education gap wider any more than I think that the education gap drives poverty deeper. I think that they are deeply interlinked and related to one another. They are causes of each other. They have a correlative relationship. My point is that none of us is going to be successful as a political party, as an individual campaigner, as a Government or as an opposition in tackling child poverty if we only think about increasing the value of benefits. Important though that is, I am not saying that that is unimportant, but it is I think a mistake and, in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's view, it is a mistake to focus on that to the exclusion of other broader issues, including education, unemployment, health and so on and so forth. The final point that I wanted to make convenient about this is that the top-up that is being proposed by the Give Me Five campaign will cost in excess of £0.25 million a year to say nothing of its administration cost. This is not an insignificant sum. The appropriate time and place for the Scottish Government to consider whether it wants to adopt this as policy. I hope that the Scottish Government does actively consider whether it wants to adopt this as policy. However, the appropriate time and place to do that is not in a framework bill legislating for the implementation of devolved social security. It is in the annual budget process. Those amendments, I am afraid, cut straight through that budget process, and for that reason I think are inappropriate. Thank you, Mr Tom, because I want to invite the minister to contribute. Thank you very much. As members have already noted, on Monday, the Poverty and Inequality Commission set up by the Government to provide independent expert advice, published its advice to guide us, as we asked it to, in the child poverty delivery plan that we will publish in the coming weeks. That plan, as members will, I am sure, remember, will set out the actions that we will take towards meeting the challenging statutory income targets that we have set to reduce and ultimately eradicate child poverty. The commission set out some general principles focused around five themes that should underpin the delivery plan. The most relevant, I believe, for us this morning is this, linking action to impact, being clear what the impact of each action is expected to be, and committing to monitoring and evaluating the impact. The commission's analysis takes, as a starting point, the removal of the benefit cap and the two-child limit. It then models, on top of that, various benefit options. The package to top up child benefit by £5 would cost £340 million and would lift 20,000 children out of poverty. However, a package to top up the child element of universal credit at a cost of £360 million would lift 45,000 children out of poverty. There can be little doubt that using resources in a way that delivers relatively small impacts on child poverty is not the most effective targeted action to take. It is clear that, although a universal £5 top up to child benefit is not a bad idea, it is certainly not the best idea. Further analysis also demonstrates clearly that, for every £10 spent in that way on this particular option, only £3 would effectively reach those children living in poverty. The analysis in the commission's report is clear in pointing to the most effective use of any additional resources that could be found and committed to this work. The commission is not recommending that we top up a specific benefit but helpfully points to the analysis as providing a direction of travel in terms of which options are worth exploring further. The commission also, helpfully and pragmatically, advises that consideration should be given to issues such as cost and complexity of delivery, not insubstantial, potential take-up rates, income security and potential disincentives to move into work or increase earnings, all of that alongside impact. The £340 million that commission analysis indicates to be the cost of implementing the child benefit top up package is roughly equivalent to the combined current spending in Scotland of winter fuel payment, industrial injury benefits, DHPs, severe disablement allowance and funeral expense assistance. That points to the difficult decisions to be made in determining how a declining Scottish budget can most effectively be used. Difficult decisions that we all need to take responsibility to make and, has been said, are properly made through the Government and the Parliament's budget process system. This is not a competition about who is most committed to ending child poverty. There can be absolutely no doubt of my colleagues' commitment in that regard or of this Government's commitment and intention to take effective action to make the challenging targets that we have set. Effective action across government and in addition to that that we are already committed to undertaking. The independent expert poverty and inequality commission has provided all of us with clear and helpful advice. It sets out a direction of travel and points to the further thinking that needs to be done. We will take that forward through our child poverty delivery plan, laying out the extent to which we will use social security powers to reduce child poverty and the options before us. That is the right approach to take, the approach that the Parliament agreed that this Government should take. I urge the committee to reject those amendments precisely because they do not meet a key guiding principle that the commission has identified as critical in underpinning our effective action. I take on board all the points that members of the committee have made. First, in relation to whether that is the right way of doing this, whether that cuts across the budget or not, my view is that I am happy to ride roughshod over the Scottish Government budget if this lifts 30,000 children out of poverty and I would do that every single day of the week. Mr Tomkins' point in relation to whether increasing benefits is the best lever to reduce poverty or not is an argument that we have had regularly, but the fact is that we are debating the social security bill, so we are talking about the benefits system. I do not agree with Mr Tomkins that there are other ways of lifting families out of poverty on a lot of those measures. They will be common ground, but we are talking about the social security system, so we are focused on how measures within that will help families, will help lift children out of poverty. A benefits freeze will certainly not lift a single family out of poverty, and those amendments go towards addressing the benefits freeze that has been put in place by the UK Tory Government. What I am looking at, as the minister said, is action to impact the action taken today if those amendments passed would be to increase to top up child benefit, the impact would be 30,000 children lifted out of poverty. I agree again that this is not a competition, we are not competing with each other to see who wants to reduce poverty the most because we all equally want to reduce child poverty, but this is not a competition because there are not competing proposals. There is one proposal here on the table. If the Government had wanted to bring forward proposals and detail them and set them out in the budget, then that is something that I would have welcomed, but there is no competition. There is one proposal here. It is a proposal to increase child benefit by £5 a week, paid universally in the simplest, easiest way, not completely universal since those earning over the earnings limit do not qualify for child benefit. Not entirely universal, still an element of targeting. I would ask members to support and give serious consideration to the amendments that are tabled in, in my name, in this group, and to support all of them. Can you confirm if you are pressing? Thank you, Mr Griffin. The question is that amendment 202 be agreed, are we all agreed? I will take a vote. Those in favour of amendment 202, please use their hands. Those against. Those abstaining. The result of the division is 2 votes for, 6 votes against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. The question is that section 47 be agreed, are we all agreed? Call amendment 101, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 102, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. One time, sorry to say my apologies. Amendment 110, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 202, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour to please use their hands? Those against. Any abstentions. The result of the division are 2 votes for, 6 votes against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. Call amendment 111, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 202, Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. Can those in favour of 111 please raise their hands? Those against. Any abstentions. The result of the division are 2 votes for, 6 votes against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 48 be agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move to the next group of amendments, which is in alienability of assistance. I call amendment 190, in the name of the minister, group with amendment 199, and I ask the minister to move amendment 198 and speak to both amendments. Thank you, convener. As you have said, amendments 198 and 199 set out the general principle of alienability of social security assistance and our technical adjustments. That effectively means that a person's right to social security assistance will be protected and cannot be transferred to a third party for debt recovery. Amendment 198 therefore makes it clear that creditors cannot use legal mechanisms to assume the right to a person's benefit payments, which could be used to recover a debt. Amendment 199 sets out that if a person enters an insolvisy process, there is a further safeguard to ensure that their assistance cannot be used to pay off creditors. Those are important amendments that will ensure that people get what they are entitled to and that the assistance provided meets the needs for which it was intended. I move amendment 198, in my name. Thank you minister. Does anyone wish to contribute to this debate? Minister, do you wish to wind up? Formally, convener. The question is that amendment 198 be agreed, are we all agreed? Call of amendment 199, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 198 and asked the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 199 be agreed, are we all agreed? We will now move to the next group on information sharing. I call amendment 200, in the name of the minister. Group with amendment 201, I ask the minister to move amendment 200 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Amendments 200 and 201 are technical adjustments to make provision in the bill for data sharing between ministers and Scottish public authorities. The Scotland Act 2016 contains provision for data sharing between Scottish ministers and the UK Government for social security functions. Additional gateways for data sharing need to be created so that ministers can share information with Scottish public authorities. Amendment 200 lists the main public authorities that ministers may need information from to operate social security provision. There is a power to add further bodies by regulations. I would highlight that any requirement on those bodies to supply information will not override any prohibition in any other enactment or rule of law. That is to ensure that the gateway that the bill will create is compatible with wider requirements of data protection legislation. Those amendments also provide a gateway in the other direction to allow ministers to supply social security information to Scottish public authorities, for example, to help with the automation of benefits. To ensure transparency, regulations will have to set out which functions of the authority receiving the information are relevant. Again, that is subject to any other enactment or rule of law that would prohibit disclosure. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you minister. Does anyone else wish to contribute to this debate? Mr Tomkins. Just very briefly, can I just ask them? I mean, I mean, I mean, as I understand it, these amendments are technical and have been checked by government lawyers for compatibility with UK and EU data protection requirements. But just, and I hesitate to say this, but just in the light of the fact that within the last year or two there has been an adverse Supreme Court ruling against legislation passed by this Parliament on precisely the issue of information sharing. Can the minister say anything about how these amendments are compatible with that interpretation of data protection and are different from the way in which the name person's legislation, which is obviously what I'm talking about, constructed requirements to share information? I can assure Mr Tomkins that these amendments have been drafted in order to take account of that court ruling. There's a precise way in which they are different. I'm not in a position to draw to his attention. I would be happy to do so otherwise outside the committee, but I am happy on the record to say that these amendments are compatible with that court ruling. Thank you, minister. Sorry, Ms Ronson, did you want to come in? Yes, if I might. I do have a question for the minister. For example, in amendment 200, point number 3, if the minister could just confirm what is meant by where information is supplied to the Scottish ministers under subsection 1, for use for any purpose, they may use it for any other purposes, for which information is held by them, for that purpose may be used. I have concerns about the extent to which information is going to be shared under this amendment. Thank you, Ms Ronson, for that question. It may well be that the manner in which this is worded is a standard wording for such a clause, but I think that we have touched on this before, where we come up against what, with the greatest of respect, I might describe as legal speak, which is not always as clear as our legal colleagues feel it is to them. What that means is that, in all of this, data that this agency holds can only be used for the purposes that we seek the approval of the individual whose data it is to hold, if you follow me. If the agency wants to hold data about me, I have to give it approval, and it has to be clear with me the purposes for which it wants to hold that information. My consent is an absolute requirement, which I hope is what would provide Ms Ronson with the assurance that she seeks. I am happy to conclude formally. The question is that amendment 200 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There will be a division. Can those in favour please raise their hands? Those against? Those abstaining. Thank you. The result of the division are seven votes four, none against, and one abstention. Therefore, the amendment is agreed. I call amendment 161 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 152 and asked the minister to move formally. Move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 133 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 133 to please raise their hands? Those against? Those abstaining. The result of the division are two votes four and six votes against, with no abstentions. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 134 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of 134 please raise their hands. Those against? Any abstentions? The result of the division are two votes four, six votes against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 135 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Can those in favour of 135 please raise their hands? Those against? Any abstentions? The result of the division are two votes four, six votes against, and it is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 136 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47, and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Sorry, can I take that again? Are we all agreed? No. No, thank you. Those in favour of amendment 136 please raise their hands. Those against? The result of the division are two votes four, six votes against. No abstentions. It is therefore not agreed. We are about to move to the next group of discretionary housing payments. Before that, I would like to have a five minute comfort break. I would request members to be back in the seats within five minutes, if at all possible. Thank you very much. We will now move to the next group of amendments. Discretionary housing payments, I call amendment 209 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Go to the amendments 162, 163 and 164, and I invite Mr Griffin to move amendment 209 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you. I move amendment 209 in the name of Pauline McNeill. The amendment was drafted with the intention of ensuring that the existence of DHP schemes are mandatory, an issue that Citizens Advice Scotland raised with the committee at stage 1. In no way would we seek to mandate the operation of that scheme or place duties to pay assistance, which would indeed take the discretion of operation out of the hands of local government. I think that I would accept that the duty to operate a scheme should have perhaps been a standalone amendment and perhaps Ms McNeill could discuss that with the minister at stage 3, but I will be supporting the amendments in the name of the minister. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 162 and to the other amendments in the group. 162 is a technical adjustment to make clear on the face of the bill that it is possible for discretionary housing payments to be paid either to an individual or to a person to whom the individual has a liability. In practice, it is likely to be their landlord, and the amendment also clarifies that, for a local authority landlord, the payment may be made by a transfer between the authorities' accounts. That allows the current practice to continue. In its stage 1 report, the committee invited the Government to reflect on the evidence received on DHPs. Amendments 163 and 164 respond to suggestions from local authorities and other stakeholders that local authorities should be under a duty to run DHP schemes where there is funding from the Scottish Government for them to do so. Ms McNeill's amendment, in my view, is unworkable. The Government's amendments provide that a local authority must consider applications but retains discretion as to who should receive an award. That is fundamental to the nature of existing discretionary housing payment schemes. Ms McNeill's amendments would have the effect of creating an entitlement-based system so that all qualifying applicants must receive an award. That would go against the discretionary nature of the scheme. Although I am sure that that might not be the attempt, I urge that the amendment is not supported. The Government's amendments will ensure that DHP schemes will continue to be run in all Scottish local authorities, therefore continuing to provide essential support. I hope that members will be able to support my amendments and reject those proposed by Ms McNeill. Thank you, minister. Do any other members wish to contribute to the debate? I invite Mr Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment. Thank you, convener. As the minister set out, that was certainly not the intent behind the amendment lodged in the name of Pauline McNeill and, on that basis, seek committee's permission to withdraw. I call amendment 162, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 209. I ask the minister to move formally. Move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 49 be agreed. Are we all agreed? And the question is that section 50 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 163, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 209. I ask the minister to move formally. Move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 51 be agreed. Are we all agreed? And the question is that section 52 be agreed. Unigon yw F rights in Christchurch ondillions o mae'r cyfrannu ffordd, i ffwrdd ddydyllnu,� ironionedd, ar gyfer gyfer ffy mesh pillar tebychiad o'r dryn rhaid uxieiddiog i fod awr amendment 2, be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Yes? No. No, I'm sorry. We are not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 2 to please your hands? Those against, are there any abstentions? The result of the division are two votes for, six votes against, with no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to the next group, which is universal credit, payment to joint claimants, and I call amendment 2.03, in the name of Mark Griffin, in a group on its own, and I ask Mr Griffin to move and speak to amendment 2.03. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 2.03 in my name. The amendment seeks to place in law a requirement on ministers to bring forward regulations under section 30 of the Scotland Act, which ensures that payments of universal credit are automatically split between both members of a couple, allowing an opt-out should a couple wish to retain a joint payment. The amendment transposes the restrictions included in the Scotland Act, but crucially it would ensure that the use of a regulation for the third universal credit flexibility is done in a way that has overwhelming support from individuals and organisations, and indeed the minister's colleague, Philippa Whitford. In recent question responses, the minister said a year after the cabinet secretary first promised progress in this area that officials are discussing with the DWP, the feasibility operational and cost implications of these different policy options. As much as I would want it to, the amendment does not require ministers to rush to establish a split payment scheme within the next year. Of course, the regulations that the minister can lay may have a later implementation date, and the amendment rightly requires that the minister to continue the consultation with the DWP. That is itself a requirement of the power in the Scotland Act. The Scotland Act is very clear that, if Scottish ministers make regulations and the Secretary of State considers that it is not practicable to implement a change made by the regulations by that time, and that change is to start to have effect, the Secretary of State may delay them to amend to a more reasonable date. That would deliver the same intention as Philip Whitford's private member's bill, which is due to have its second reading in mid-March at the first reading of the universal credit application advice and assistance midst. Whitford said that the bill calls on the Government to make separate payments to the norm. It is often said that universal credit should be like a salary, but salaries are paid to individuals, and it is quite Victorian to go back to the idea of the breadwinner. I certainly would not be too chuffed if my salary was posted to my husband, and I fully agree with that statement. In the consultation on social security, there was overwhelming support for universal credit payments to be split between the members of a household from 99 per cent of organisations and 78 per cent of individuals, and 74 per cent believed that payments should be split automatically. The key stakeholders, including Engender, Scottish Women's Aid, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Inclusion Scotland, SCVO and SFHA, advocate automatic use of this flexibility. As we have rehearsed quite frequently, automatically splitting would aid gender equality in the Scottish social security system by promoting financial autonomy and helping to protect women and children from financial and domestic abuse. The situation, as it stands, is that nine in 10 domestic abuse cases include a financial element. Women receive 20 per cent of their incomes from social security payments and 86 per cent of UK Government cuts to social security will come from women's incomes. Split payments can be requested under the current system, but they are massively underpublicised, and I would ask members to support the amendments in my name. Thank you, Mr Griffin. Do any members wish to come in on this group? Yes, just briefly to speak in support of Mark Griffin's amendments. This is a very important amendment. I think that the flexibility is absolutely essential for the reasons that Mr Griffin outlines. There is support out there from a considerable number of groups who have real concerns about the impact of a payment to the so-called head of a household and the power that that can give one person certain circumstances is something that we should seek to avoid. I think that this is a really important amendment that I will be pleased to support. I just feel a must from the practical point of view that this is the DWP that has to do this in itself. For the Scottish Government to do it, they have to negotiate with the DWP in order to do that. Also, do we know if the DWP has the IT systems in place to be able to do that properly and ensure that they can do that as well? The problem that we have is that there are so many imponderables for us here to be able to do that, that it makes extremely difficult, in my opinion, for the Scottish Government to do that. It would be interesting to hear what the minister has to say in her summing up. I invite the minister to contribute. Thank you very much, convener. There can be no doubt of this Government's view that the UK Government's policy of making a single payment of universal credit to a household can increase inequality in the welfare system and act as an enabler for domestic abuse or financial coercion while by one partner towards another. Let me for the record restate the Scottish Government's clear commitment to introduce split payments to universal credit for the people living in Scotland—a strong commitment that we are already progressing. I cannot support Mr Griffin's amendment. Firstly, there is not an overriding consensus among stakeholders for an automatic split of the universal credit award as proposed in the amendment. There are different views on the issue as well as how the different elements of universal credit award should be allocated. We are currently undertaking further work jointly with stakeholders and users of the universal credit system to examine what the impacts would be. Perhaps most importantly, delivery is entirely dependent on the department for work and pensions. Universal credit is reserved to the UK Government and, like the universal credit Scottish choices, the DWP would deliver any split payments that the Scottish Government requires. I hear Mr Griffin make reference to Ms Whitford's bill in Westminster, but I do not believe that it can be paid in aid of this amendment, since Ms Whitford rightly addresses her bill to the Government with responsibility for this reserved benefit. I hope that she succeeds in her endeavours, but I respectfully suggest to Mr Griffin that, if he wishes this Government to act in that way, as he outlines, I hope that he will support our arguments for further powers in terms of the devolution of additional benefits. That means that it will not be solely for the Scottish Government to decide what can be achieved and a set deadline is therefore unhelpful. We are completely reliant on what is technically feasible within the DWP's IT systems, so we need to agree with the DWP a delivery date that it is confident that it can meet and negotiate a cost that represents good value for money for the Scottish taxpayer coming out as that cost would do from the fixed envelope towards the delivery of the devolved social security powers. Discussions with the DWP are on-going, and it is an iterative process. The amendment would write a blank check for the negotiations on costs. While the Scottish Government is committed to the policy, can I repeat that deliverability is completely in the hands of the DWP? In summary, I would reiterate that I share Mr Griffin's concerns about the DWP policy that his amendment touches on, but I hope that he will agree that his proposition would pre-empt the outcome of our process, would hand the DWP a blank check and could not be delivered by the Government since it fails to recognise a reserved benefit as a result of the agreement of the Smith commission to which his party was a party. I hope that he would support additional devolved powers to the Government, but right at the moment the deliverability rests with the holder of the reserved benefit, which is the UK Government acting through the DWP in its name. I would ask members to oppose the amendment. Thank you, minister. I invite Mr Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment. Thank you, convener. The amendment in itself does not set any timescale on the Government to bring forward or to enact split payments. The only timescale that the amendment sets out is that Scottish ministers must bring forward regulation within one year of royal assent. The regulation does not necessarily need to immediately make automatic split payments a reality. There is flexibility within the amendment, as I have worded. I am committed to the policy of automatically splitting payments through universal credit. I think that the Government is committed to the policy of split payments. I do not take the argument that the minister makes that amendment gives the DWP a blank check. The fact that we are all committed or that there is a majority in Parliament committed to the policy is telling the DWP that we want that to happen and we expect them to deliver. We are already giving them a blank check. We can demand anything that we like from the DWP, but if the DWP does not want to listen to the policy, we have to negotiate in order to do anything. They have to listen to Westminster, so I do not see the point in his argument. The Scottish Government has the power to introduce flexibilities. That needs to be negotiated with the DWP. There is nothing in this amendment that stops the Government from entering into those negotiations. As I set out in the opening arguments, if there is anything that the DWP does not feel or the Government does not feel, they are able to meet within that timescale that the secretary of state can then amend to set a new timetable in place. I feel that the amendment, as it stands, would put into effect the policy that most around the table agree with, that automatic spot payments should be something that we would want to achieve and to put it into this legislation, would be a welcome step and I will press the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 203 be agreed. Are we all agreed? There will be a division because those in favour of 203 please raise their hands. Those against? Many abstentions. The result of the division are two votes for six votes against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 54 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 75, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 8 and asked Mr Balfour to move or not move. I call amendment 150, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 141 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that 150 be agreed. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. Can those in favour of 150 please raise their hands? Those against? Any abstentions. The result of the division are two votes for four against and two abstentions. The amendment is therefore disagreed. Can I call amendment 51, in the name of Alison Johnson, already debated with amendment 4 and asked Mr Johnson to move or not move. I call amendment 49, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 15 and asked the minister to move formally. I call amendment 50, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 61 and asked the minister to move formally. I call amendment 15, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 149 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed. Are we all agreed? There is division. Those in favour of 151 please raise their hands. Those against? Any abstentions. The result of the division are two votes for, four votes against and two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 76, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 64 and asked Mr Balfour to move or not move. I call amendment 130, in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated with amendment 119 and asked Mr Tomkins to move or not move. I call amendment 172, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 207 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. I call amendment 192, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 82 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. I call amendment 165, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 152 and asked the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 165 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 137, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 47 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed. Are we all agreed? There will be division. Can those in favour of 137 place their hands and those against? Any abstentions. The result of the division are two votes for, six votes against, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of Alison Johnson, already debated with amendment 47 and asked Mr Johnson to move or not move. I call amendment 210, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 204 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. I call amendment 52, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 33 and asked the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 201, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 200 and asked the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 201 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Amendment 53, in the name of the minister, already debated R proximity ac fawr, nôl y cyfnodd, yn fawr creu'r cyfrifiadau. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, are already debated with amendment 15, and asked the minister to move formally? The question is whether amendment 54 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Section 55 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Felly mae'r prosesio wrth gweld i ymgymru ar hyn sy'n gilyddolau rhywn iawn, ac rwy'n gbydd eich mynd i gennych ymgymru, ycwm ddifart y cyllid 131b, 131a, 132 a 211. Rwy'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'r prosesio ymgymru 131b i dddoron neud i gilydd—fawr, mae'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'n I也是 glad that the final debate is an Guev rang Helenplays said the process right for scrutinising regulations is important, that is why before the bill was even introduced, I met with this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to invite views on what extra scrutiny requirements would and how they should fit with the Parliament's usual processes. What the committee called for in its stage 1 report is a super-affirmative procedure that would give an independent expert body an opportunity to feed its views into the scrutiny of regulations to help the Government and the Parliament ensure that our social security law is the best that it can be. I am therefore pleased to bring amendment 131 in my name, which alongside the amendment setting up the new commission, gives full effect to the committee's recommendation. I take again the opportunity to thank Dr McCormick, Ms Paterson and the other members of the expert advisory group for their work in this regard. Members will have received a policy paper that the Government has issued explaining in detail the effect of the Government's amendments, but to briefly summarise amendment 131 would create a process for the scrutiny of regulations that deal with eligibility and entitlements under the assistant types in part 2 of the bill and any top-up assistance created under part 3. The first step of the process is that the Scottish ministers must inform the commission of their proposals, notify the Parliament that they have done so and make the proposals publicly available. That would also allow for consultation with experience panels and other groups, as this Government has done throughout the bill process. Members will recall that it is one of the bill's principles that the system will be designed with the people of Scotland. It also provides an opportunity for the Parliament to become engaged with proposals at the consultation stage if it wishes. The next stage of the process is that the independent commission must prepare a report on the draft regulations in which it sets out its observations and recommendations. In performing this work, the commission will be under a statutory duty to take into account the principles and any relevant international human rights instruments. Once that independent report is published, ministers can lay their draft regulations before the Parliament for approval. Alongside the draft regulations, they will also have to lay a report before the Parliament explaining what they have and have not done in response to any recommendations that the commission has made. With the benefit of having seen the independent expert commission's report and the Government's response, it is then for this Parliament to decide whether or not to approve the Government's regulations and what steps the Parliament might wish to take in getting towards that decision. There are two situations where this procedure does not need to be followed. One is if the draft regulations are for the purpose of consolidating existing regulations. The other is if the commission advises that its scrutiny is not in its opinion required. I know that the Delegated Powers Committee has written to you, expressing concern about that last point. As the Government's position paper makes clear, if members would prefer the commission not to have that power, the Government will be happy to remove it at stage 3. Amendment 132, in my name, would accept funeral expense assistance regulations and early years assistance regulations from the process that I have just outlined, until such time as the commission advises that it is ready to begin carrying out its scrutiny role. That is to avoid delay in the implementation of those benefits by the summer 2019. As the committee knows, the policy proposals for those types of assistance have been and are being consulted on extensively. We published illustrative regulations last year, and further public consultation on draft regulations will take place this year. Against that background, it seems unnecessary to hold up implementation until the commission is operating. Although I should reiterate, it remains for this committee to determine the role that it wants to take in the scrutiny of those draft regulations when they are laid. Amendment 131b, in the name of Ms McNeill, seeks to extend superaffirmative procedure to all regulations made under the powers in both this bill and the welfare fund Scotland Act 2015. That is, in my view, disproportionate and unnecessary, and I also believe that the amendment is technically flawed. The scrutiny procedure attached to regulation making powers has to be chosen with an eye to the importance of the regulations in question and the need to preserve and make effective use of parliamentary time. That is what the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considers when it scrutinises bills. Unsurprisingly, it has not recommended that all regulations under the powers in the bill and the welfare funds act be subject to the superaffirmative procedure, much less the superaffirmative procedure. The effect of amendment 131b would be that even commencement regulations, which are normally subject to a laying requirement only, would be subject to the superaffirmative procedure. Although it would be a pleasure for me to appear before this committee on a weekly basis to go through every regulation with you, I am not sure that that is how you want to spend the most effective use of your time. I cannot support amendment 211 in the name of Mr Griffin. It would let a judge strike down regulations approved by a vote in this Parliament on the basis that, in the judge's opinion, the policy behind the regulations is retrogressive, without providing a definition of what is retrogressive or any other circumstances surrounding that decision. Whether a particular policy is or is not retrogressive is in effect a political judgment. It is precisely the sort of judgment that we have all been elected to this Parliament to make. I am sure that Mr Griffin does not want to abdicate his responsibility as a member of this Parliament to the courts. I do not think that that is appropriate. An amendment 211 would diminish the role of the Parliament. I would urge members therefore not to support it and to reject that amendment and support the amendments in my name. Thank you minister. There is an amendment in the name of Pauline Meale, 131B, and I would invite Mr Griffin to move amendment 131B and speak to the amendments in the group. Can we have the irony to formally move 131B because it would not be my intention to press? If you could formally move and we will seek to withdraw. Formally move 131B, then speaking to the amendments in the group. Amendment 211, in my name, is simply a probing amendment, which I will also not be pressing. That was to start a debate around this issue. In some respect, this amendment returns the debate surrounding the bill to where stage 1 deliberations began focusing on the ability of future Governments to erode the assistance being made available to an individual in debating how we can prevent that happening. Throughout the passage of this bill, the committee has heard and debated again and again that there is a balance to be struck between primary and secondary legislation. There has been substantial improvements by way of the superaffirmative procedure and the establishment of the commission, which is bound to act in line with international treaties on the right to social security. The bill still allows future Governments to make fundamental changes to key social security benefits through secondary legislation. While the commission will be able to warn of potential breaches of human rights in proposed legislation and aid parliamentary scrutiny, the potential for fundamental changes to be made to social security by regulation alone remains. The child poverty action group has sponsored this amendment so that a line is drawn to ensure that fundamental change should not be brought through primary legislation, if it should be brought through primary legislation, not secondary legislation, and that the bill makes the requisite distinction. The amendment seeks to draw the line where Government proposals would reduce rights under international human rights provisions. That would have the effect that such retrogressive measures could not be brought by regulations. A Government that believes the measure to be... Yes, certainly. What would you believe the definition of retrogressive to be? As I said, this is certainly a probe in amendment. It is not something that I intend on pressing, it was something to get a debate around whether we feel the balance is right on primary and secondary legislation, whether to have a debate today to see whether we could agree on a form of working in advance of stage 3, that any effect to reduce the amount that is paid, any effort to reduce the entitlement of a particular benefit would be seen as retrogressive and reducing someone's right to social security, but then any negative change would have to be brought forward through primary legislation rather than secondary. That is the meaning behind the amendment and the debate that I think Emma wanted to have today. May I just briefly come back in? I suppose that it is part of the challenge of raising things that are sponsored elsewhere rather than as a committee member. It feels a bit uncomfortable with it and I think that it is important to have those definitions and know exactly what we are talking about. As you have communicated it to me there, what pops into my head is what if we were reducing something in one sense but creating a whole new other benefit for that same client group? I think that it is hugely problematic. I accept everything that you are saying and that it is hugely problematic and that is why I am not pressing. This is about having a debate around it at the table today. I think that I would just conclude there. Thank you, Mr Griffin. I invite Mr Tomkins to speak to amendment 131A and the other amendments. I am not moving it because it relates to a provision that has not been accepted. Thank you, Mr Tomkins. Mr Griffin, do you wish to speak to your own amendment in your name, 211? Yes, that is what I was just doing. You do not want to come back in. No, thank you very much. Any other members wish to contribute? I am concerned with 131B and 211. I am not convinced by 211 with Mr Griffin's argument. The whole idea is that, as much as I dearly love the minister, I have not come here every single week for the slightest regulation. I think that it is just not a good use of all of our time. I am accepting everything that you are saying on that basis, not pressing either of the amendments. I am going to add that, because we have so much coming back at stage 3 and we have so much work to do, I think that things like that, I would be pushing it to the vote. Just to get to the stage, I would be pushing 131B and 211 to the vote so that we can deal with it now and it gives us the opportunity at a later date in stage 3 to deal with all the other work that we have to deal with. Can I just say that I completely agree with what Mr Adam has just said? Do any other members wish to come in? Can I invite the minister to wind up on amendment 131? Thank you, convener. If I may just take a moment—I think that I do not need to say much more on my own amendments—if I can take a moment with respect to amendment 211. I think that amendment 211 fails to understand the difference in approach to secondary legislation between what happens in Westminster and what is being proposed here in terms of the superaffirmative process. It is important to put that on the record. We are proposing a very clear superaffirmative procedure. We have in this bill, with the committee's agreement, established an independent commission. It has a clear role in terms of compliance, checking anything that a future Government might bring—this Government or a future Government might bring—in compliance with human rights. Fundamentally, amendment 211 diminishes the role of this Parliament, and I think that that is quite wrong. Its main effect is to open ministers to judicial review if it is considered that regulations contain retrogressive provision without specifying what is meant by retrogressive provision and therefore leaving it for the courts to determine that. That, for me, is a political judgment that should remain with this Parliament. I would, in conclusion, urge members to vote against amendment 231b. I appreciate that the committee members might want to dispose of certain amendments to stop them coming back at stage 3. Has no bearing on whether we may or may not bring them back in an amended form at stage 3, but in saying that, it would seek not to press amendment in Pauline McNeill's name. The question to the committee is, do they accept that that amendment is withdrawn? No. I would like to move amendment 131b. The question is that amendment 131b be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of 131b please vote. Those against. Any abstentions? The result of the division are two votes four, six against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 131a in the name of... not moved. Thank you. I move to the minister and ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 131. Press. Thank you. The question is that amendment 131b be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 132 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 131 and ask the minister to move formally. Move formally. The question is that amendment 132b be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Sorry. It's a division. Those in favour of amendment 132, please show their hands. Those against. Those abstaining. Do you want to abstain? So the result of the division are six votes four and one abstention. The amendment 132 is therefore agreed. I call amendment 211 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 131 and asked Mr Griffin to move or not move. No, no, no. I have no idea. For the reasons that I mentioned earlier on. So Mr Balfour is moving amendment 211. The question is that amendment 211b be agreed. Are we all agreed? Can those in favour of 211, please show their hands? Can we do that again? Okay. So the question is that amendment 211 be agreed. No. Sorry. The question is those in favour of amendment 211, please show their hands. Those against. Those abstaining. The result of the division were no votes four, eight votes against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 56 and 57 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? And that ends stage two consideration of the bill. I thank the minister, officials and the members for taking part and thank the Parliament staff once again for their efforts to make sure that today could go ahead. We won't be meeting next week and will be in touch with future dates for committee. Thank you.