 Good morning, everyone. I welcome everyone to the third meeting of the Social Security Committee and our very first meeting of a round-table discussion. Everyone will know that this is probably the largest piece of legislation that we in this Parliament will be looking at and I look forward to this morning's round-table discussion. I remind everyone present to turn off their mobile phones, as they can interfere with the sound system here. I have also been asked that people stay about a foot away from the microphones to enable the sound system to work properly. Our first agenda is work programme priorities and there is an evidence session of round-table format and we want to have a further two round-table discussions. This is going to focus on the priorities in the medium and long term of the session of this Parliament. I just want to say that if anyone wants to ask a question or make a contribution, could you please indicate to me and speak through the chair and could also ask that any contributions are short and succinct? That is questions and answers and we will be able to get around through as much questions and answers as possible and get more information on the time that we have in this committee. I welcome our witnesses here today. Good morning everyone and thank you very much for coming along. I have just read out the witnesses who they are. Eddie Fallon sent his apologies from Barnadows and also we have from Engender. Joe Wood could make it so we have Alice Mumford instead and I am sure that everyone will introduce themselves as they go along as well. We are very grateful to your written submissions that you have put in and thank you very much for coming along and sending the written submissions also. If I would just start the discussion by opening up a general question then I will open it up to members to ask any questions or any contributions that they may wish to put forward. We all know that this week the Parliament acquired new social security powers. We know that the Scottish Government plans to bring forward a social security bill early next year and we also understand that the Scottish Government plans to bring forward a child poverty bill and I think that is something that I expect that this committee will have a great deal of interest in. In light of what has been said previously and what we are expecting the Scottish Government to bring forward, could I just open it up by asking everyone around the table what you would see as being the key priorities for this committee and who wants to start off. Hi, I am Nicola Dickie from COSLA. I think that in our evidence submission we highlighted the fact that we welcome the opportunity to provide views via the consultation that the Scottish Government has launched but for our organisation and I am sure that many of the other organisations around the table there is something about having a look at the long-term integration of the social security. The consultation itself asks very specific questions and in other parts very general questions and that is helpful but there is very little opportunity to talk about the long-term integration of how that would sit in the fabric of Scotland if you like around about the other public services that are already delivered to Scotland and public services that will be delivered to Scotland as we move forward. I think that we would be interested in providing evidence around about that type of integration. Thank you very much Nicola. Anyone else want to? Rob? In general terms there are two broad areas. One is the new powers and the social security bill both in terms of what the new benefits will do and what the possibilities are there but also how you are trying to get in respect in the new system and how it is to ensure that the system is well-administered and works well for people as citizens of ice bureaus. A lot of the issues we will see are related to administration issues but it is also the I think we would see as equally important that we don't decide to the system that currently exists. There is a range of problems, a range of issues that will affect Scotland's systems every day by the current reserve system. The previous welfare reform committee did a lot of really important work on that and I think that that would be good to see that continue if possible. As the transfer of powers happens and as the Scottish Parliament takes on responsibilities for those elements of security, we will ensure that the administrative systems are in place to ensure that those who rely on the financial support continue to get the benefits that they need. That kind of focus on administrative delivery is absolutely key. Two other key points that I would be quite keen to make are the committee not to to confine itself to the parameters of the Scottish Government's consultation. We very much welcome the principles that are set out in that consultation, the tone of the consultation and the opportunities to inform how the new powers might be used in relation to the specific benefits that are being devolved. We are working on our response to that consultation. We will share that as soon as we have that. We were disappointed that the consultation itself fails to consult on how some of the key powers that are being devolved might be used. The power to top up reserved UK benefits, the power to create new benefits in devolved areas is used to some extent. The key one is how that power to potentially top up UK benefits might be used in ensuring that social security plays its full role in tackling poverty, tackling inequality. That is a power that needs to be focused on. We as a child poverty action group are particularly keen at looking at how we might top up family benefits and have promoted the idea of topping up child benefit. That could have a big impact on the levels of child poverty in Scotland. The other second area that I urge the committee to scrutinise and to prioritise is the issue around the administration and the delivery of benefits and to make sure that you scrutinise the recommendations that emerge from the stage 2 options appraisal that is referred to in the consultation document that the Scottish Government is currently undertaking. That is happening in parallel to the consultation process, looking at what the delivery options are for delivery of benefits in Scotland. It is crucial that there is a chance to respond to what emerges from that process. We believe, along with many others, that, in general, Scottish social security benefits should be delivered on a national basis. Alison John, I apologise. I am subbing for Jill, so there may be some questions I have to refer back to her. In terms of our key priorities, a really key one for us would be to ensure that gender equality and equality more generally are embedded in the process as an objective. It is mainstream throughout the work and it is seen as an outcome in and of itself. Mainstream through the development, through the delivery and through the consultations. That is essential that gender equality is specifically in the legislation, in primary legislation. As lots of people have mentioned, the delivery is really important and we must make sure that the social security system in Scotland is not simply a replication of what systems we know are not working in many, many ways. A really key one for engender and the women we work with is the delivery of universal credit payments and a really immediate priority for us will be for universal credit entitlements to be automatically paid to individuals rather than a household payment. We have done a lot of work around this and it is generally seen as a regressive model to have a household payment. It entrenches existing gender inequalities and puts many women in a very vulnerable situation, so I think that that is a key priority certainly for engender and we would hope for the committee. Finally, looking at integration of all the discussions around new powers and a lot of certainly the measures will be calling from many other organisations such as topping up of benefits, carers living wage, destitution funds. These are aspirational and we understand that we live in a context of budgets. We want these approaches joined up in discussion with considerations around Scotland's new tax-raising powers and looking aspirationly about what the social security system could be. Thank you very much. Just to pick up on a couple of points round the table, Nicola talked about integration. It is important that we look at the social security entitlements that already exist in Scotland and we do not look at the new social security benefits as in isolation. How do we actually create a system that integrates your entitlements so that there is a simple straightforward way to access all of your entitlements? For example, for people who have learning disabilities, who are entitled to PIP and its current form, why can't we just make sure that they then get access to their concessionary travel bus pass automatically? It is embedding that degree of automaticity into the system. In terms of integration, there is also the complex interplay with what will remain reserved benefits. I think that there is some scrutiny needed into what that means for people, what that means in reality, how people are navigating, what is going to be an increasingly complex system. On that point, I would suggest that the advice sector is going to be fundamentally important there. I think that that needs to be greater embedded within the social security system. Also, in terms of not confining ourselves, and that is something that John touched on, the top-up opportunity to create new benefits, I think that we need to look at the impact of current welfare reform that we are seeing at the UK Government level. For example, for our members, the ESA work-related activity group cuts is going to be huge come April next year. I think that we need to look at what opportunities there are in Scotland using the new powers to address that. That is some of the priorities that I would like to take. Thank you very much. Just to reiterate one of John's points about it being a national service where Care Scotland would really, and all the carers we have spoken to, feel that there are already enough situations where there is a postcode lottery of support and services, and that this is not an opportunity for another one of those. We should really make sure that wherever you live in Scotland, you are entitled to the same benefits and the same way that it is delivered, so whatever structures you place to do that. In our submission, one of the things that we were conscious of, I suppose it goes back to the original debate about which bits of welfare would be devolved. I think that the sector as a whole was conscious that if you create two systems then it doubles the number of people you need to speak to, in terms of potentially doubles the number of people you need to speak to to get all of the things that you may be entitled to, which sort of goes against some of the other directions of travel. For example, with the integration of health and social care, one of the principles is that you cannot be bounced between one system and the other. Health cannot say, sorry, that is a social work problem or vice versa, so you should just be able to go to one person who, irrespective of what is going on behind the scenes in terms of who holds the budgets, etc. It is not the person at the receiving end that has to be made aware of that, it is not really their problem. There is a danger in this new system that we create a tension between those two things. We recognise that we have not got what everybody asked for, so we are going to have to make the best of it. That connection between the two systems is really crucial. The other thing in terms of the transition period, which John mentioned as well, we need to make sure that, when it kicks in, it works for people, but part of the issue that we are already facing is that we need to be very clear about when things are going to happen, because when announcements are made, so when you pass the acts or you make announcements in the media, we start to get calls with people either being concerned about changes to their situation or expecting that new things are going to be available, so we just need to be very clear all the time when things are going to happen. Obviously, things have already slipped with the implementation of universal credit. It just puts a huge demand on to sectors providing advice and also puts a lot of stress on to people who are in the middle of it and they are hearing things. With social media nowadays, it can be out in a minute that something has changed and it may not be coming in for another two years, so we just have to be conscious of that as we go forward. Thank you very much. Those are very good contributions. I will open it up to members for questions. Many of you, thank you very much. That was fascinating and all insightful. A lot of you mentioned some of the concerns around the current system and I wondered if you would be able to comment more widely on that, particularly with regard to the sanctions regime. There is something that I, as an MSP, and I am sure that the other MSPs around the room are receiving constituents' concerns around those issues on a regular basis. Yes. Clearly, far too many families with children are being impacted by the current approach to conditionality and the imposition of sanctions. It is causing very real hardship. People are ending up having to use food banks. People are ending up in very severe difficulties. I think that we have to be clear that the reality is that the benefits associated with work-related conditionality and sanctions will remain reserved. Yes, the job seekers will be able to use those benefits. Having said that, Scottish Government Parliament can do with the new powers to minimise the risk of sanctions and reduce the number of people who might be affected by sanctions. In particular, the use of the new employability powers to ensure that employability programmes in Scotland provide opportunities and activities that are appropriate and relevant to the people who use them and are based around the users' needs and are not inappropriate too often in appropriate activities. They are imposed on people and they are unable to undertake those activities and preach the terms of the benefit and find themselves at risk of sanctions. Ensuring that employability programmes are designed in such a way as to provide support that meets people's needs and ensure that employability programmes when devolved limit the number of mandated activities that are attached to the conditionality regime. There are concrete ways in which the risk of sanctions can be reduced. We are starting to be keen to explore all options. It is important that we do everything that we can with the powers and with the new relationship between different parts of the system to reduce the imposition of sanctions on families. Essentially, it does not work as a means of supporting people into employment or ensuring that they make progress in terms of work-related activity. All evidence damages people's chances and undermines their health and wellbeing and makes it even more difficult to manage their lives and potentially move into work and increase their hours in work. I know that it was touched on from the evidence from Citizens Advice Scotland, so I wondered if Rob had anything to add to that. Gaps and income are a big concern of ours and a growing concern. Last year around 7,000 people were referred to food banks from a Citizens Advice Bureau. Sanctions are one of the problems that we have seen caused that. Not the only one administrative errors can come into that. Transitions between different benefits, for example employment support allowance and job seekers allowance, but in far too many situations where people are left for extended period of time with no money. In that situation, their options can be quite limited. The Scottish Welfare Fund has done some good work and I think we would like to see continued awareness raising of what the Scottish Welfare Fund can give to people in terms of crisis grants. One of the things that I think might be quite is to look behind some of the reasons why people are being left with no income in the first place in which sanctions are one of them. Healy, you wanted to come in, didn't you? Enable Scotland works for people who have learning disabilities in our client group, who are particularly vulnerable to work-related conditionality and, of course, at risk of sanctions. Some of that is down to practices in Jobcentre Plus and how they are communicating with vulnerable people. In our case, people who have learning disabilities, the decrease in disability employment advisers in Jobcentre Plus is a huge issue there, so people are being asked to sign up to conditions that they haven't even been properly taken through and they don't actually understand. I think that that's a huge issue for us that is actually only going to increase coming April 2017, thanks to the changes introduced by the Welfare Reform and Work Act. We're going to see more and more people who have learned disabilities who currently represent one of the largest groups in the work-related activity group exposed to work conditionality and sanctions, so I think that that would be a really helpful area for the committee to explore and we'd be happy to provide further evidence in that. On a couple of points around the employability programmes and the need for them to be targeted for, we work with women, so particular groups of women that might find it harder, refugee women, carers, older women, we know that this works and unfortunately there are very, very few targeted support employability programmes left. We also know that work programmes and employability help remains incredibly gender segregated, so it's further entrenching gender inequality, so that's a key area to be looked at. On the sanctions issue, one key demographic that this really, really hits very hard is lone parents, the majority of whom are women. Under universal credit, parent flexibilities which currently exist are being further eroded, they're being turned into guidance rather than regulation. Given that we don't currently have sufficient childcare to support lone parents back into work, that's going to be a really, really key pressure area hitting lone parents, particularly women that are going to be seen to be sanctioned more and more because of this. Alison, you wanted to give it? Yes, I think that Kaylee, you were highlighting the difficulty that some people have navigating the benefits system. To be honest, I think that most people find it quite challenging at times and I just wanted to quite like to hear from Kaylee and from Rob. On considering someone for all benefits automatically when they apply to the Scottish Social Security Agency for a particular benefit, because we hear that there are a great number of people who aren't receiving what they are entitled to. I think that that's something that we would be supportive of in terms of what I talked about earlier, this opportunity to create a more connected and responsive system. I think that we need to look at the opportunities that are presented by this huge change that we're going to see and one of those things is a much more connected system that does involve greater levels of that automatic entitlement in terms of both your awards but also in terms of if you have applied for one entitlement. The passport entitlements that come from that should happen automatically without you then having to go, okay, now you can go and fill this form out with your local authority, now you can go and fill this form out and you might get this. It would just make things a lot easier for people, it would probably make things a lot easier for welfare rights advisers, but I just think that there is a real opportunity for us to create actually just a system that is that much more responsive but also is more easy to access. Like yes, I do absolutely believe that there should always be welfare rights advice absolutely embedded in the system but I do think that people should be able to advocate for themselves even within that setting so we need to look at how we're communicating with people in ways that it's much easier to understand rather than 40 page letters that I can understand. Rob, did you want to comment? Yes, certainly an interesting idea and one that would be worthy of consideration, something like 39% of issues that CABs deal with are related to benefits. It is an extremely complicated system and there are many benefits that people might not realise that they're entitled to and one of the, I suppose the bread and butter things that CABs will do is go through people's circumstances and discuss with them what things they might be entitled to that they don't realise they are, so we'd to bought anything that would make that process a bit easier. Could I just throw something in that particular one, listen to Caelia and Rob and others as well? It's sort of like a one-stop shop that you're talking about where people can access all of the benefits and that brings me on to what you were saying Nicolae about COSLA where local council ready such as concession fares or whatever it may be. I was just trying to clarify how we would, I suppose that's for the committee and the parliament as well, how we would work with that when someone just present themselves and then we'd have a register of agencies that would have the benefits. So I'll just throw that out if anyone, yeah. I think when we speak to local government officers about this that there is no appetite in local government for unfettered local discretion. We believe that social security in Scotland should be a national entitlement but we also believe that the solutions around about integration and around about a single customer journey and around about people getting the best local outcomes are delivered locally and I think that that's the important thing and that's the opportunity and we have to be a bit ambitious about that and I don't think that's to say that one agency has to do everything but I think it means that all of the agencies have to understand the journey that we're trying to achieve. Integration of health and social care is a direction of travel. It's one that we're, it is a journey, it's not there yet, it's a journey that we're all on and we recognise the benefits and the outcomes of that but I think to remove social security back again would effectively become another layer of complication that customers don't need and I think the point that Kayleigh made around about customers should wherever possible be able to navigate the system themselves without the requirement for someone else to do that for them and that I suppose leads into the discussion around about dignity and respect. Everyone deserves the right to navigate their own journey and still have the opportunity to opt out and get advice if required but I don't think we want to be building a system where it's so complicated and we have another door so we recognise that customers are still going to have to go through job centre plus to get certain benefits they're also going to still have to come to local government to access lots of the services that we provide and there's something around about if we have another layer built on top of that it doesn't seem like a simplification so I think that's kind of where we're interested in having the conversation it's not about having 32 social security systems in Scotland having him forbid it's around about joining that up and thinking about the direction of travel. Do you want to come back in on that Adam? I suppose I wasn't thinking it's about adding another layer at all I think that's probably the last thing any of us would want is just about making sure that when you approach that first agency they are more aware of what you are entitled to and can perhaps easier send you in the right direction that it's more linked up I suppose it's like Cair or Scotland would like to see a national entitlement that's understood at that high level to remove any inconsistency in what one claimant is receiving compared to another just depending on who you happen to to meet in the job centre. I think this is really important and I'm puzzled by the implications of what a number of of you are saying and I just want to try and understand it a bit more I mean the devolution of aspects of the United Kingdom social security is necessarily complicating right it necessarily makes things more complicated than they are at the moment and I don't I don't think there's any way of getting around that you know we're not devolving all of the United Kingdom social security we're devolving some of the United Kingdom social security and the points that Nicolae has very powerfully made I think are very important in the sense that you know health and social care will continue to be delivered locally not nationally the role of local authorities will continue to be key in terms of a huge variety of service deliveries DWP isn't going anywhere job centre plus is still going to be key and on top of all of that we are the consultation proposal is that we create a new and additional Scottish social security agency so is the implication of what you're saying that we shouldn't be creating a new Scottish social security agency um or you know is is is would it be your would it be your preference for devolved social security benefits to be administered through existing institutions namely DWP job centre plus and local authorities without the creation of a new Scottish social security agency is that what you're saying I don't think it's as straightforward as that I think that the agency having the governance of social security policy would work well there's something around about that being in the one place with all of the stakeholders who are involved here having a say in that I think that the point that john made around about the delivery of this stuff being absolutely critical that's the part that I think we from a local government perspective we would have to create an infrastructure to provide the governance that effectively the department for working pensions provides and that's where we would get into the situation where you would see divergence there so I think we're talking about policy being centrally developed but when it gets into how that actually plays out and how the customer actually accesses that support that's where we have to start to have a bit of a different conversation and do our other I guess do our other guests agree with that Ben he wants to I think you're correct to say that it's that it is complex and that's necessarily so that it's already people may have to deal with with three different agencies the DWP HMRC if they receive tax credits local authority for housing benefit or the Scottish welfare fund and so on and there'll be another new agency what I think is important I think it's that's not necessarily that's not necessarily a problem what I think is probably more important is that is the agencies can confer to each other and information about what what services people might be entitled to that are provided by by other agencies that are going to see the the social security agency who wouldn't tell you anything about about employment support allowance for instance or the into the job centre um a disabled person who wouldn't receive any information about about disability benefits if somebody would to come to a to hear be we would look at there there's going to their circumstances holistically um and um try and help them resolve their problems no matter which which agency um was responsible for them and I think that that that integrated approach would um would work well and would help people um take up more of the benefits that they're they're entitled to but maybe aren't claiming at the moment. Joanne did you want to come in? To echo that it's from Rob I think the key thing is the kind of relationships and the information sharing between agencies to ensure that wherever you start your journey in terms of looking for whether it's financial support, social security support, health, social care support you're then rooted into the other supports that are available but I think it's also important to recognise that social security is quite a distinct form of support that lots of people access social security who don't need health social care don't need the other supports that local government and its partners provide and we need to make sure that we don't confuse the the two kinds of support and service that are that being offered here. I think there is something really important about national delivery of social security um so that there's a real role for local government third sector organisations at local level to support people accessing the system but in terms of actually assessment, decision making, making decisions and actually delivering benefits to people is a complicated business. I think we've got a lot of you know DWP has a lot of experience, we've got bits of local housing benefits delivered locally, Scotch welfare funds delivered locally. I think the reality is that when you have actual local delivery and decision making you do get a real range of outcomes as a result and a varying quality of decision making and inconsistency. I think one thing, the other sort of advantage of having a national delivery agency that's actually it's it's kind of more able to kind of go through a sort of continuous improvement process at national level people that the agency learning what works, what doesn't work, having a sort of excellent in terms of developing excellence in terms of communications. Again we have a whole lot of different quality of communications around other local authority benefits and services so I think there is a strong argument to be made and we would be very keen to make sure that the actual decision making, delivery, administration and social security remains a national, as things have devolved as at a Scottish level but that's not to say there are really important roles and relationships for local government and other partners at local level in terms of supporting access to that system and finding ways of sharing information as people don't have to go through unnecessarily multiple kind of assessments where one assessment, one bit of system might actually be enough to say okay well that would mean you are entitled to this benefit. Kayleigh, you wanted to come in on this? Yeah it was just really in support of John's point there around national delivery. In terms of our members experience of accessing national concessionary travel scheme which is a national entitlement that is delivered locally. There has been a patchwork of entitlement and it has at times ended up what has been a postcode lottery where even in terms of accessing the scheme so in one area the local authority, the forms are available online and in another area they're available in your local library and in another area you have to go through the social work teams so even just in terms of us as a national body trying to help our members to access their entitlements to say to them even when we were looking at easy read guidance of how do you get your bus pass because it's a huge issue for people who have learned disabilities in terms of access and transport. How are we able to even say you go to this person and you get your bus pass form and then you go to that person because it's different in different local authority areas so I think that there is something about that continual improvement about a new agency gives us an opportunity as well to embed a new ethos a new culture start from the beginning in terms of training your staff like all of that but that is not to say that there absolutely shouldn't be a local feel there should be local access points absolutely and local authorities have a huge role to play in that but it was just in terms of of her position there yeah could I just say as well or I think we we need to have a point of clarity on this particular instance the fact of matter is that the majority of the parties in this parliament asked for all of the welfare system to be devolved so we are where we are at the moment but and the majority of parties in this parliament said that we could do it differently and certainly had the support of most of the agencies not just around this table but with this room as well so that's where we are in the reason that we were setting up our plans set up those social security agency is to stop the austerity measures and the sanctions if we feel is is endangering people out there particularly disabled people so that's the reason why we are where we are and I think we can actually deliver a very good agency it may be complicated I think everyone's looking forward to doing that and doing something different and even speaking to people in the job centres as well they're saying we've got an opportunity here to create something that's good that puts the citizens at the heart of it rather than bureaucracy so I'll open up again sorry Ruth. Thanks convener it's kind of along the lines of the dignity and respect and how we treat people I'd like to ask Alice to expand a bit on the point about single household payments I think most of us would intuitively realise where there would be issues with that and it might put vulnerable women and children in harm's way but obviously acknowledging that universal credit isn't rolled out everywhere in Scotland but just if she could expand on that point for us absolutely sure so as you say there's some very sort of stark and obvious examples where a household payment may be damaging particularly women that are suffering from violence or coercive control and that's the sort of real sharp end of the wedge where you can imagine that situation with a woman with no financial autonomy over her entitlements and that would include child benefit all these sorts of things so that's a sort of very clear example but also generally there's a principal argument here around individual entitlements we should have autonomy over our own entitlements over our own financial services and we've certainly seen in discussions around household payments of universal credit real fear and shock from women at the thought that they will no longer have access to their own finances the decision seems to be made based on a myth that all we have nuclear families and they all operate in the same way and all budgeting decisions are made in a completely equal environment and we know that's not true women are more likely to be economically dependent on men still in Scotland they're more likely to hold caring roles they're more likely to be victims of abuse and more likely to be subject to sort of other financial pressures still in Scotland so having that money as a household payment is incredibly damaging to those women and of course that becomes even more highlighted when we're looking at women facing multiple discrimination so refugee women, disabled women and we're already here huge amounts of concern from from disabled people women in particular having no no access to their own finances and this will only encompass that more so there's there's real practical examples where it will put women in danger women and children and then there's also the principal issue I'd say that they are entitlements and they should go to the person they they're entitled to did you want to come back in that room thank you that's quite clear Pauline you want to come in the first thing is about the I suppose the new agency what concerns me I mean I I accept we've got an opportunity to create something new but I mean my experience is not different from anyone else one thing we're absolutely brilliant in this country is not sharing information and it strikes me that how do you create an agency then where there's an ethos that shares information necessarily between two systems at least two systems or more so the first thing that strikes me is that I've just put this up for exploration is that perhaps there needs to be some legal duties and explore that about information sharing because how can you create a kind of almost one-stop shop if you like I mean most people who come along and want to claim benefits for the first time are completely lost now you've got on one end of the spectrum people who are very vulnerable but but anyone who loses their job and who is not depended on the state before is vulnerable and I know a lot of cases where people they go along to job they're shocked at the attitude and the treatment they're shocked at the lack of information they don't know what they're entitled to and what do you have to do you wait you wait and you wait and you wait and you worry until you find out what you're entitled to and then oh my goodness I'm getting this and not this and then they don't know how to challenge it so I mean it's I just think it's a massive task on her hands so the first the supposed thing I'd like to explore is just put on the table do we need to perhaps even dare I say it go back and talk about some some powers over sharing of information if we're going to create an agency that provides that secondly yeah I mean there's this thing about postcode lottery and how you get into the system I mean there's still too many assumptions made about people being online for example I mean there's just oh yeah so if you're this age in this category of age group you're definitely online or if you're this income group you're definitely online I mean in Glasgow the the number of people online I don't know what the figures are now but it's still probably less than 50 percent it's pretty low so why isn't there a uniform approach to this yes people can what I suppose the reason why there can't be a uniform approach to it is that if you then put all your all your investment in an online system and you can't perhaps create it but I mean I do think we have to think very seriously about creating that that front door easy accessible system where people can get all this information but I just wanted to make that point I think it applies to a whole range of people when they go to it so anyway that that was really my question whether anyone thought there was scope for legislation around information sharing Rob do you want to come in on the the information sharing point I think it's is it one and something that the committee might want to explore as part of its scrutiny of the of the bill um it's an area that can that can get quite complex and we can see it through our through our own work for instance in that um we wouldn't necessarily share information with DWP as for a confidential service and there are issues there but we also see um it is even within department of work and pensions itself where different different teams aren't sharing information with others for various reasons and that can mean that um that a person's entire circumstances aren't taken into account um on the point about digital this is this is something that's really important we're um at the moment in um in muscle burn in Inverness we're seeing the roll out of um so it's the full surface of universal credit um this is universal credit for for all people who would have claimed one of the six benefits it replaces um and one of the biggest issues that um mirrors have seen since it started rolling out there earlier this year um is um people's problems with digital access uh we did a survey of CAB clients last year and that showed that about 36 percent um would wouldn't be able to make a claim for benefit online without assistance in practice it um from what we're seeing it may be even higher than that and that rises even further for for disabled people um so I think that um the sort of the role of digital um and also the the universal credit um rollout across Scotland particularly the the full service rollout which um which will soon be expanding to other areas would be something that I think would be um the committee may won't want to take a look on because I think it's going to be be something that will start to affect affect more and more more people um and um be an excellent thing to have your work programme thank you John was that the answer to that because George just want to come in George you wanted to come in yes thank you convener good morning everyone I'd like to ask about the system advice Scotland's evidence that you've written evidence you gave us was the fact that you said that one of the things we should look at is the use of medical assessments and existing medical evidence and determine disability awards now I just wondered how because we've obviously as MSPs have horror stories in all our constituencies with regards to how this has been going about so I'd like you to maybe elaborate on that and why you think we should actually have that at the core of all the work that we're doing I think there's this really two issues of of interest here one is that um I suppose lessons that can be learnt from the new system because um some of the medical evidence relates to to personal independence payment which is to be devolved um some of it relates to employment support allowance which isn't and the main problems eventually is um how information is obtained at the moment if in law if somebody was um to my additional medical evidence that would be on the responsibility of the DWP DWP to pursue it um and GPs are paid for um for ESA um husbands they're not paid for personal independence payment um additional evidence where some of the problems start to come in is if um someone um wants to feels that they they will want to spit additional evidence to um to their personal independence payment claim or to um um they feel that the the decision that's been made isn't correct and they want to manage through consideration or an appeal they would look to additional evidence in some cases GPs will charge them for that which is around 30 pounds although we've had some evidence of GPs um charging even more than that um the problems that relate to medical evidence when it when it gets to DWP um firstly that um there's been too many cases where medical evidence goes missing whether that's lost in the post whether that's lost in the um in the mail handling centre in Wolverhampton or whether it's just not been processed onto the system but you know to find people having to then go back to the GP for more medical evidence um the issues where do you have a percentage of how many of these actually go missing you know is there any figures on it would it would be anecdotal um but um I can I can have a look and see if I can find something that would be quite interesting because you've already mentioned the fact that it's the cost on the individual plus the fact that if they've gone to that extent that for these to go missing you know the stress of going through the whole process as is that just makes things worse yeah I think absolutely and I think there's there's a lot of um of lessons learned from the for the new system in there as well as um addressing a situation that um it affects a lot of people and that um um and that it would come to a CAB or to their MSP for um for help and advice about to come back in in that room to say something I think Nicola was first Gordon and then Kelly I think just to go back on the point of sharing data I think it's interesting that the evidence that we took for the Scottish welfare fund which was was the last one that was devolved to Scotland people assumed that if they told one council blouse the rest of the council knew and that came through very strongly in the evidence sessions that the committee took but it also came through very strongly in some of the work we did at local authority level and I think Pauline's right around about there being a natural nervousness in organisations to share information that that's true in local government it's true in the department for work and pensions and unless I'm very wrong and the culture's very very different it will be true of the agency so unless that it's absolutely crystal clear what information can be shared what customer's consent looks like we willy we may well end up with a situation where it's difficult to share that information but certainly our experience from the welfare fund is that people just expect if they tell um quite naturally I'm not I don't disagree with that but it is around about how we actually make that that a reality and on the point of digital access I think you're right universal credit has slowed down but that doesn't mean it's not causing real issues on the ground as of the end of this financial year we will have five local authorities in Scotland who will be on full service so the the issues that Alice mentioned around about single household payments the way housing costs are paid the fact that they go straight to the customer as opposed to the landlords these are things that I think the committee it would be timely for the committee to take some evidence on that type of stuff these are flexibilities that the Scottish Government will have devolved and will have the opportunity to use and I think we need to build a really good evidence base about what's happening on the ground what we could actually do to make that better certainly for our organisations as social landlords they're worried about how customers are going to continue to be able to make their rental payments without some assistance and I think the points that Alice made around about single household payments are critical that we get in early and try and do as much as we possibly can on that perhaps it's a good point for me to come in because coming back to the point that Nicola Dickie has just mentioned talking about evidence bases I have a sort of more general question but it might be useful to make it specific by coming back to something that John Dickie might be able to help us with because it's referred to in the child poverty action group Scotland information one of the things you highlight relates to the two child policy and I think the statement in the papers that this is likely to increase poverty amongst larger families now I'm just wondering what evidence base there is for a statement like that because I suppose the question is what consequences a tax credit system that is limited to providing tax credits to two child families has on for example behaviour some might say well does it have an effect on the number of children families have I'm not saying it does things like that or on the other hand one might say we have we are told an aging population so in fact families having more children on that level could be considered a good thing so there's there's different ways of looking at it what I'm interested in is are there specific studies including from other European countries for example they've addressed these issues I think we're probably all aware that different countries have looked at this specific issue just to make sure that we are not in what we are doing basing our approach to things on old or uninformed assumptions or indeed simply trying to reinvent wheel when others may have looked at all of these issues and compared them and seen what the consequences are 10 20 years down the down the road just wondering what your your comments are on that are first of all the evidence base the database that a sentence like that is based on and whether you have a comment on the general question of how we should approach looking at things to ensure we don't in light of the new opportunity as the convener said it might not be the new opportunity that some might have wanted but such as it is that we make sure we don't go down the same lines with the same consequences I suppose the first thing is absolutely the evidence in here I suppose what we're urging the committee to do is to scrutinise take evidence understand how that policy impacts on children and families in Scotland there's a role for this committee to do that in terms of our evidence that it's likely to lead to an increase in child poverty we already know that larger families are more at risk children growing up in larger families are at higher risk of child poverty than other children so 36 percent of children currently growing up in families with three or more children growing up in poverty compared to around one in five children in growing up in poverty generally so there's an increased risk of it seems fairly clear that if we then remove a significant source of financial support from those larger families that's likely to reduce the amount of income they'll have increase the risk of poverty in those families in terms of the behavioural kind of impacts of that I suppose the reality is people don't people circumstances change all the time so parents become unemployed become sick disability that their incomes change their entitlement to to tax credits in the future universal credit will change and if there's a sort of arbitrary there's a third child or third or more child there already there already in existence already part of that family no longer has any entitlement to financial support then inevitably those families are going to be worse off than they would otherwise be and those are families that already were at increased risk of poverty already so I suppose that's that's why we think removing financial support from families from third child and families is likely to increase child poverty I think that's something we need to look at why that impacts and more importantly I suppose what we can do within devolved so security and wider devolved powers to ensure that the implications of that are considered and what more can we do to support those families who are at particularly risk of poverty and are losing an important source of financial support so are you looking primarily at immediate and self-evident as you would see it impacts of this rather than long-term consequences or results of a policy in 10 say 20 30 years time yeah I mean I think after look at what are the immediate impacts for those families what are the likely impacts for those families in the future and I suppose that that idea that will drive how many children families have seems unlikely given that in many cases people's entitlement to benefit emerge are there their needs for additional financial support emerges long after they've had their children so I'm not aware of any modelling that suggests that this will have a positive impact on levels of child poverty and I need to go back and see to what extent this has been factored into there's been some significant modelling done by both Institute for fiscal studies and resolution foundation looking at the wider impact of reformers to social security and how that's impacting on levels of child poverty and the modelling suggests that levels of child poverty across the UK looks set to increase dramatically between now and the end of the decade whether this particular form has been modelled into that I don't think it has yet so there are those better able to model these things in the longer term looking at these things it would be important to take take take that evidence into account as well so you would agree the committee needs to look at not just the immediate which obviously is important effect of things but also the longer term effect of things but let me know that the long term effects of reducing the levels of financial support families are entitled to is modelled to increase child poverty dramatically so yeah thank you I've got five people waiting to make a contribution on our question Kaley that was I'm actually just looking to come back on on George's question around medical assessments is that okay to bring it back thank you so it's just in terms of enable Scotland's experience that the specific medical assessments have not been a positive experience for for many people who have learning disabilities who are particularly vulnerable to negative decisions in a process that involves them personally communicating their difficulties and issues that they face and in fact they only provide a snapshot of of a claimants life rather than a long term picture also related as the point about informations sharing that Pauline made evidence gathering is is obviously part of the social security system we need to know what what people's needs are in order to determine their entitlement if we're moving away from the specific medical assessment which I'd probably welcome then there is an opportunity to look at how and also embedding that degree of automaticity is looking at information sharing across different agencies around like so for example the NHS for example education authorities so people are assessed in terms of their needs for support in school they're diagnosed by the NHS I would obviously caution that statement with that would be appropriate information sharing it would always be with a person's consent but I think that that's part of creating a more connected system creating a more user friendly system that isn't doesn't involve someone running about and gathering their own evidence and it also doesn't involve specific medical assessment that has been quite unpleasant thank you very much Ruth yes I would just briefly on the sort of evidence aspect of all this I think that those of us who've been councillors or MSPs before will have seen you know right in front of our faces some of the evidence of the hardship that's caused but I think also that certainly my own local authority had gathered numbers specific numbers on the the real families who would be impacted by by this policy so I don't know if that's something that COSLA could assist with with getting for us am I may I come in with another question yes okay in terms of expectations I mean I think we're all conscious that you know we don't we don't have everything we don't have a blank sheet of paper and I was interested to hear Simon in particular mentioned it from Carers Scotland about whenever we have an announcement or we you know say something's coming or something's gonna happen the expectations are are raised and I just would be interested to hear folks views on how we can remain positive about what we can do but you know not to give you know set expectations accordingly and make sure that we're not causing any undue upset while we're making the changes thank you Ruth Alice I wanted to come back very briefly on the on the issue of of the two children rule and the sort of the question around long-term effects and short-term consequences and I think absolutely right the committee should be considering both short-term and long-term but it's the it's the effect on equality and poverty reduction and the aims of a good social security system that should be being taken into account and just on the issue of the limiting to two children which borders on policing of women's bodies and particularly women on low income and I think that's something I just wanted to make the point that that is we you know we should not be discouraging women from making choices around their own bodily autonomy based on if they can access a certain benefit and to make the point that this affects different women very differently in Scotland so minority ethnic women, refugee women, low income women are more likely to have more more children and larger families and this is this is discriminatory in that I think we need to come back to the ideals of dignity and respect and how we're making sure that we're we're not having rules for certain different demographics of people within this so I just wanted to make those points. Thank you Adam. I feel I should declare an interest as the father of four children but I wanted to first of all I just wanted to make a comment about some of the discussion around information sharing. I think it would be helpful if we distinguished two different two completely different sorts of information sharing. The first sort of information sharing is when an individual turns up to whatever agency it is and has to tell their life story and then there's a frustration which goes directly to the points about dignity fairness and respect when that individual then has to tell the whole life story again to you know another job coach or to another agency. The one one of the reasons why that might sometimes have to happen is because the first agency may not lawfully share the sensitive data about that individual with another agency because it would be incompatible with data protection laws and we've just seen in a different context a unanimous supreme court decision striking down aspects of the main person's legislation because of illegal data sharing provisions in that in that legislation. We need to be careful about that but the other element of information sharing is the sharing by agencies of information to individuals about the range of benefits that are available and that it seems to me is where we can and must do much better but I just think it might be useful to distinguish those two different sorts of information sharing. I had two quick questions if I may convener to really inspired by some of the things that John Dickie has said. The first question John is how does child poverty action group measure poverty? I know I should know the answer to the apologies but then I was struck by the child poverty consultation document that the measure of poverty that the Scottish Government is suggesting that we use is just about income and the Joseph Rantree Foundation this week published its comprehensive how to solve UK poverty document which is interesting and challenging in equal measure and one of the interesting things about that document I don't know if you've had the chance to read it yet it was only published this week is that their proposed measure of poverty is quite different from just focusing on income it also looks at cost of living and a whole range of other factors I just wonder if you could reflect on that. The second question was you mentioned in your first contribution this morning that one of the striking omissions from the Scottish Government's social security consultation was that there was no mention anywhere of the top-up power and we all know that the number one ask of child poverty action group Scotland is that the top-up power is used to raise child benefit by five pounds per child eligible child in Scotland and I just wondered if you had any reflections on why you thought the Scottish Government had one not mentioned child benefit anywhere in that 145 page document and to not mention the top-up power anywhere. I know the question of being directed to Joan but we do have another two members who wanted to come in. George, is your question related to that? Actually, I would say that it is. Okay, Allison, on you go then. Ruth was speaking about expectations and people are aware that we do have devolved powers that enable us to tackle issues. From April 2017, we will see another round of welfare benefit cuts, including a £30 a week cut to employment and support allowance, so we have as a Parliament now the means to mitigate some of the impacts of those cuts. I would probably like to hear a bit more about whether or not we are in a position to do that. April 2017 is not far away. Is the Scottish Government being active enough in making sure that we are using those powers properly? Obviously, we have to make decisions about who we are taxing and how much we are taxing. Clearly, the public is well aware that we have those powers coming and we can do something about that if we choose to do so. John, you come in and then George. What do we mean by child poverty? It means that families are not having the resources to bring their children up in a way that is social acceptable and meets the standards of the society that they are living in. In our society, that is primarily about not having enough money to buy food, to pay the bills, to meet energy costs and all the rest to ensure that children are able to fully participate at school. There is a good reason for income being at the heart of any measure of poverty in a modern society like Scotland. In terms of the four key measures that have been proposed in the Scottish Government's consultation, they very much build on and reflect existing measures that have been used at a UK level for the past 15 years or more. They are also measures that are used internationally in understanding how far behind low-income families with children are falling. The headline measure is looking at numbers of children living in families with less than 60 per cent of median income. It is important to note that the consultation also proposes a low-income and material deprivation measure. It is looking at what our children are missing out on in terms of going on holidays, having a winter coat and all the rest of it and being able to participate in mainstream activities. There is a non-income measure in there as well. There is something to be said for looking at subsidiary measures that look at those issues around the costs that families face, particularly in a devolved context, where there are other levers and other powers that we can use to reduce the costs that families face. That is the costs of fuel poverty programmes, reducing people's fuel bills, improving school clothing grants, reducing the charging for school trips and all the rest of it. There are ways of tackling those non-income measures. It is right that we have an income at the heart of any measure of poverty and child poverty, but I was going to talk about the linkages between the Social Security Bill and the Child Poverty Bill. It is mentioned earlier that the Child Poverty Bill proposes putting the Scottish Government's ambition to eradicate child poverty into legislation and to statute with duties on the Government to produce a strategic delivery plan every five years to report on progress for a measurement framework to sit alongside that. I suppose that that is the kind of thing that we can look at how to put into that measurement framework both measures that would help to understand the contribution that social security and devolved social security is playing but also understand the impact of efforts to reduce the costs that families face and the contribution that that can make. On the top-up power, it is clear that this is a power that we will be coming to this Parliament. Why child benefit? Families with children have been household type, they have been particularly seen their incomes squeezed over the past 10 years or so, or in the past seven or eight years. We have done some modelling on the £5 top-up power, which seems to be a figure that could be meaningful. It would mean that around 30,000 fewer children would be living in poverty than otherwise would be living in poverty, a 14 per cent reduction in the numbers of children living in poverty than would otherwise be in poverty. Real money into families' pockets tackling the lack of income that prevents their children from being able to make the most of their experience. I do not know why that has not been put into the consultation. It is a big ask. I think that we are aware of that, so the costings would be for that. We have indicative costings that are around £256 million a year, so we are not naive to—that is a big chunk of Government spending, but it is not an impossible chunk of Government spending. If Government Scotland is absolutely serious about eradicating child poverty, one key way of doing that is ensuring that more money goes to support families with the cost of raising their children. This is a very clear lever in which that could be achieved. I would like to—we got some evidence from some people following the committee on Twitter, and one was Lynn Williams, a run-paid carer from Glasgow—she is actually from Paisley, convener, so I just thought I would make that correction. She said that to look at the reality of disability living allowance to personal and dependence payment transfer and what it might mean with the evolution of the new powers. That is probably a good question to put to Simon, because in the carers Scotland they mentioned some of the problems that you have a section here—consideration of support of individuals impacted by UK welfare reform. It is probably an important because we have so many carers in Scotland. Currently, with the new powers that are coming over, there is an expectation as well. I just wondered what your thoughts were on how we can deal with that process. The issue that we have raised is with the reassessments that are going on with people. Obviously, all the disability benefits are being devolved, but you get your carers allowance based on somebody having one of those other benefits. If somebody gets reassessed and they lose their DLA or their relevant benefit, the caring role does not change. If somebody is in a caring role, doing a caring role, that does not change because you suddenly lose £62 a week that you get for your benefit as a direct consequence. Obviously, the carers act that is now going forward is recognising carers in a really broad sense. It is not just people who are in receipt of carers allowance, who are still a very small majority of the number of carers that are in Scotland. We have that small cohort of people drawing down that benefit for them to be losing it, but the other circumstances do not change. It is an issue that we need to solve. I think that that is a point that I have known Lynne and been a MSP as well. I am aware of her own personal circumstances. I have to declare an interest because I am a carer as well, but I think that Stacey would argue with that point whether she cares for me or I care for her. The whole point is that Lynne and others are finding themselves in a position where, A, they have massive forms to fill in for a start. The whole process is scary for her, and when she goes through that process, she has a situation where she may be rejected, but they have almost got to prove their disability of their loved one or family member, and when the appeal, 80 per cent of them, tends to get it back on the appeal, there is something bizarre about the whole system. Is there a way that you think Simon or others might think that we could maybe make that better or find a way around it? I have not got a straightforward answer to that. What we are setting out in the Social Security Bill is to take a different approach, so we are not giving people incentives to make savings. We should be incentivising people to make sure that there are fewer people entitled to benefits that are not receiving them at the moment. We know that loads of people do not claim benefits that are entitled to loads of pensions that are not pulling down their full benefits, loads of cohorts that people are not getting them because nobody told them. It is not a duty of DWP staff to tell people what their entitlements are. You have to ask for stuff. If we are going to do it the other way around, then at least we are starting from a different place, and even in the outline consultation there are things about trying to set up a system where we get it right first time, so we are not having lots of appeals and therefore you should not have so many successful appeals. For me it seems like a abject failure of a system that if 80% of people are winning cases on appeal, there is something wrong with the system. It is just on the face of it. It is costing a fortune to do is putting people in a really difficult position. The appeals are taking a lot of time, they cost money to minister, get it right first time and then you do not have to deal with that. When we are dealing with people, as we know, who are being assessed, who have had life long conditions, have got terminal conditions and things and they are all still being forced to go through these assessment processes and feel vulnerable and suddenly they will get left with no resources at all. Taking a different approach as being proposed is a good thing. I do not know how we can just mitigate about those. We have got to live through this change process. We are redesigning the plane while it is in flight, are we not? This is a situation of the here and now for people like Lynne and how do we make it better going forward? Sorry that I have not got a silver bullet to say that the solution to that problem is. Maybe others have got better ideas. I think that there are lots of people in difficult situations at the moment. Clearly we are getting lots of examples, although I am sure others are as well in terms of the transition of benefits. Are giving up paid employment too effectively? Is their loved ones' mobility or disability getting worse? They end up giving up paid employment and that is their only access to income. My way of looking at it is how do we find a way to make sure that everybody… There is a problem with the system, as you quite rightly say, if 80 per cent care it, but it was originally just a numbers game. It was not thinking about individuals and it was just, let us make a cut and that was probably the fault of the system. However, as we move on, how do we deal with the dignity-respect agenda to make sure that we can deliver on that? I know that Rob wants to come in and Kayleigh wants to come in as well. I think that it is entirely correct that the process of transferring from DLI to PIP has been difficult. We have seen a huge number of problems about disability benefits and how around about the largest single issue that CABs will deal with, a hugely stressful process for disabled people and their carers. Some of the problems are lessons that we can learn for future when disability benefits are devolved, but also the problems that people will see now because it will be a few years before a Scottish disability benefits system is up and running by which point it is expected that almost everyone will be… I have been migrated over to PIP, so there are many more of these assessments to come. I think that the biggest problem for us has been around the use of medical assessments for almost all cases. We have found that they do not necessarily lead to the correct decisions. Although this has improved recently along lengthy delays to get an assessment in the first place, when PIP was first introduced, delays were up to a year before somebody would get assessed to see whether they would get any support or not. The assessments themselves found quite impersonal to be talking to a stranger about things like whether they could go to the toilet or not. One of the things that is particularly key for the new system is to make as much use of existing evidence, whether that is from the claim themselves, who will know their condition better than anybody else, from friends and family, from GPs, from community psychiatric nurse support workers. I think that only after it has been exhausted and it is impossible to make a decision that you would look to go to an outside assessment, which would reduce a lot the stress involved in the process, reduce a lot of the delays and make the experience a lot better for Scotland's disabled citizens. Ruth, do you want to… I was enjoying everyone's interesting contributions and I realised that I did not get an answer to my question. I wonder if Simon and Cayley might be able to reflect on that point around setting expectations and making sure that we do not cause more stress and worry as we are progressing with things. Cayley might answer that particular one, but I know that Cayley wants to come in. Perhaps Simon wants to come back in again. I will try to come through that and my response absolutely. It was just to pick up on George's point about the form filling and the experience of carers and family members who are supporting a loved one through that process. You have given Lyna voice it in this committee and I would quite like to give one of our members a voice. This is from a parent who has a child with a learning disability, so it is claiming that DLE is difficult. The forms are horrendous and it is so upsetting having to justify every bit of support that your child needs and having to write in minute detail all the things that your child cannot do and then feeling like a waster because you are having to claim financial support for your child. We need to look at parents and families who are being confronted by the deficit-focused forms and processes and look at how we can think about things about differently, the content of forms, the approach and the support that people are given when they are going through that process. There have also been various submissions on carers allowance and I think that that is an important source of support for the committee to explore and for the Parliament to explore. Around carers allowance I think that there is also another dimension of that to explore when your loved one is hospitalised. At the moment, the Scottish Government has made an extremely welcome announcement, the 84D rule around children who received DLE being hospitalised that will be abolished and we will not see a suspension of payability of disability benefits and therefore the carers allowance that is associated to that will not be abolished. However, there is also a not dissimilar rule of 28 days that applies to adults in receipt of disability benefits and therefore their carers, so I think that that is something to explore. I have not costied it out, but I think that there is an argument to be made in terms of the costing of the impact on other areas of policy. For example, where someone is hospitalised and their benefits have stopped etc, that then has an impact on health because there is an issue around delayed discharge where they need to go through the whole process to get their support back in place etc. That is something to explore. Around communicating changes and setting expectations, I think that that is hugely important. We are currently preparing for a meeting of our members on Saturday where we will be exploring their views around the social security consultation. It is absolutely important to set expectations on when changes are likely to be made, what limitations there are to those changes and also to not frighten people because a lot of disabled people have just been through changes where they changed from DLA to PIP. I think what we will be doing is just giving that full explanation in an easy and accessible way, but always emphasising that there is a welfare rights adviser who works for us who will be able to do a full benefits assessment if you are worried about anything. I think that there is that. I do not have another advice around that. Thank you very much, Kaeli. Do you want to come back in the same in that direct point? Just on the communications thing, I think that having a clear timetable explains people when things might happen. We are all doing that through our own networks and stuff, and hopefully we are all saying the same things. Having a clear thing that is accurate that we can all use as a template for that communication through our own channels, but also that is not going to catch everybody because there are people out there who are not engaging or are not linked into the sector, the voluntary sector or the public sector. At some point, we need to have a clear sort of government led communications programme and stuff, because otherwise there is a danger of misinformation, and it leads to all of your case work will go up because people are coming and asking, you have heard about this when I am going to get it. We get phone calls about it, so it is not clogging up the system, but it is just not helpful really. I think there are some good stories to tell here. Obviously people are nervous about changes because they think that it might be negative, so we have got the opportunity to say some good things. Why not take those opportunities, I think? Sorry, it is not a question. It is more just a quick point that I suppose is one of the most important things during the changes to make sure that people fall through the gaps. I suppose that we have to kind of marry that slight tension with giving a really clear timetable of when things are going to happen and actually getting it right and having a smooth transition. I think that that is a point that has been made by most of everyone here about the smooth transition and certainly something that the committee will certainly be looking at. Alice, do you want to come in? Yeah, just briefly say thank you for the question, because I think it is really important not to ignore the sort of strain on mental health that social security changes do have on people, and I think that all of the agencies here will have come across that. Yeah, communication and acknowledging that it is a very complex process is always useful in this. I just wanted to come back very briefly on the issue of carers and disabled people and make the point that the move from DLA to PIP is premised on significantly reduced incomes for many people, and it is important to, while we are talking about obviously the delivery and the systems are very important, we also need to look at adequacy of income and actually is this reducing poverty, is this making people's lives better, are people accessing what they need to be able to access. We would advocate for a living wage for carers and we've also called for pilots of citizens basic income projects and exploring these ambitious and sort of positive visions of ways we could do things a little bit differently. Also something for the committee that I think it's vital that the impacts of social security on these groups facing multiple discriminations, particularly disabled women for example, is really vital to be monitored and make sure that the voices of people impacted on are sort of heard throughout the process. So again, thank you for inviting us all here to give evidence. Thank you very much and I think it's been a wonderful morning, plenty of ideas and I did open up by asking you all about the key priorities. We certainly got plenty here today to think about it as well, so once again I thank you very much for coming along, it's been very interesting looking forward to perhaps meeting you all again at another evidence session, possibly anyway. So I'll suspend this session for five minutes and members if they wish to have a five minute break as well will we go on to the next item. Just to remind members we're going to go back into public set and now. We resume the committee and it's agenda item 2 on your papers if you just turn to agenda item 2 and it's petition PE1571 on food-back funding. So to consider the petition it's the name of John Beattie, it was lodged in July 2015 and it called for the Scottish Government to provide direct funding to food banks. Paper that you have there in front of you sets out the context and the work that's already undertaken by the Public Petitions Committee on this petition and you have a number of suggestions there in the paper as well. Can I ask members what their views are on this petition? Do you want to come in, George? Well, yes, I could probably say the suggestions that they've got in section 12 for the committee to maintain a watching brief in the committee's widest work in social security and ask the Scottish Government to keep both the committee in petition informed with any response. I think that that seems pretty reasonable to me. I would agree, I mean I've been contacted by some food banks particularly those who have missed out on allocation of funding on the Government's emergency food fund and I think it'd be interesting if I could hear back from the Government the level of demand it was, just how oversubscribed it or not that fund was and how many organisations that are missed out because the view that's been put to me is certainly that some of these food banks are feeling that what they do, their emergency food supply to people around desperate need is coming under real pressure and is at risk of not existing at all. So just to see if the Government have done any work as to whether the food banks and people who are working voluntarily to provide a service are actually still going to be able to do so. Ruth, you wanted to come in, Alison? Convener, I would agree with the recommendations there and I'd just like to say that I commend the work that indeed volunteers do in providing emergency food but I don't think that food banks should be part of our social security system. I think that there's a sign that a social security system isn't working and there's not a solution to it. I think that in terms of addressing food poverty there are different things that should be explored. Okay. Alison, I wanted to go in. Yeah, I think clearly if some food banks are struggling that's tremendously serious for those who are relying on them as much as I would hope that nobody had to rely on them but I also note that Ewan Gurr from the Trusill Trust has said it's a crucial thing to avoid ever being assimilated within the welfare state. I know that the short-life working group has reported and I believe that the cabinet secretary has said that she will consider the report in full and respond in due course but I too would support action suggested at point 12. Adam, do you want to come in? Yes, I would just agree with George Adam. I too would support the action in paragraph 12. Mark, you raised that specific point. Could we come to compromise and look at the action that most of the people see on the committee agree upon and also write a letter to the cabinet secretary? Would that suffice for the committee? Okay, thank you. That's great. And now I'll call this meeting to an end.