 Mae'r next item of business is a debate on motion 1203, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on building a new Scotland social security in an independent Scotland. I have members wishing to participate, to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible, and I invite Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move the motion, cabinet secretary, around 13 minutes. Come up, the cabinet secretary? The card doesn't seem to be registered in the cabinet secretary. Do you want to take it out and put it back in again? There we go. Third time lucky i compatibility. Time to move the motion in my name. I'm pleased to be able to open up this debate today to highlight these Scottish Government proposals for a fairer, more dignified social security system in an independent Scotland. Social security is one of the most important responsibilities of any Government. It demonstrates where a Government's priorities lie and how it values its people. It should protect us all through life's ups and downs and is vital for the wellbeing of any society. For too long, the Westminster approach to social security has been to provide inadequate levels of financial support using arbitrary cuts and limits to reduce the financial support available to children and families and unfairly stigmatising the most vulnerable. The reckless and cruel decision-making at Westminster can be summed up by the choice to scrap the universal £20 uplift just as the cost of living crisis was gripping households. A Westminster decision to rip away supports when the Scottish Government was delivering the introduction of the Scottish child payment, the tale of two Governments with different values and a radically different prospectus. In their 2024 UK Poverty Report, the Joseph Rowntey Foundation clearly states that six successive UK Prime Ministers have overseen deepening poverty over the last 20 years, commenting that, and I quote, this is a social failure at scale. It is a story of both moral and fiscal irresponsibility and a front to the dignity of those living in hardship. The report goes on to say that poverty levels in Scotland, when compared to England and Wales, and I quote again, remain much lower, at least in part to the Scottish child payment, but more on that later. When comparing to Europe, the OECD is clear. Poverty levels and inequality are higher in the UK than in other independent European countries are in the highest in north-west Europe. The rate of unemployment benefits is also substantially lower in the UK compared to other countries in north-western Europe. It is quite clear that the UK social security system under Conservative, coalition and Labour Governments has not and will not protect people as it should. In just two weeks' time, the UK Government's budget is expected to once again fail to deliver any investment in our public services, our people and our future. I am happy to take an intervention to Paul O'Kane, who I am sure will tell us how UK Labour will stand up and ensure that we have capital and revenue in that to ensure that we can protect the people of Scotland. Paul O'Kane. The cabinet secretary made a reference to the collective failure of Tory and Labour Governments in the past. Of course, she has heard me in this chamber before talking about the callous approach taken by the party opposite. She would want to acknowledge that in the time of the previous Labour Government, 1 million children were lifted out of poverty by reaction taken by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in reforming the social contract. I will refer the member back to the quote that I gave from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation earlier on and also point to the fact that the change that Labour claims to be bringing when it comes to social security is no change, apart from a review. That is not exactly inspiring. Again, I note that Mr O'Kane did not agree that the budget for the Scottish Government should be increased to allow us to have no cuts to our capital budget. That is at least on the record, certainly. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that that Labour no change attitude is immensely detrimental to the people of Scotland, particularly when they will not commit to getting rid of the rape clause and the two-child cap? It is very disappointing that Kevin Stewart is quite correct to point to the fact that when it comes to both of the main UK parties vying for number 10, there is no change. That is exactly why we will go on within the debate to include not just a discussion about devolution but also the way that we can get change is only through independence. If I can move on to talk about Westminster's hostile approach to social security, that is punishing the most marginalised. The Scottish people deserve better. With the powers that we have, the Scottish Government has developed a different approach to social security, treating people with dignity, fairness and respect, whereas the UK Government continues to stand by with harmful policies. We have introduced 14 new benefits, seven of which are only available in Scotland. We made clear in our programme for government that we are committed to reducing child poverty and estimate that this Government's policies will keep 90,000 children out of relative and absolute poverty this year, with poverty levels 9 per cent points lower than the otherwise would have been. One of the key ways that we are using our powers to reduce child poverty is the introduction of the Scottish child payment. The payment alone is forecast to lift 50,000 children out of relative poverty in 2023-24. It has been described by Professor Danny Darling from the University of Oxford as having an effect on changing the inequality level in Scotland, which I do not see in any country for which there has been data for the last 40 years. Not only have we been introducing new benefits for the people of Scotland but we are also mitigating the worst impacts of the UK Government welfare reforms. We are already spending around £130 million per year to directly mitigate some of the UK Government's benefit cuts, such as the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, policies that have been described by many as deeply, deeply damaging to, again, the most vulnerable in our society. For the last six years, we have invested £733 million to directly mitigate against UK Government policies, something that we would have to continue to do under any Labour Government. That money could be better spent, I would suggest, on health, education, transport and further ambitious anti-poverty measures. For example, it could pay for up to 2,000 banned five nurses each year, but this Government continues to have to mitigate against the worst excesses of Westminster. With independence, the Scottish Government would deliver a new approach across the whole of the social security system, a system that sees high-quality social security as a human right and as a safety net for us all whenever we need it, a system that is free from corrosive and harmful policies such as the benefit cap or the two-child limit, which puts families into further hardship, no more punitive sanctions designed to punish those who have already have the least. Only with independence can we have full control over the necessary levers, which will allow us to create an integrated system of support that works for everyone, an approach that lifts people out of poverty, supports those who can access paid work and support from the labour market and therefore underpinning a flourished economy. I give way to Willie Rennie. In an independent Scotland, what will the weights be for adult disability payment? Will they be any shorter than they currently are, or will they be even longer? As Mr Rennie well knows, we have made progress in cutting the processing times for child disability and adult disability payments. Importantly, he also knows that he cannot compare that to what happens under Westminster, which again forces and obligates people who are going for a benefit to collect all the supporting information themselves. We take that burden off people, and that sometimes takes time, but we relieve that burden from people. That is part of that dignity, fairness and respect that we have. As we have discussed before, Mr Rennie, it is right that we need to do more on that. You cannot guarantee social justice unless you are in control of the delivery. Although the complexity of social security means that building a new system will take time, we have strong foundations in place with what is already being delivered in Scotland. We have transformed social security provision by establishing a radically different system, despite fixed budgets and limited powers of devolution. Although we build on that system, there are key early changes that we have identified in the paper to improve the current system, which can be put in place from day 1 of independence. Our early priorities would be removing policies such as the two-child limit, the subsequent rate clause and the benefit cap. We would replace the universal credit advanced loans with grants. We could end the punitive sanction regimes and remove the young parent penalty. I am happy to give way to Jeremy Balfour if he would like to defend any of those policies, as he usually does. In this fantasy world of politics that we are living in for the next couple of hours, how long would it take once independence happens for everything to be devolved into this new independence government? What is the timescale? Is it months, weeks or centuries? I have struggled to hear Mr Balfour due to the chuntering from Mr Kerr behind him, but I am happy to go with what I think I heard. The challenge around the devolution of benefits is that we are undertaking with the DWP, because it is a joint programme. I make no criticism in the DWP for what I am about to say, because it is just a statement of fact. The programme of devolution is because sometimes we need to work with the DWP, and it is difficult for their systems, which also require updating, and we need to work to build our systems as well. Under independence and the transfer, we would work with the DWP to ensure that we would look after the safe and secure transition of the people of Scotland just as we have done under devolution. The early changes that we have talked about in the paper would prioritise, among others, to directly improve the life of people in receipt of benefits. It is very important that that is done, because those people are not receiving the right support and the right security at this time. I have proposed reforms to universal credit total around £250 million in 2023-24, which equates to just over 1 per cent of total benefit expenditure. In the longer term, the paper sets out how independence could offer the opportunity to use innovative approaches to deliver a universal guarantee of financial security through a minimum income guarantee, giving people a right to a decent income, set to a level that ensures everyone can have a dignified quality of life. A minimum income guarantee is an ambition that would enable all households to live with financial security and would sit at the heart for strong wellbeing economy, aiming to be simple and accessible and have the potential for current Scottish income replacement benefits to all be brought into a single integrated system. The paper also refers to a universal basic income as a potential longer-term model of social security. However, there is the opportunity for the First Government of an independent Scotland to deliver better outcomes for everyone—families and households with low incomes, unpaid carers and the disabled. With independence, Scotland has the choice to explore new and better more forward-looking approaches to social security. Without the limits that we are placed upon us by being part of a UK-outdated system, you cannot guarantee social justice unless you control that delivery. With independence, we have the potential to deliver transformational change, building on our successes to date, building a fairer and more equal society and ensuring that everyone has enough money to live a decent, dignified, healthy life. With independence, Scotland would deliver a social security system that is a vast improvement on what we have already been offered and moves far beyond the inadequacies of the current approach. Earlier this month, the Scottish Labour leader told the new statesman that this Parliament is too focused on social policy, not enough in his opinion on the economy. That failure to recognise how critical the common wheel is—combining a wellbeing economy with a social security net that is therefore all of us in our time of need—is a failure to recognise the kind of society that we can be. A fairer future for all is not built on a binary choice between a strong economy or a social security system. It is disappointing to see the lack of ambition from Westminster parties on that. I have highlighted that we believe in the Scottish Government that social security is a human right. It is an investment in our people, in our society, which delivers better outcomes and helps to support a stronger and more prosperous economy. Members of the chamber agree that benefits should be set at a level at which people can afford essentials. That is why this Government has called on the UK Government to introduce an essential guarantee to the current system, which other Westminster parties have yet to do. How can those parties genuinely claim to have that as a basis of their own social security policies when they will not even call for those changes now? I have no doubt, over time, that Scotland can match the performance of other independent European countries that have low levels of poverty and inequality and high levels of economic success. Our paper details how that success could be achieved. The first steps towards that would be independence and a step away from UK Governments of whatever colour, which seems determined to make it harder for people to get the support that they need. It is time that Scotland has the opportunity to make a real change in people's lives, and that paper outlines exactly how they can do that. I move the motion in my name. I advise the chamber that there is a bit of time in hand, so any interventions you will certainly get the time back. I now call Jeremy Balfour to speak to and move amendment 12203.1 around nine minutes. I am happy to move amendment in my name. That must be a record, because I cannot think of a time, certainly during my tenure in this Parliament, when we have had so many nonsense debates brought forward in a short period. As we were having breakfast this morning, my 12-year-old daughter asked what were you debating today in the chamber, and I outlined what the debate was about. Her immediate response was, why are you talking about something that does not affect people's lives today? Why are you not talking about homelessness or hospital waiting lists? Interesting that a 12-year-old has more insight than the Scottish Government in a moment. In the last couple of weeks, we have spent valuable chamber time debating Scotland's plan in the European Union, an organisation that we are not part of. Immigration policy, which is no way devolved to this Parliament. Now we are talking about a hypothetical social security system that has not existed and will not exist because the people of Scotland do not want it. Thank you to the member to take this intervention. I ask him if he therefore, I am presuming, does not think that anybody in Scotland is impacted by the poverty that is pushed into by the Westminster Government, by the two-child cap, by the rate clause. He does know that there are people in every single one of our constituencies impacted on that every single day, and that there will be no change under the Tories, no change under Labour, and that is why this Parliament has the right to debate how we can see that change, and that is under independence. I think that the cabinet secretary makes a point that the people of Scotland voted to stay part of the union. Let's have debates about what type of social security we want, but what you are talking about today is a fantasy politics that the people of Scotland said no to. I imagine that some of the more reasonable colleagues on even on the SNP benches must be feeling a bit embarrassed that the Government has run out of ideas to this extent. I know for a fact that there are many SNP members who are committed to making the lives of the Scottish people better in practical and tangible ways, and for them, this cannot be anything short of a slap in my face. The truth is that things have got really bad for the SNP. They have been in government for 17 years with nothing positive to show for it, and now the facade is coming down to reveal a party that is tearing itself apart through scandal and secrecy. In a desperate act of deflection, the Government has decided to bring forward the series of debates based on the taxpayer-funded vanity project that, possibly on what life would be like if it hadn't failed to convince the Scottish people to break up one of the oldest and most successful political alliances in the world. I have to say that the cabinet secretary would have a bright future in fantasy writing, because the paper that has been brought before today is about as serious as the policy prospects as the Lord of the Rings. For the final time, no. The paper provides a long wish list of everything that the SNP would implement in their imaginary situation, including increasing universal credit and removing any kind of sanction system. That is all well and good, but nowhere in the paper does it explain how enough they are going to pay for it. They claim that all their changes would only cost the taxpayer and that we are a quarter of a billion pounds on top of what has already been spent in Scotland. However, this is from the same people that are running a devolved system that, as it stands, requires more than £1.3 billion by date just to keep the status quo. We are still to hear any kind of answer from the SNP on what plan it has to plug this gap. Why should we trust it on what it will do in this situation when we approve the inability to deal with a very real mess that it has made? I am grateful to the member for giving away again. Can he gently remind himself that we are going through a budget process where the Government produces a balanced budget, demonstrating exactly how we will fund it? The choices that we have made are to ensure that we will spend £1.1 billion more on social security, because we are investing in the people of Scotland rather than pushing them into poverty, like his party is. The reality is that whatever the SNP says, it will need to do one of three things. Abandon the promise to cut benefits, cut another budget and reapportion it to social security or to raise taxes. I will happily give away to either minister or to the cabinet secretary again or anyone else who is willing to tell the Scottish people what promises will be abandoned, what budget portfolio will be cut to make more room for social security or how much will we pay to raise taxes. I am very happy that Mr Stewart gives me the answer to my question. Mr Balfour has talked about fantasy, and what the people of Scotland are fed up of is the nightmare of Tory Government and Tory cuts to social security spending, which has withdrawn the safety net. Is he happy that the two-child cap is in place? Is he happy that the rape clause remains in place? Is he happy about the social security cuts that have impacted on disabled people here in our country? I intervene because Mr Stewart was going to answer my question, and he simply failed to do it, because there is a secret four-way that we have left out of his paper. For some reason, I again would be happily to listen. Either they cut benefits, raise taxes or take it from another budget. Which of the three, cabinet secretary? Once again, we are providing a balanced budget to the Parliament at this point, which demonstrates, as we have done every year since devolution, how we will fund our policy commitments to the people of Scotland. We are not sure whether we are simply going to raise taxes or to raise from another budget next year. As with previous debates of this type, this is not a serious subject matter. Even if we try to endow the nationalists, simple facts get in the way of their delusions. I think that the biggest insult in this paper is the single page that is looking at the transfer of social security following a referendum result. This transfer would be an incredibly complex and time-consuming process that would have a direct impact on the day-to-day lives of most vulnerable people. The cabinet secretary would not give a timescale for us. The clear lack of thought that the SNP has put into this process shows exactly why we should not be trusted. There is no timeline for the handover, no detail of how the transfer of data would be transferred securely and no detail of how resources would be split if the DWP were to leave Scotland. The reason why they are so light on detail in this regard is because they know the answer, shames them. We see a microcosm of this process in the way that they have handled the transfer of a small number of devolved benefits and the setting up of social security in Scotland. Years overdue, constant issues with implementation and even having to hand benefits back to the DWP because the Scottish Government could not handle them. Could you imagine an independent Scotland handing power back to a foreign government? Please, could you do it for a few more years because we are not capable of doing it? It is fantasy, Deputy Presiding Officer. Rest assured that there will be no handing anything back or asking anyone to help unless the UK Government is willing to step up and protect this Scottish Government. To close, this debate shows us two things. First, if the SNP has totally run out of ideas and are desperate to deflect from their woeful record after 17 years of government, and secondly, that their plans for independence are flimsy, ill-fought through and ultimately will deter and affect the people of Scotland in a negative way. We could do it all better if we simply got on with the day job, took our amendment, made it clear that this chamber wants to see social security in Scotland work but within the confines of the United Kingdom. Again, I move amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Balfour. I now call on Paul O'Kane to speak to and move amendment word double two, zero, three point two, around about seven minutes, Mr O'Kane. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. This is now the fourth debate in Government time that we have had on social security in 12 months, but it differs to those debates because I think that the latest debate from the Government is the clearest demonstration that they have their heads in the sand or perhaps more accurately, their heads in the cloud. Instead of having a debate about the context of the social security system that they are responsible for, we are debating the fantasy plan for social security in a future independent Scotland. I want to begin my comments today by speaking about that social security system here in Scotland and the challenges in that system, which is wholly devolved in that context to the SNP Government. The cabinet secretary speaks about fairness, dignity and respect. She did that in our debate prior to recess, but I think that what is clear is that that is not the experience of everyone in the system here in Scotland. For many people, they are falling short in delivering the system that people need to see. Of course, I always like to bring a degree of consensus. The Have been Welcome interventions has got its child payment, I think, is broadly supported across this place. It has been supported by this side, and we have to use all of our tools in the arsenal to tackle child poverty. However, what is clear to me is that we need bold action. We have to tackle the root causes of poverty, and we have to ensure that we do that with a strong economy that can prioritise growth in order to use the money from that growth to redistribute across our country and invest in public services. We need bolder action to tackle the fact that one in 10 Scots are locked and persistent will pay to tackle insecure and inadequate housing so that people have access to affordable roofs over their heads. It does not help when the Scottish Government makes decisions in their budget that will adversely impact that aim. Parental employability funds are cut by 20 million a year, which serves to lift people out of poverty and get them into work, and the affordable housing supply budget, slash by 27 per cent in real terms, are just two examples. I will take an intervention. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Will he confirm if Labour were to win the next election whether it would reverse the cuts to the capital budget that we have within the Scottish Government? Unless it does, because those have resulted in a nearly 10 per cent real income cut to our capital funding between 2023-24 and 20-27-28, unless it does, then talk is cheap. He can come to this chamber and demand money to be spent wherever it is, but if there is no action from any UK Government, then that is all that is, Presiding Officer. I will talk about the change that a UK Labour Government would make. However, as I have said, economic growth is an absolute priority. Without that growth, we cannot spend more money on public services. There was not a hint in the cabinet secretary's contribution about the economy and about how the economy and the economy in Scotland would contribute to all the assets that she has made in her motion. I will make some progress, if the member does not mind. We are focusing on the cuts to the housing budget, which will have a hugely detrimental impact on poverty reduction in Scotland. However, it is not just that. If we look at the social security system in the devolved context, it is creaking. The average processing time for child disability payment is over five months, with almost one-fifth of applications taking over seven months, leaving young disabled people without the payments that they need. The transfer of important devolved benefits, such as employment injury assistance, has repeatedly been delayed, with a lack of clear timelines, leaving those benefit provisions in the hands of the DWP, which the Scottish Government so rightly has critiqued. The cost to social security spending in Scotland is spiralling. It is now forecast to rise to almost £8 billion in 2029, £1.5 billion more than block grant adjustment, according to the Scottish Festival commission's latest analysis of the budget. As I have said, failure to tackle the root causes of poverty and failures to process claims in good time, and failures to even bring about payments into the devolved administration is all contributing to the continuing persistent challenges of poverty here in Scotland. The conclusion that I would draw from that is that, if the Scottish National Party Government cannot run a functioning system well now, there is no evidence in the latest paper to suggest that its independent country would make it more capable of that. Indeed, the paper sets out a swath of plans from the Scottish National Party Government, but it does not need to worry about delivering in that, because what I see in the paper is no indication of how that would be paid for. Indeed, no indication of the currency that we would be using in order to pay those devolved benefits. Do not even get me started on the fact that it does not say anything about pensions, but of course Mr Hepburn is the man who is preparing that prospectus, I imagine, on the currency and on pensions. I would love to hear from him what the plan is there. Of course, Mr Keane should pay attention. We have set out our position on currency in the third paper, and on pensions, of course, we will have a paper forthcoming. A simple question for Mr Keane. Would he prefer that the powers over social security in their entirety were vested in this place where we could collectively have control over this matter, or would he rather remain in the hands of the Conservatives in the UK Government? Mr Hepburn suggests that powers should be either in the hands of the Conservative Government or in this place. No, no, I think that it is right in the devolved settlement that we control the elements of social security that we are making progress on, but it is clear to me that those stories are not going to be around forever, because change is coming with a Labour Government that will fundamentally reform social security in this country, who will invest in the economic growth that we need in order to fund public services and to make the changes that we need. In a moment, 40 per cent of claimants who are in receipt of universal credit are in work, so we know that we need to make fundamental changes to work in this country in order to support people. That is what a Labour Government offers. We offer a real living wage, an end to fire and rehire, an end to zero hours contracts and investment in rights for workers from day one. That will be a substantial change to the prospects of so many people in this country, putting money into their pockets and listing them out of poverty. Just as we did when we were last in government, Mr Hepburn from a sedentary position said that that is the past, a million children listed out of poverty. There is always some kind of small moment. It has changed the life fundamentally of people who are living in this country today, and that is what is important. With an eye to the future then, we have heard from the Scottish Labour Party that they supposedly opposed the two-child cap, but we know that they do not have their hands in that power, and we know that their UK party leader has said that they will not reverse that position. What does Mr Cain say to that in terms of the prospects of young people, not just in Scotland across the UK under a Keir Starmer-led Government? Mr Hepburn knows my position on the two-child cap, that is a heinous policy that needs to be changed. Mr Cain, could you resume your seat? As the cabinet secretary advised us earlier on, chintering from a sedentary position should be discouraged at all times. Mr Hepburn, Mr Keir, less of the running commentary, please. I am very clear that a fundamental reform of universal credit means all parts of the system. That includes the heinous and challenging policies that we see across the piece, but we need to make sure, on that point, about economic growth that we have the money to reform our public services fundamentally and ensure that they work better for everyone. I will take clear hockey because she has been patient. I thank Mr Cain for taking my intervention and I hear what he says about the Labour Party's supposed plans to review universal credit, but I have not heard anything about what he is going to do about pensions. I know that the Labour Party has supported the Waspy Women's campaign, so can he tell me what he is going to do if his party forms the next Westminster Government in terms of compensating the Waspy Women? It is interesting that Ms Hockey brings up the matter of pensions. We do not have any detail from this Government on pensions in the independent Scotland, so you want to have a debate about pensions right now, but you do not have a paper on pensions, you do not know how you are going to pay for the pensions, you do not know where the currency is. While Labour Government will do, quite clearly, is fundamentally reform that social contract, as we did when we were last in government, a million pensioners out of poverty to make things fairer and to make things better. That is what Labour Governments do. I am now very conscious that I have been generous with time, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am conscious that time is getting on, so I will draw my contributions to a clause—to a clause, sorry. The change that Scotland needs is not another self-indulgent fantasy paper to make SNP ministers and that pensions feel good. I am sure that it feels great this afternoon to be in here talking about this, but the reality is that people need help right now. On those benches, we have been clear throughout that we, as a UK Labour Government, will provide change in the form of the fundamental reform that is required of the social contract. More than that, it is about people in work, supporting people into work as a route out of poverty, ensuring that they have good, high-quality jobs, ensuring that they have a living wage, trade union rights, ensuring that we ensure that our contracts are in secure work. That is the change offered by our Labour Government. We did not hear anything in the paper about routes into work and about jobs, but we did not hear anything in the contribution from the cabinet secretary. All that we heard was more of the same, so the reality is that we need to see change. We can have change faster and quicker with a Labour Government. That is what we need. We need not more debates about fantasy independence perspectives that may never come to pass. I am finding it difficult to curb my excitement, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a packed chamber. It is absolutely soaring rhetoric, as I have never heard before, cheering SNP-backed benchers. Instead, we have a rather dull debate on a paper that nobody really read or cares about for a referendum that those benches know are not going to happen. Jamie Hepburn chided Paul O'Kane for not paying attention. The truth is that nobody in the country is paying attention to Jamie Hepburn's papers. I am a big fan of Jamie Hepburn. I have ambitions for Jamie Hepburn right to the top of Government. I think that we could use his time far better than producing the papers that nobody is reading. He probably will have noticed that nationalists are getting more frothed up by the red coat café than any of his independence papers, and that should be a sobering lesson for Jamie Hepburn, because we need to focus on the real challenges that the country faces. I have been, like Paul O'Kane, welcomed the reduction in child poverty that has come with child payment. I think that it is a good thing. However, the Cabinet Secretary made an introduction and talked a little bit more, to say, compared the last time about the economy and about the balance between the social and the economic, after I had perhaps criticised last time for celebrating a big and growing social security budget, which in itself is a kind of a failure of the system, if we are having to use so many payments to prop up an economy that is not delivering proper good wages for people to earn their own living. It is perhaps a sign of failure than a sign of celebration. I am grateful to Willie Rennie for taking intervention. He is quite right to point that there are different drivers to poverty. One of those drivers is the inadequacy of his social security system, which we have limited powers over. Will he agree that, if we want to see real change over employability and wage levels, he would agree to the devolution of employability and employment law to those parliaments so that we can make those changes and make some of those differences that he is talking about? I think that the cabinet secretary is understating the powers that this Parliament already has and that this Government refuses to use effectively. I am in favour of the single market, as she knows, for the United Kingdom and I do not favour breaking up that single market by devolving employment law. I think that it is important to make sure that we have the automatic economic stabilisers with social security at a UK level so that there is a unique shock that affects one part of the country and the rest of the country is there to support it. I do not favour the breaking up of that, because that is effectively prelude to independence, which she knows that I do not favour. It is really important that she understands and accepts. I do not think that she has yet that this growing budget is not a point for celebration, but that it is a point of a sign of failure of the system. We need to improve the productivity levels in this country, which in Scotland are lagging even behind the UK and the UK is even lagging further behind than other competitor countries. Our low wages—there are far too many people on low wages and we need to drive up that performance—but also unemployment in a time of very, very low unemployment. We still have large numbers of people who are not working, and that comes on to my second point about the NHS and education. I have met far too many people who have been waiting to get an appointment, and during that period they are unable to work, because they are in so much pain. The NHS and the education system are critically linked to the performance of our economy and, therefore, affects the social security system. As long as we keep pumping money into the wrong end of the system, we are not going to be able to deal with the problems at the other end, which will deliver a sustainable economy. I will take an intervention. I am sure that, of course, if we are investing less in social security, Mr Rennie will be the first to welcome that fact. He has already answered that question inherently in his point about a single market in terms of employment law, but can he just be explicit in answering that question? Would he rather, then, that the Tories—this goes to his matter about low wages—would he rather that the Conservatives have control over the minimum wage that this Scottish Parliament? Willie Rennie? I have to say that this is beneath Jamie Hepburn, because that is a pathetic, narrow choice. That is not the choice that we are facing. We can have choice—no, it is not the choice—because we can have change across the United Kingdom that delivers a progressive future for our country that does not fall into his false choice. I am sure that he is better than that, because I might have to revise my opinion about his ambition for high office. I think that the interventions that we need to have in this case is looking at the long waits for ADP. I have intervened on the cabinet secretary already about that, because it is frankly embarrassing that the DWP gets money quicker into the pockets of disabled people than the Scottish Government. I know the answer—no, I am not going to take an intervention now. I have heard the answer before and I understand that the system is more sympathetic. I get that. It is more understanding. It assists the individuals. However, the truth is that they are waiting for longer for the money. Surely that should be an embarrassment longer than the DWP. The DWP is more generous at getting money to people than the Social Security Scotland system. Surely that is an embarrassment, and we must drive that down if we are going to have any claim about being dignified. That is an important lesson. Remember that we were promised by Alex Salmond that we would have independence delivered in 16 months. It has taken years for just a small number of powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. A small number of powers just imagine how long it would take to deliver all the other powers that would come with independence. Surely that in itself is a lesson for this Government that nobody is really enthusiastic about any of this debate, because we know that it is never going to happen. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. I call first Collette Stephenson to be followed by John Mason. Around about six minutes, Ms Stephens. Thank you, Presiding Officer. From the game-changing Scottish child payment to the carers allowance supplement, devolution has shown how Scotland can begin to deliver a fairer social security system, but the UK Government still holds most of our welfare powers. Families across the country are seeing the benefits of having an SNP Government that recognises that social security is a human right and that the delivery of social security is a public service. When we look at social security Scotland's record, we see that it has a remarkable satisfaction rate, with 97 per cent saying that it had received its benefit payments on time and 90 per cent saying that its experience was good or very good. Indeed, social security Scotland's strong record has been recognised at a number of prestigious national prizes, most recently at the Holyrood Communications Scottish Public Service Awards. At the heart of the First Minister's vision is tackling the scourge of child poverty. In fact, as a result of Scottish Government policy choices, an estimated 90,000 fewer children are expected to be in poverty this year. At my constituency of East Kilbride, approximately 4,500 children have been in receipt of the Scottish child payment this year. The Scottish child payment of £25 per child per week for eligible families alone is keeping 50,000 kids out of poverty. Save the Children welcomes the efforts that have been made by the Scottish Government to drive down child poverty rates over the long term and to help families with children during the cost of living crisis. Equally, the Financial Times recognises that Scotland has the potential to be a European pioneer in reducing child deprivation. Of course, the Scottish budget for next year will ensure benefits go up with inflation, putting it into action our Government's commitments to build a social security system with dignity, fairness and respect at its heart. However, while the Scottish Government uses its limited powers to put money in people's pockets, Westminster takes it away. It is undeniable that the current UK welfare system is flawed. It is a system that punishes the most vulnerable in our society, placing the burden of austerity on those who are least able to bear it. The Scottish Government's vision for social security in and independent Scotland is of a fairer, more dignified and more respectful approach. Independence would reset the social security system and we could undo the damage of the union with removing the two-child cap and scrapping the rape clause, ending the current benefit sanction regime and instead ensuring that we support people who can work into sustainable employment, removing the benefit cap and bedroom tax and ending the young parent penalty. Currently, the Scottish Government is having to soften the blow of the cost of the union to households across Scotland. However, it cannot possibly mitigate every bad decision that comes from Westminster with the limited powers that we have. However, in the past five years, the Scottish Government has spent more than £711 million mitigating some of the worst excesses of cruel Westminster policies. With the full powers of independence, we would also be able to eliminate poverty through a minimum income guarantee. With the right to a decent income, which could be achieved through paid work, affordable services and when needed, targeted social security support, we can ensure that everyone can have a dignified quality of life. The most important thing for Scotland though is to escape broken Brexit Britain. We need independence to reset the social security system and to build a country with the powers and an economy to tackle inequality and eradicate poverty. What is the alternative? Let us look at the cost of Westminster in terms of social security. The Tories, with their two child cap, the rape clause and cuts to universal credit, are actively making political choices to push children into poverty. Of course, where to believe the party to my right, a UK Labour Government will come in and magically make everything better. What are they often? The two child cap, Cercure will keep it, progressive income tax, Labour are against it, investment in the future of our economy with the transition to net zero. They have broken that promise before they have even gotten into office. The House of Lords has nine grand a year tuition fees and uncapped bankers bonuses. That is the kind of stuff that Labour is going to keep. To me, that sounds like more of the same old Westminster broken record. Regardless of who is in government down there, Labour or the Tories or the Tories propped up by the Lib Dems, it is clear that Westminster does not work for Scotland. It is clear to me that it is independence that offers the best future for people in Scotland. When we look across Europe, we see many small independent countries proving that a strong social security system backed up with a fairer stronger economy means a socially just, more equal nation. If they can do it, why not Scotland? John Mason, to be followed by Katie Clark around six minutes. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. At the start, I would just make the point that our debate today is about creating and having a much better social security system. The UK itself could have such a system if it wanted, and that is perhaps a particular challenge for the Labour Party, who do not even appear to want a better system at a UK level, and it remains to be seen how much Scottish Labour wants it. Today's debate is not just about social security in independent Scotland. It is about the kind of social security system that we want to see, either in Scotland or the UK. Mr O'Cain is now going to tell us how he can cut tax and get a better social security system. Paul O'Kee. I am going to ask Mr Mason to reflect on my contribution, in which I spoke about the need for the fundamental reform of universal credit. Surely he agrees with that. Surely he agrees that 40 per cent of people who are on universal credit and in work deserve a real living wage and an end to precarious in-work poverty. Surely he would agree that the Labour Party's policies on that are worth supporting. I certainly agree that we should have a higher legal minimum wage. I am not convinced that we are going to get all that from London, because his leader has said that he is going to cut tax in Scotland. As I understand it, in the UK, they are not planning to raise tax either. You cannot have a better system of redistribution, which was a word that he used, but he did not tell us how he could possibly do that. When Scotland achieves independence, we need to be realistic that some of the changes that we want to make will take time and will cost money. As it is, we have seen that taking on adult disability payments has required legislation, transferring many records and other work that takes time, and there are also the one-off costs of setting up a new IT system and other systems. How long will it take to set up this new system, bring in legislation and have a whole system, including pensions? How long will it take for social security and pensions to take place? Will that happen in his lifetime? I am sure that he knows, because he has a similar theological position to myself. I do not know how long I am going to live, but that is another question. We are talking about generalities here. We know that when we have taken an individual benefit, it has taken often longer, not always, to get that into the Scottish system. Of course, that same will happen when we become independent. It will take time, and that will have to be worked through as part of the negotiations. However, all of this is worthwhile if we end up with something better at the end of the day. My parallel picture is that when I left home roughly at the age of 21, there were costs involved, time involved and effort involved in setting up a new home. I did not know how long that would take me to get sorted out and settled down, but, looking back, I have no regrets that I did that. I could then go on and make my life better in the way that I wanted to, and that is the same if Scotland becomes free. We also need to be realistic that, if we want a fairer social security system, it is likely to be more expensive, at least in the short term. We probably will need to pay more in tax in order to pay for that. Over time, we would hope that the costs of social security can reduce as the population becomes healthier on the whole and more suitable jobs become more available for more people, including those with disabilities and those with caring responsibilities. I do not accept that the whole social security system is a failure. There are some people who need people in our society who will always need support. However, I am happy to accept that a social security system that treats people with more dignity, fairness and respect will cost more money. We have seen that to some extent already with our adult disability payment costing more than its UK equivalent, personal independence payment. Currently, we are looking at spending some billion pounds more than we are receiving from the UK through the block grant, with the total rising from something like £5.3 billion to £6.3 billion in this budget. Let us remember that the UK is a low tax country compared to our neighbours like France or the Nordic countries. We are paying only 38 per cent of GDP in tax whereas some of them are paying 50 per cent. That is why UK public services, including pensions, are so often poorer than those of our neighbours. I gather that the UK is currently 16th out of 30 European countries when it comes to pensions. When we get our independence at last, we will still face the choices that every other country faces. Do we want to pay a bit more tax for better social security and other public services? Or do we want to be more like the UK with low tax and poorer services? Whatever happens, we cannot have quality social security coupled with low taxes. That is just not possible. I understand that Labour is considering lowering income in other taxes. That is up to them, but it will mean cuts to public services. A minimum income guarantee is mentioned several times in the paper, and that is something that I personally feel very strongly and positively about. For starters, it is more realistic and achievable than a universal basic income, which I think several of us have been sympathetic to in the past. However, even with independence, UBI can be expensive and difficult to implement in practice. However, there is something fundamentally right to the concept of a minimum income guarantee so that every individual and family should have enough to live on with no strings attached. After all, when you think about it, prisoners in our jails, who are allegedly some of the worst people in our society, are guaranteed a certain minimum standard of living. They get clothing, reasonable food, a roof over their heads, heating and lighting. If all our prisoners can expect that, then everyone in our society should expect that. That is basically what a minimum income guarantee is about—enough income for a decent accommodation, heat and light, food and clothing. Of course, where we are now is very different from that ideal. We could and should be making changes to the present UK system even before we get as far as a much better system in a free and independent Scotland. Some of the obvious faults at present include the two-child limit, yet we have a lack of population in Scotland as a whole and even more so in rural areas, yet we discourage larger families. It should be the other way round. More encouragement, more support for families to help them to have more children and people not claiming their entitlements. I know that that point is made in page 38 of the paper that we should do more to ensure that people apply for their entitlements. However, I do wonder if we can go further than that. Pension credit is one example where I understand that about one third of those who are entitled do not apply. Universal credit is a problem too. According to one study at the start of the pandemic, around half a million people in the United Kingdom were eligible for universal credit but did not claim it. Of those, 220,000 people thought that they were eligible for universal credit, but 41 per cent of those did not think that it would be worth the hassle. I wonder whether we should be doing more proactively to pay people what they need and are entitled to without having to go through lengthy application processes. All in all, there is a lot of room for improvement in social security, whether we are in the UK or once Scotland becomes free. We can all hit hard times at times and our income takes a hit. Some might even lose their job at the next election. Let's at least aim for social security that gives people security and let's not be satisfied with a harsh Westminster system that blames people when they get into trouble. I welcome that the Parliament is yet again discussing social security. John Mason is absolutely correct to point to the importance of our taxation policy to this debate. Indeed, Paul O'Kane is absolutely correct to say that our attitude towards growth and the drive for growth is also central to this debate. The last debate on social security was, of course, on 7 February, the week before we went into recess. Yet again, I would question the framing of this debate and the choice of a focus on independence, but also that it seems to be the focus of so much of the Scottish Government's work, particularly given the very significant issues that we see with Social Security Scotland, which seem to have similar problems to those that we experience with the Department of Work and Pensions. Scottish Labour, of course, supported the devolution of social security benefits and the mitigatory action that the Scottish Government has taken to address certain aspects of Westminster policy. Indeed, we are strongly supportive of some of the measures such as the Scottish child payment, which we believe to be very effective. However, we are very concerned about the length of time that is taken to transfer some of the benefits, but also about the waiting times for benefits such as the child disability benefit, where the medium waiting time was 106 days in the most recent statistics and adult disability benefit, where the medium processing time was 83 days. I have to say yet again that it would be better if the Scottish Government and indeed SNP MSPs could devote their energy to taking action to reduce those waiting times and to make it very clear that such waiting times are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The outcomes of applications, as has been said, are often similar or, indeed, on occasions worse than those of the Department of Work and Pensions. We supported the devolution of social security benefits but we did so to improve outcomes and the service for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Scottish Labour will not tolerate outcomes and waiting times, which are similar or, indeed, worse to the Department of Work and Pensions, which we recognise has been under considerable political pressure from the UK Tory Government to reduce payments and provide an unsympathetic environment to those seeking benefits. Despite five years—yes, I will take an intervention—she talks about what the Scottish Labour Party will tolerate while they tolerate Keir Starmer's position of the continuation of the two-child cap and while they reflect on the fact that, even if they say they won't, they will have absolutely no influence over that position whatsoever. Katey Glaw. The minister and, indeed, his colleagues have made this point on numerous occasions and on numerous occasions it has been made clear that the Scottish Labour Party is opposed to the two-child cap and, indeed, that there will be a review of the entire universal credit system under the next Labour Government. I make it very clear to the minister that the Scottish Labour Government and, indeed, Labour representatives will fight for a system that supports the most vulnerable. Despite five years of the devolved social security system, which was meant to be fairer than its predecessor, we know that the reality is that, in many circumstances, claimants are not receiving a better service. The costs of our social security system have increased, but we know that in-work poverty and deprivation levels remain stubbornly high, and the Scottish Government does not seem to have a plan to deal with the spiralling social security costs. There has been a 38 per cent increase in social protection spending in Scotland, and it is right that we evaluate how well that money is being spent. As I have said before, the Scottish child payment seems to be an effective new benefit. However, many of the other benefits simply mirror those that existed previously. I do not think that it is acceptable that more than 50,000 Scots are being asked to wait more than three months for disability benefits, and I believe that that is the debate that we should be having today. Scotland has the highest increase in working-age poverty over the last decade of anywhere in the UK. I believe that that is the debate that we should be having today. Across the chamber, I think that we have high expectations of what we expect for the social security system in Scotland. As I have said before, we expect far better than Westminster has delivered in recent years. There is no doubt that Scotland needs change. That will be the focus of the next general election campaign. In this chamber, week after week, our focus needs to be on making sure that the powers that we have are used effectively and that we maximise the benefits, particularly for the most vulnerable and the most poor in our society. That will be the focus from the Scottish Labour benches. I am pleased to speak in this debate about the type of social security system that we can have in an independent Scotland, a social security system that has fairness, dignity and respect at its heart, one that is humane and compassionate and one that recognises decent levels of support and assistance are essential to helping our citizens to thrive. That debate is important and necessary because the two political parties that aspire to govern at Westminster have failed Scotland. They have an office over a welfare system that is big on stigma and devoid of compassion. We saw that in the way that they for decades treated unpaid carers with contempt by not allowing carers allowance with other early replacement benefits and injustice that was put right by this SNP Government. We have seen so many other examples, a system that has erased 16 and 17-year-olds out of entitlement, the use of private sector assessments that caused so much pain and suffering, the young person's penalty that sees less entitlement for under-25, and the obsession with the sanction regime that entrenched stigma and promotes poverty, the benefit cap that denies families with children, the basic subsistence levels, the bedroom tax that erodes support to pay rent and risks homelessness, and for decades leaving industrial engineers benefit unreformed so that women injured in the workplace are denied compensation. We also see their future plans too for a controlled Westminster social security system, refusing to commit to scrapping the two-child policy, which is a foreign rape clause. They propose changes to work capability assessment, targeting many who are sick and disabled. The OBR estimates that hundreds of thousands could be impacted and potentially lose over £4,000 per year. No essentials guarantee to see universal credit set at decent amount, allowing families to afford the basics. There is no vision that sees social security as an investment in helping the country thrive. It is real change Scotland needs, and that will only be secured with independence. With the Tories or Labour, we see the continuation of a system that sets people up to fail, not to help them thrive. It is no wonder that the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty condemned the Westminster Government's shameful record on poverty, saying that the UK's grossly insufficient welfare system is simply not acceptable and may be in violation of international law. Not at the moment. In and in Scotland, our social security system would be fundamentally different to that of the UK. For two long people in my constituency and across Scotland have been penalised by the Westminster Government, a Government that does not value those living in poverty on or on low incomes. The austerity policies of 2010, put in place by our Tory and Lib Dem colleagues, has led to severe suffering by the Scottish community, particularly those on low incomes. It has been described by economists and economic historians as disastrous and reckless. We will not forget how silent Labour were in opposition when that was happening. Those reckless policies have resulted in the Scottish Government spending a large proportion of the budget counteracting the damaging policies with debt to the Scottish people. Not at the moment. In 2022, the Scottish Government spent more than £1 billion mitigating Tory cuts. Just think what we could do with that money in an independent Scotland. In an independent Scotland, we could change universal credit, further improve carer and disability benefits, remove the rape clause, the two-child policy and scrap the bedroom tax and end other punitive welfare benefit policies. Those are noble and ambitious goals but also just more the right thing to do. We should also consider a minimum income guarantee, ensuring that everyone in Scotland secures a minimum acceptable standard of living, giving families enough money for housing, food and essentials to live a dignified, healthy and financially secure life. With one hand tied behind our back, we are already making significant progress with the social security system by loving 14 benefits, seven of which are only available in Scotland, including the Scottish child payment that tackled poverty and reduced inequality. In the end, social security is a human right. While the Westminster Government continues to strip residents of their human rights, an independent Scotland would have human rights at the core of the policy decisions, and that is not something Labour or the Tories see as a priority. We saw that loud and clear when they refused to scrap the benefit cap but won't cap the bankers' bonuses. People deserve to be treated with dignity and a Scottish social security system would be designed with people of Scotland on the basis of evidence. Social security is an investment in the people of Scotland and with independence we will deliver a social security system that will transform lives. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Bob Dorris. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. There have been the inevitable comments about this debate being irrelevant fantasy, given that we are not an independent country yet. I believe that it is important that we sometimes lift our sights to outline the better world that we want to have, the opportunity to create a better world that I just don't believe that we will get from Westminster. As Peter Kelly of the Poverty Alliance did at a fair Aberdeen event recently, I want to begin by quoting Raymond Williams. To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing. My goodness, do we need hope? Our social security system in the UK is commonly depicted as a safety net, though many experts are describing it instead as a perilous tightrope over the abyss of poverty. So far, as it is a safety net, it now has huge and gaping holes in it. For the first three decades of the modern welfare state from 1949 to the eve of the Thatcher Government in 1979, the equivalent of today's universal credit standard allowance was usually between 25% and 30% of average earnings. Since then, it has plummeted, falling below 15% in the early 2000s and dropping again over the past 80 years. So that, as this report we debate today highlights, it is now in relation to average earnings at its lowest level ever. This erosion really matters. It means that families reliant on those payments, very many of whom are in work, are experiencing shocking hardship. The Joseph White Roundtree Foundation has found that 90% of low-income households on universal credit are currently going without essentials. That is not just a few people having difficulty in managing their budgets, it is almost everyone having difficulty managing their budgets. It is, as others have pointed out, destitution by design. That design incorporates not only the plunging levels of universal credit itself but the many ways in which the toxic sanctions system works to reduce actual payments yet further. Punitive, to an extraordinary degree, it offers pitifully little with one hand and then, with the other, takes away even that pittance. So our first task as responsible, compassionate, even barely humane legislators is to patch up the worst of those vast and gaping holes. Some of that work, as this paper outlines, is already happening. It is happening in the different approach that we are taking in Scotland, an approach set out in our Scottish social security principles, including an understanding that social security is not a work of charity or grudging generosity but a basic human right. It is happening in the new benefits, including five family payments. Most importantly, the Scottish child payment and in new ways of supporting disabled people and carers. It is happening in mitigations of the bedroom tax and the benefit cap and in work towards facilitating split payments that would respect, empower and ultimately save lives. However, there is so much more that can only be done with further powers of independence, measures such as the complete abolition of the brutal two-child limit and prurient rape clause. I warmly welcome the 10 key actions set out in the paper, including scrapping the vicious sanctions policy and malicious young parent penalty. However, vital, urgent and essential as these actions are, they are not enough. This report speaks of a desire to move from a liberal to a social democratic approach. That is going in the right direction, but as a green, as an eco-socialist, I would go much further. For my vision of social security is not merely as a safety net, that image suggests that what matters is what happens on the high trapeze above, that social security is what happens to those who fall. Instead, I see it as a seedbed, the essential nurturing foundation for all the ways that human beings care and create for and with one another, not just through paid work but in every aspect of our lives. I long for a Scotland where people are not primarily seen as employees or consumers but as citizens, as neighbours. Our social security system can help make that Scotland a reality. I want our social security system to have parity of esteem with our health service, the two must go hand in hand. I particularly welcome the Scottish Government's exploration of a minimum income guarantee and look forward to the final report from the expert group later this year. Action on this would see a positive step change in the support provided to our citizens. I am encouraged too to see that the report raises the possibility of a universal basic income being developed by future Scottish Governments. Such a universal basic income paid to all with extra support for those who need it opens opportunities for a fairer, safer and happier future. It trusts each of us to follow our best path, to work, care and to create, to develop ideas, to develop enterprises, to develop and build communities. Along with other policies including fair work in pensions and a radical just transition, a universal basic income could be the cornerstone of the wellbeing economy that we are longing to create. In an independent Scotland we could do things differently. Indeed, it is why we want it at all. And how we see social security, how we work towards its transformation shows the world the kind of Scotland we want to be. That time cannot come soon enough. I now call Bob Doris to be followed by Rona Mackay. The afternoon's debate on the Scottish Government's paper on building a new Scotland social security in independent Scotland should have been a constructive opportunity for all MSPs in the chamber to explore the kind of social security system that we want to see and the principles that underpin that social security system irrespective of one's constitutional position on an independent Scotland. For those of us in the SNP who believe in independence it is an opportunity point to the achievements to date within the constraints of devolution and delivering a social security system that embeds dignity, fairness and respect. There is much more I believe we could do in independent Scotland but more on that later. However, for those in the chamber, in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party who still believe whose chunks of our social security system in much besides across so many other areas should still be controlled by Westminster, it also presents a constructive opportunity to say what they would do differently within the confines of devolution for Westminster and the UK Government holds much sway not just in relation to powers but also the purse strings. Unfortunately we have not heard any of that this afternoon. I want to highlight the very first section of the Scottish Government paper because I like the heart of this debate and it states that with independence Scotland would have the opportunity to design a social security system as an integral part of a fairer and more equal society. A new approach would be designed in line with the current social security principles, a human rights based system, a human rights based system delivering with dignity, fairness and respect. I think that we need to look at any social security system through the prism of those underlying principles. That gives us a guide as to just how different social security could be in an independent Scotland. Let's look at the current UK situation. For instance, we have a current UK Government, the Conservatives and the next one, likely to be Labour, who simply do not believe that families and benefits should get enough money to live on, certainly not if they have more than two children. Let us be clear, when both the Conservatives and Labour defend the two child cap as they do, that is what they are saying. They will not provide many families in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK enough money to live on, that is what they are saying. When Labour say they will make the rape clause fairer, what they are really doing is defending a UK social security system that does not believe in giving families enough money to live on. Let's look at that policy choice by Westminster parties through the prism of the kind of social security system that could be delivered in an independent Scotland, a system that would be based on human rights delivered with dignity, fairness and respect, a system that would never deliberately impoverish families in the way that the current UK system does. The Scottish Government paper on social security in independent Scotland has identified various aspects of the current UK system that are underlying principles based on human rights, which would mean that they would never be considered in an independent Scotland. In independent Scotland, the SNP has identified 10 initial actions that it would seek to take within that paper. As I have already mentioned, removing the two child limit and scrapping its rape clause has previously been mentioned, but also removing the benefits gap, which primarily affects families with children. Scrapping the bedroom tax that reduces benefits for those considerative of too many bedrooms in their home, mitigated by the SNP, but a cash cost to Scotland's budget. Replacing universal credit and budgeting loans with grants to help individuals and families in the first weeks of claiming the new benefit would ease the five-week wait and mean that universal credit was paid at its full rate without deductions and the debt that people face just now. Ending the current benefit sanctions regime to make sure that people are supported into sustainable employment and better long-term outcomes, I would not list the rest of them because of time constraints. I think that the challenge for the UK parties is why did they continue to wed themselves to a Westminster social security system that has not underlined principles at its core. A system that is not based on human rights and is not embedding dignity and fairness in respect. I will say a little bit about housing support. Housing benefit, housing element of universal credit, the cost of temporary furnished accommodation of hotels and so on, and the mind of that money that is in the system already could be far better spent than it is currently, and it could better support the lives of the most vulnerable people in society. That is simply far more likely to happen in an independent Scotland that places core human rights-based principles at the heart of social security. It is something that the previous social security committee looked at in the last Parliament and it is something that I think we have returned to in an independent Scotland. I also want to say a little bit about supporting families on universal credit into work. I welcome that universal credit is a passported benefit to secure the Scottish child payment. Combined with other SNP policies, there are 90,000 less children in poverty here in Scotland, and child poverty is now 9 per cent lower than it otherwise would have been. 323,000 children now benefit from this, including 52,000 in Glasgow, the city that I am proud to represent. My constituents have made Helen Springburn see the reverial benefit of that. Poverty level is now significantly lower than England or Wales. I have spoken before about how that groundbreaking and welcome policy might interact unhelpfully with universal credit. For instance, when families move off universal credit and lose the Scottish child payment, how that impacts on making work not paying as the case might be, I think that tapering universal credit seems eminently sensible. Another example of using the core principles at the heart of social security in independent Scotland could do something meaningful on that. I simply have no faith in Westminster to do any of that, but those who represent UK-based parties in the Parliament this afternoon have not heard any underlying core principles that guide them this afternoon. I just hear sound bites and hubris. I do not hear any actions that are different from a defunct, discredited UK Tory Government. After all, that is why we need Scottish independence. I am pleased to be taking part in this debate, particularly because it is about the Scottish Government's success in creating a social security system that puts dignity and respect at its heart. I know that that is a phrase that we have heard before. We have heard it a lot in the chamber today, but it is the founding principle of our system, and it is worth repeating. 90 per cent of people who have had dealings with contacting Social Security Scotland said that their experience with staff was good, or very good, and 93 per cent felt that they were treated with kindness. Of course, it is not perfect and there are wrinkles to be ironed out. I do not think that anyone is saying that the system at this particular time is perfect, but I know from constituent feedback that they see it as a breath of fresh air since the shambles and often trauma of dealing with the UK Government's DWP. It is fair to say that my constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden is not the most deprived in Scotland, but there are disadvantaged areas in every constituency. Food banks are a necessary evil for people who are pushed into poverty, not least by this crushing Tory-made cost of living crisis. In a relatively small local authority area of Easton-Bartonshire, 3,780 children are benefiting from the game-changing and unique Scottish child benefit, not available anywhere else in the UK. 1,835 people receive adult disability benefit and 1,235 children receive disability benefit. I could go on with statistics, but it is clear that those benefits are helping the most vulnerable in society, and that is their human right. 90,000 children are being lifted out of poverty with the child benefit. Devolution has shown how Scotland can begin to deliver a fairer social security system, but sadly, as we know, the UK Government still holds most of our welfare powers. Just think what more we could do with the full powers of an independent country, and despite mitigating the worst of the UK Government cuts and horrendous policies to the tune of more than £711 million, such as the two-child cap that we have heard about today, the rape clause, the bedroom tax and more, we have managed to lift 90,000 fewer children out of poverty this year. However, at a time when the Scottish Government uses its limited powers to put money in people's pockets, Westminster takes it away. Small independent European states prove that a strong social security system means a fairer, more equal nation. If they can do it, why not Scotland? There simply is no logical reason. An independent Scottish Government could undo the damage of the union by removing the two-child limit and scrapping the rape clause. We removed the benefit cap and bedroom tax and replaced universal credit with budgeting loans with grants so that families do not have to wait five weeks for the first payments. We would end the current benefit sanctions regime and support people into a sustainable employment and end the unfair young parent penalty. We could provide more support for those starting work such as up-front childcare costs and travel and improve support for unpaid carers. We would halt changes to the delivery of existing health and reserved disability benefits. The list of progressive interventions makes clear that Scotland can do better with independence without having to mitigate the disastrous UK Government policies. With the full powers of an independent state, the Scottish Government would have greater freedom to eliminate poverty in our communities. With independence people in Scotland can be guaranteed the right to a decent income, set at a level to ensure that everyone can have a dignified quality of life. That could be achieved through paid work, affordable services and when needed, targeted social security support. The minimum income guarantee, well articulated by my colleague John Mason, would lay the foundations for future progressive Governments of Scotland to consider developing a universal basic income. We are a small nation and we can be progressive to bring about change and create wellbeing for the people who live here. As already mentioned, unclaimed benefits such as pension credit are a problem that should and could be resolved. I agree that we should be more proactive, proactive to encourage people to claim what they are entitled to. It is clear that the UK Government does not see the value of social security and neither does Jeremy Balfour, it seems, from his opening contribution. The Conservatives are blind to the misery that their policies and cuts have created throughout Scotland. Many folk who are struggling to get by see an independent Scotland as a light at the end of the tunnel. That is why we choose to follow that light and we will not be held back by the Tories or Labour who would keep us tied to Westminster. We deserve better. The people of Scotland know that a decent standard of living, a warm home, being able to put food on the table is their human right and, with independence, we can give them that basic human right. It has been challenging at times but I have been listening closely to this debate this afternoon and I have found it, frankly, somewhat repetitive. I have a strong feeling of deja vu that is little wonder, Presiding Officer. Here we are yet again. I must apologise to all members if I sound something like a broken record, but I feel like a broken record, Presiding Officer. With the greatest respect to Mr Hepburn, I have a strong sense that when he gets to his feet he may sound and feel like a broken record too. You might even say that we are two sides of a broken record and I will leave it to others to decide who is the A side and who is the B side. I would like to make some progress if that is okay. Here we are debating the latest in the SNP's white papers. The last one of those papers, of course, was published on February 2, literally on Groundhog Day and how appropriate that was. Presiding Officer, almost £2 million of public money has been spent on the production of those white elephant papers. Those papers are a waste of money and these debates are a waste of time. The Government fights on this territory not only, Presiding Officer, in a bid to keep discontent from its flagging base at bay. It also fights on this territory because it is increasingly clear that it has nothing left to offer contemporary Scotland. Nothing to offer the families in work poverty and fuel poverty forced to make the devastating choices between heating and eating at an on-going cost of living crisis. Nothing to offer adults with learning disabilities in Renfrewshire who are in receipt of social security benefits but who face the closure or merger of their day centre facilities due to this Government's cuts to our local councils. Adults with disabilities who are also waiting on average 104 days over three months to get their adult disability payments. Those are just three of the many, many topics that we could and should be discussing. Paul Cain and Katie Clark spoke for Labour this afternoon, and we all represent the west of Scotland region. I want to talk about jobs. Jobs are a word I didn't hear from the cabinet secretary earlier. In Inverclyde, where many people are already having to resort to social security because of job losses at Amazon, Berry, PPI and Wilco, almost 450 jobs look set to leave the area as a consequence of BT Group's wrong-headed decision to relocate to Glasgow. Many workers will simply not be able to move with them and face unemployment. People from an area with above-average levels of unemployment want and deserve leadership from their Government. As the council leader has said, Stephen McCabe, we need ministers to persuade the company to reconsider its decision, not this dereliction of duty. Here we are again, and yet we still lack answers on the real matters of substance even around this issue. I will take an intervention. I thank you, Berry, for giving way. The Scottish Government paper, which I am sure that he has read, has 10 key actions, including on the benefits cap and on the rape clause and two child limit, that the SNP would take speedily within an independent Scotland. I know that the member does not want an independent Scotland. Would the Labour Party with those actions speedily if they came to power at Westminster? If not, they will be judged by that. As Paul Cain said earlier, the last Labour Government lifted £1 million children out of poverty, £1 million pensions out of poverty, and we want to make sure that we have an economic growth plan, a social security system and make work pay to help people out of poverty and into positive employment. We heard a lot of proposals coming from the SNP and Mr Doris, but what we did not hear was any plan to pay for any of it. As others have pointed out in the past, those papers set out plans on a whole range of subjects, from the finer points of marine regulation to the colour of independent Scottish passports to the latest intriguing one on how Scotland could compete in the Eurovision Song Contest. The latest paper will be debating about social security in an independent Scotland. Surely then, as Paul Cain challenged the Minister for Independence or the Cabinet Secretary, he can tell us what currency will those Scottish social security payments be paid in. As Mr Rennie said, sorry if, like the whole country, we did miss it, but it is not clear to many of us. I would happily give way. I am happy to confirm very simply, as is laid out in the third paper, that in the immediate period after independence they will be paid in pounds sterling. We have laid that out. That should be understood. It is a very simple straightforward proposition. I am happy to get on the record and I am happy to hear him engage with some of the subject matter instead of sounding like a broken record. Neil Bibby? It takes one to no one, Mr Hepburn. Mr Hepburn is obviously emitting to mention what we discussed in the last debate on European Union membership, about the Government's plans to join the European Union and having to join the Euro. The Government has failed to give us details of a credible plan for the currency because it does not have one. The Government motion today states that only independence provides the full range of powers that would enable Scotland to provide the social security that the people of Scotland will deserve. That is a red herring. What people need is a Government that will make work pay and lift people out of poverty. As Paula Cain and Katie Clark have said, there are measures that we welcome around the Scottish child payment. Positive measures have been made by the last Labour Government, and we will do so again to lift more people out of poverty. However, if we carry on—I will take an intervention. I thank Mr Bibby for finally taking an intervention from a female MSP. I asked his colleague Paula Cain about what a future Labour Government would do for waspy women, given how vocal they have been, including his colleague, who is sitting behind him, in support of that campaign. Perhaps he would be able to tell us how a future Labour Government would compensate those women for the travesty of taking their pension off them and for many not being informed. Neil Bibby? I agree that the waspy women have faced a great injustice, and I hope that we will consider how best to support them going forward. We know that there is a challenging financial situation at the moment. The Scottish Government and the UK Government all have to deal with it. However, as part of our view on universal credit and other things, I hope that we will properly support our pensioners, particularly women pensioners. If we carry on under the same path that the Tories and the SNP are on on the social security budget, it is clear that it will need to increase. As Willie Rennie said, appalling economic mismanagement by both our Government and Scotland's economy is not growing or performing as it should, and we need economic growth to share prosperity. We need economic growth to ensure that we are properly supporting people without that. We are not going to be able to do it. The answer therefore is not independent. It is not being plunged into years of economic insecurity as we compound the errors of Brexit by tearing ourselves out of union exponentially more vital to the Scottish economy and making Brexit look like a cakewalk. Jeremy Balfour and Paul Keane challenged the Scottish Government to tell us how they would balance the books. What would they cut to fund all the generous gestures that they promise on a whole range of issues? However, again, there are no clear answers. It appeared from the cabinet secretary's answer earlier—we will just do it because we balance the books at the moment. Can we infer into that that the Scottish Government is going to increase taxes to fund all those promises when people on £28,500 are already paying more tax than the rest of the UK? The latest paper is about social security and people want security. People value security, economic security, political security, security for themselves and their families, security regarding their pensions. The last thing that serves that feeling of security, after so many tumultuous years, would be to rip Scotland away from our only land neighbour and, by far, our biggest economic partner. The people of Scotland deserve a government focus not on their own pet projects and constitutional sessions but on the people's needs and the people's priorities. I now call on Stephen Kerr to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I feel the nature of this debate in the substance of the thing we are debating merits that I practice some energy conservation. I will make a very short set of remarks. I have often wondered, by the way, what it is like to be in attendance at an SNP conference. I know what it is like. It is dead, boring, sleep-inducing, and it is a competition to see how often you can repeat the words of independent Scotland. It is not very inspiring. I was very grateful to Neil Bibby for reminding me that the cost of the minister's papers is over £2 million. That is extraordinary. What an extraordinary waste of taxpayer money. The SNP wants to indulge in their fantasies by producing these white papers. They should be doing it at the expense of the SNP, not at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer, and it is about time that the SNP were stopped in the tracks from using government as a means of furthering their cause, which, frankly, is very much in the area of reserved powers. The minister can stand and holler and jibe all he likes. It is pretty childish behaviour. Pretty childish behaviour from someone who purports to be a minister. Even if it is one of 30, none of whom seems to have any meaningful responsibilities to attend to this afternoon judging it. The members who are here as well, my goodness me, this entire debate to borrow a phrase from Neil Bibby, represents a gross dereliction of duty by the governing party of Scotland. Instead of debating Scotland's welfare system as it is today or issues of how to genuinely abolish poverty, which I am in favour of, we are instead relegated to listening to a bunch of half-baked bletherings by people who seem to spend most of their time fantasising about independence. It is a sad spectacle, especially watching Kevin Stewart. It is a very sad spectacle because they all know in their heart of hearts it isn't happening and will never happen. The people of Scotland have given their judgement. Ten years ago this year we had a full-on debate and the people voted decisively to remain part of the United Kingdom and we respect the result of that referendum as we do all of the referendums that have been held in this country. The truth of the matter is that the way out of poverty—this is my view—is through productive employment. That is not only my view. Anytime the Scottish Government produces any documentation about poverty, there is at least one line or paragraph in that document that relates to the fundamental truth that the way that we will get rid of poverty in this country is through good work. However, the SNP and the Scottish Greens represent a threat to the prosperity that we need in Scotland, to Scotland's businesses. It is not me who is saying that. That is what Scotland's businesses are saying very loudly and clearly. Here is a fundamental economic fact of life. You cannot tax and spend your way to economic growth and the creation of new jobs. It just does not work. The SNP refused to acknowledge the basic economics lessons when it comes to economic growth. I am going to give way to John Mason. I thank him for giving way, but he talks about economic lessons. Would this be the UK Government that has low tax and has led us into recession? No growth. Where is the lesson in that? Stephen Kerr? The whole lesson, I am afraid, is exactly the lesson that I am giving John Mason, that there is an economic fact of life that you cannot tax your way to economic growth. You cannot borrow and spend your way to economic growth. There are some hard facts of economic life that all Governments eventually have to face up to, regardless of their party colour. However, by helping people to get the skills, healthcare and transport that they need to be able to access employment, we help them to get out of poverty. That is why I was very pleased to hear Willie Rennie say what he said, because I concur with his fundamental observation that boasting about the size of a welfare budget is really not much of a boaster tall. Where the boasting comes in is when we are seeing that budget come down because more and more people do not need to use the safety net that we all believe in in this Parliament, on every side of this Parliament. It has always been my view that there should be a robust and sensible safety net that helps and supports people who need that support to get into work. Indeed, to support that small number of people for whom we have a special responsibility, those who will never be able to access employment. The proposed budget for next year's social security bill is £6.3 billion, which is £3.8 billion more than 2017-18. I repeat, that welfare budget does not tackle poverty. It leaves people sitting in a trap, a trap that they can only get out of by accessing healthcare and skills training to get into productive and good jobs that are created by Scotland's businesses. Isn't it ironic, then, that skills, training, further education and higher education, the very things that become the golden ticket to get out of a poverty trap, are the various things that the SNP chooses as a political priority to cut? So where is their genuine and sincere interest in the subtle afternoon listening to Jamie Hepburn accuses us all of not caring, not caring? That's all I've heard him say. We care enough to deliver sustainable and workable solutions to the issues that are connected with poverty and that weave people to need of social security. I'm going to conclude by saying very firmly that this whole debate has been bogus today. It's been bogus on the basis that this has been about as relatable to football as fantasy football is to football. This has been a fantasy political debate about something that doesn't exist and will never exist and the ministers in the front bench, they know that, but they're wasting the public's time, they're wasting the time of this Parliament, they're wasting the taxpayers' money by indulging these fantasies at their expense. Now, all they care about, Presiding Officer, Deputy Presiding Officer, is independence. They may fein a passing interest in the alleviation of poverty, but for them, in the speeches we have heard today show it, undeniably, independence is more important to them than anything else. It trumps any other concern, and it's not about delivering real opportunities for the people of Scotland because that is the furthest thing from their concern. That's the furthest thing from any kind of priority they would have because the only thing that unites them that keeps them together is the desire to break up the United Kingdom and impoverish Scotland outside of the United Kingdom. We will focus instead on delivering real opportunities for the people of Scotland. Let's not waste any more of our precious time on this pointless debate. Thank you, Mr Kerbyn. Before I called the minister to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government, I would just say to all members and remind all members that all comments made in the chamber, including comments made from a sedentary position, which, of course, are not to be encouraged in the first place, but where those comments are made, they must conform with the requirements to treat each other with courtesy and respect. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking most members who have contributed the way for their participation. I believe genuinely that this is an important debate, an important subject matter, and I'll return to that in a few moments' time. First of all, I wanted to make mention of someone who is not here, because ordinarily he would have been contributing to these debates. Although I didn't always agree with Donald Cameron, he certainly would make a better contribution than that we just heard from Mr Kerbyn. One of my last exchanges with Mr Cameron was to point out that the Scottish Government has no plans for an unelected chamber in independent Scotland. In a series, he's seen the writing on the wall and had to seek to be a member of an unelected chamber elsewhere, and I wish him well for his retirement at the Scotland office. I want to start with Mr Kerr, unless I run out of time, because in some ways his contribution should not merit response, but there are a few things that I have to respond to. I wanted, of course, to intervene on the self-proclaimed great debater, if he had felt inclined to take intervention. Of course, he wasn't. The papers that we have published thus far have not cost £2 million, but have cost £150,000 to publish them, 0.0025 per cent of the Scottish Government budget. Of course I will. The independent white papers are produced by the constitution unit, and the salary bill of the constitution unit is nearly £2 million. You are therefore spending nearly £2 million on the production of the white papers—£2 million—that could be much better spent on other matters. Of course, that unit does much more than just publish the papers, but if you want it on the record, that represents 0.0035 per cent of— Point of order, Stephen Kerr. I feel it is very important because I may not be able to intervene on the minister when he gets into full flow. It is important for the clarity of the record, and I hope that you will guide me in whether that is possible. I have never ever self-proclaimed myself to be anything other than a member of the Scottish Conservative Unionist Party and a member of the Scottish Parliament. I am afraid that I feel that I need to correct the record. I am not self-proclaimed to anything other than those two things. Thank you, and I know Mr Kerr that you will be well aware that that was not, in fact, a point of order, and we will continue to the debate, minister. Let me just say that it is heavily implied by his usual demeanor, Presiding Officer. He talks about us having no concern about getting rid of poverty. I can say that a good way to start getting rid of poverty in this country is to get rid of his rotten party out of government and through independence, ensuring that we would never have any unelected Tory Government ever again imposed in Scotland. I want to turn to the Tory amendment. Jeremy Balfour said that this is not a serious subject. I say to him that he did not make a serious contribution on what is a serious subject. How we support the most vulnerable in our society is surely a serious subject matter. I thought that Bob Doris was quite correct to say that some people have not risen to the occasion today. The amendment says that we should focus on the priorities of the people of Scotland. Let us talk about what we are doing in relation to the priorities of the people of Scotland as relates to the subject matter today, social security. We have introduced 14 Scottish Government benefits, seven of which are available only in Scotland. In November, we introduced the 14th benefit to carer support payment. We have created a free and independent advocacy service that actively supports disabled people to access and apply for social security benefits on the basis of seeking to maximise their income rather than minimise it, as we know the DWP operates to. In 2020-24-25, we are committing a record £6.3 billion for benefits expenditure, supporting over 1.2 million people. Little wonder, then, that Professor Stephen Sinclair talking about the principles embedded in our Social Security Scotland Act, Professor Stephen Sinclair of Glasgow College of University said that it is founded on an idea of a commitment to human rights. When you think about it, it is extraordinary that the whole British social security system is not meremic near. It was quite right to talk about social security as a human right. If we want any further proof as to the approach that we are taking being a satisfactory one, 89 per cent of respondents to the annual client survey for social security Scotland rated their overall experience as very good or good. Collette Stevenson and Rona Mackay were right to point out the positive feedback that we have seen. There was some talk of processing times and in that regard, yes, of course we want to see processing times improve, but in the last quarter we processed the highest number of child disability payments since the application, since the benefit was launched, and 80 per cent increased in the time, the same period in the previous year. Latest published figures showed average processing times for adult disability payment reduced by seven working days. That is us responding to the priorities of people of Scotland here and now in relation to social security. However, the debate is determined by the people of Scotland themselves to be a priority. Let us look at the last election result when we stood on an explicit basis of taking forward this work. We won that election. That lot over there lost the election. That lot over there lost election. We not only have the right to take forward this work, we have a responsibility to take forward this work. Minister, to take a point of order from Edward Mountain. Presiding Officer, as you said to us earlier, it is about showing respect to people across the chamber. Pointing your finger and saying that lot over there does not actually show the respect that I believe the Scottish Parliament should be showing. Do you, Presiding Officer? Thank you, Mr Mountain, for his point of order. I am sure that all members will agree that it is extremely important that we treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times. We can debate robustly, but we can continue to do so in a respectful manner. I am always happy to debate robustly and respectfully, Presiding Officer. In terms of the issue that was raised by a number in Mr Kerr, in fact, he said that all we care about is independence. That suggests that this is where others do not get it. Independence is not some form of abstraction. Independence is the means by which we can achieve a better society for people here in Scotland. Independence fundamentally is about power and responsibility. Where it lies, who has it, what they are doing with it. The only answer to those questions in this area in regard to social security, where it lies, is at Westminster. Who has that power? Are the Tories not elected by the people of Scotland implementing their policies on us nonetheless? We know that what they are doing is pushing the most vulnerable further into poverty. We could do much more and much better with the power and responsibility that is vested in this Scottish Parliament. Let me turn to the amendment in the name of Mr O'Kane and the Labour Party. The amendment talks about this as a theoretical future. I suppose in so much as that is not the here and now. It is not where we are now. Yes, you could argue that it is a theoretical future, but I thought that Maggie Chapman used a very useful term of phrase. She said that we should lift our sights. Indeed, we should. However, let us also look at where Labour stands on social security. Keir Starmer, who was running for the leader of the Labour Party in 6 February 2020, said that it was time to create a social security system fit for the 21st century, with compassion and justice as its founding principles. He went on to say that we must scrap the two-child limit and benefits cap. What does he say now? On 16 July 2023, he said that we are not changing the Tory policy on the two-child limit and that, in August of last year, they are going to implement the rape clause more fairly. That is an absolutely shocking position for the Labour Party to be taking into this election. Mr O'Kane told us of his personal position on the two-child cap. Ms Clark told us of her personal position on the two-child cap. I have to say to them and to the Scottish Labour Party that there is much respect as I can muster. Their individual position on this matter is utterly devoid of meaning, because they will not be determining that policy should their party from the next UK Government. It is going to be Keir Starmer, rules okay, and we know exactly what he intends to do and not do with powers over social security. I will give way if I have time. The minister, in the course of the debate, when I explained in quite clear terms how a million children were lifted out of poverty by the previous Labour Government dismissed it, as though that was not actually that important, history called it. It did not seem to care about the difference that Labour Governments make. A fundamental reformer universal credit is what a Labour Government will deliver to take that forward and ensure that children are lifted out of poverty, because that is what Labour Governments do when they are in power. I do not dismiss history, but I will tell you what, for the here and now and for going forward and for those children of the future, that history does not do them much good. Actions such as those that this Government has taken, which have lifted 90,000 children out of poverty, will make the difference. Maintaining the two-child limit and maintaining the rape clause is not going to do children in the future any good. There is no chance that I will give way to the man who would not give way to me with respect to Mr Kerr. Our paper, Social Security and Independence Scotland sets out an ambitious vision for the future, where the people of Scotland have access to a fair and adequate social security system, a principle that should surely underpin every social security system. Yet it certainly does not look like that in Britain today. Social security should protect us all through life's ups and downs when we are starting a family, when we are looking for work or beginning our retirement. It should support us when we are caring for family members or friends, if we are unable to work or if we have extra costs because we are ill or disabled. It should reduce the harm caused by poverty and providing income that allows people to live well and thrive, not just survive. As I have referred too much, talk of what has been—we have laid out—has been mentioned as theoretical, hypothetical or indeed fancy. Let us look at reality today. What do we see when we look at the current UK gump's approach to social security? We can see every one of us. It is plain to see that the current UK social security system is broken. It is a system that does not provide enough for people to buy healthy food, to buy worn clothes or to heat their houses. There is no link between the rates in payment and need. We see the latest poverty statistics, child poverty, in Scotland it is too high, which is 24 per cent, but 31 per cent in England is 28 per cent. That is what the UK social security system is living our social security proposals for independence would prioritise, making immediate changes to the current system but also, in the longer term, to take a much more human rights-based approach and one that will sustain and fulfil people in a way that the UK social security system does not. We have made immediate changes. We set out the possibility of creating a minimum income guarantee—a guarantee of financial security—the right to a decent income, regardless of life circumstances. That is what we should be aiming for. That is the prize that can be won with independence. That concludes the debate on building a new Scotland, social security and an independent Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motions 1, 2, 2, 3, 0 on substitution on committees and 1, 2, 2, 3, 1 on committee membership. The question on those motions will be put at decision time, and I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Jeremy Balfour is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Paul O'Kane will fall. The first question is that amendment 1, 2, 2, 0, 3, 0, 3, 1 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, which seeks to amend motion 1, 2, 2, 0, 3 in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on building a new Scotland, social security and an independent Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.