 I welcome you all to the second meeting of the Social Security Committee. I can also remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones as they interfere with the sound system. We have no apologies received, we are all here today, which is great. I am going to agenda item 1, which is taking item 4 in private. If I could just explain to perhaps the new members of the committee the reason why we do take certain items in private. This particular item relates to contents of research, possible candidates for research and finances for the research, and it is normal practice to take this particular item in private. I would ask the committee's indulgence item number 4 if we would take it in private. Item 2, the Social Security Work Programme. I would like to welcome Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Equalities, who is here to give evidence for the committee. Accompanied officials are Stephen Kerr, Social Security Director and Dan McVey, Deputy Director of Social Security Policy and Delivery Division in the Scottish Government. I thank the cabinet secretary for the joint correspondence that has been received by the committee and for appearing here today. I know that you have a very busy schedule. For members, I would like to highlight two members of the committee. The cabinet secretary is available today at this committee until 9.45. If we have some quick questions and answers, we will get everyone in to be able to answer either one or two questions. As I know that, Cabinet Secretary, you are leaving this committee to appear before the Equal Opportunities Committee. You have said that you would like to make an opening statement, so I will hand it over to you. Thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues. It will be a brief opening statement to allow as much time as possible for questions as the convener says. I will believe in the committee to go straight to the Equal Opportunities Committee this morning. I am particularly pleased that my portfolio area allows a real opportunity to take a focused approach between social security communities and equalities. I very much see our vision of social security as helping to support strong, sustainable communities and as something that is there for all of us when we need it. Our new powers over social security will have a part to play in helping to create a genuine equality of opportunity for people who need our support most. Before I start, convener, I want to recognise the work of the welfare reform committee, that work that took place in the last parliamentary session. The evidence-gathering sessions of that committee put in place for people directly impacted by welfare reforms was sometimes very harlin, but always very valuable and thought-provoking. I am pleased to see that the name of the committee has been changed to social security, language matters and that is an important sign that we are listening to those who feel stigmatised by some of the worst strivers and shirkers rhetoric. I want to briefly update on progress on timescales. I am quite clear that the most important thing is to take the time to get this right. This will be one of the most complex and difficult policy and delivery operations that the Scottish Government has ever taken forward. The range of benefits to be devolved and the work required to take forward a social security agency is substantial. My absolute priority is ensuring the safe and secure delivery of benefits so that people can continue to go about their daily life. On working with the UK Government, you will now have received the read-out of the recent meeting of the joint ministerial working group on welfare. It was a constructive meeting and progress was made on a number of issues. I am particularly pleased that work can commence to progress a number of powers in the Scotland Act next month. Over the summer, I will be launching a consultation on the work that is needed to take forward the first social security bill. It will be a very wide-ranging consultation, touching on important policy choices, looking for views on how best to deliver our benefits, as well as asking for views on issues ranging from information advice and to residency. I am keen to hear from all those who have an interest in those areas. I am very happy to hear any ideas that members have about how to support that very important consultation. Alongside the consultation, we will also be taking our next steps on the work that is needed to deliver the Scottish Social Security Agency. The next phase in that work will be taking forward some of the practical considerations, including some of the financial, legal and logistical requirements. I know that the committee will be aware that the Scottish Government has already set out a range of measures that we believe will build a fairer social security system. I believe that those measures will have a real impact on improving people's lives and the length and breadth of Scotland, but, for brevity, I will not repeat those commitments that are detailed in our manifesto and offer some opportunity to debate in Parliament already. I want to finish by saying that I believe that social security is an investment to support people. I appreciate that you will rightly question my policy and delivery, but I hope that we can build a consensus, and we have an opportunity to do things differently. I value the role of parliamentarians and, in particular, the work that will be undertaken by the committee as we proceed on the journey together. I look forward to working with the committee very closely in the weeks and months and years ahead. You mentioned timescales, and we know that May 2017 is the Government's proposal for the Scottish Parliament to introduce a bill. The implementation dates will be decided between yourself and the joint ministerial group in welfare. You mentioned launching the consultation during the summer months. Do you have any actual timescales for any delivery or expect a timetable for any delivery dealing with the various elements of the new powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament? That is what we are working towards. The timetable for delivery, convener, rightly points out that the vehicle for deciding timescales and progress and approach is the joint ministerial working group. It is a joint programme of work between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. It is important to stress that the transfer of powers is the first step and will be working hard on a range of workable solutions in this period of transition. We have obviously seen from the note of the joint ministerial working group that Tronsch 1 of the powers will be commenced in the Secretary of State of Scotland. We will do that via an order before the UK Parliament rises. My officials will be working very closely with the DWP and the UK Government in terms of when the Tronsch 2 powers are transferred. I suppose that, in essence, there are three broad planks to this work. There is the commencement of the powers, there is the legislation and indeed we will introduce that bill to Parliament in the first year of this Parliament, so it is a year-one bill. Then we have to have the delivery mechanism and that is in and around the agency. It is very much a process. The consultation will commence around August and will last for three months. It is not a consultation that will go on forever because we have a parliamentary timetable that we are working towards. I thank the cabinet secretary for her opening statement. I would like to expressly associate myself with her remarks about the importance of language and rhetoric. Some of the language that has been used by others that she rightly condemns is not the sort of language that I will be using. I would also like to associate myself with her remarks about the importance of understanding the cabinet secretary's brief as being communities and social security and equality. Those are not three different silos but are very closely related to one another. I wonder if I could ask a couple of detailed questions about the extremely helpful note that the cabinet secretary has provided the committee with about this month's meeting of the joint ministerial working group. The first question that I had convener was about the difference between what is called tranche 1 and tranche 2. In paragraph 9, we are told that tranche 1 comprises 11 sections of the relevant part of the Scotland act and that tranche 2 is the other two sections. Can the cabinet secretary tell us which sections are in tranche 1? The note does not tell us which provisions are in which tranche. tranche 2 is section 22 and section 23. In essence, I think of tranche 2 as the existing and on-going benefits, so that is the responsibility for disability, industrial injuries, carers benefits. Section 23 is benefits for maternity, funeral and heating spaces. That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Second question, if I may, is on the same paper. This is actually just one question, cabinet secretary. Last two paragraphs refer to papers that are going to be prepared for future meetings with the joint ministerial working group, a paper on flexibilities in universal credit and a paper on employability plans. Are those likely to be confidential papers to the joint ministerial working group or are those likely to be papers that we might be able to have sight of in due course? I cannot give a very specific answer to that just now, because the papers have not been prepared. Members will appreciate that we want to share as much information as possible. If we are able to share papers, we of course would want to do that. I am conscious that, in and around a massive organisation like the DWP, there can indeed be sensitivities and commercial sensitivities. The purpose of the joint ministerial working group, while we have very clear commitments about notifying members and committee when it meets and communicating outcomes, is a space for ministers to work together as ministers, and, hopefully, to iron out any issues that we may have. It is important that we have that space, so I would want to share as much as possible. I note in the terms of reference for the joint ministerial working group that there is an agreement to ensure a smooth transition of the new responsibilities to the Scottish Government. If you had any comments on the transfer and any complexities involved in that, for example, the quality of the data that the DWP holds in the relevant areas or anything around the smooth transition and delivery? It is all complex. I am not going to make any bones about that. The transfer of some benefits will be more complex than others. If I have a point, for example, the most complex area will be around DLA and PIP. We will indeed need to share information. We will be very reliant on information, facts and figures, stats and data from the DWP. Indeed, both Governments will be wanting to test that and to test the reliability of that as we proceed. There is a genuine willingness on both sides. The first meeting of the joint ministerial group in terms of this Parliament was very positive. Ministers are very much on the same page. Our officials have been working very well with the DWP so far. That answers the question in the general terms that I was looking for. On the data specifically, is there anything that DWP has commented so far on the quality of the data? Are you confident in what is being provided and will that help in the smooth transition process? I am encouraged by the tone of the discussions that I have had with both DWP staff and ministers, but I have yet to see large chunks of data and that has yet to be tested. I am conscious that the DWP is a very large organisation that is going through a period of substantial change. The new state pension is proceeding with the roll-out of PIP and universal credit. We obviously have analysts in the Scottish Government that it is the area of expertise to test the robustness of data. Is there anything that you would like to add to that? When you mentioned the term data, I think of something very specific about people's personal information, where they live, postcode information and so on. You might be asking a broader question, though, about the material that DWP holds to allow us to do our work, if that is the question that you are asking and keen to hear about. We are quite pleased with the flow of information that we have had to put in place protocols between the DWP and the Scottish Government so that the information can move, so that there are MOUs and we have secure areas in our systems in the Government to hold the information. We have protocols in place for how that information is treated and shared within the Scottish Government. In terms of the work that we are doing, I am quite happy that we are getting the information to be able to start to do the detailed planning that the cabinet secretary has referred to. I thank the cabinet secretary for the paper from my joint ministerial working group, minister. I have a question about timetable and implementation dates. Will tranche 1 and 2, will the commencement for those powers be completed before the Government introduces the bill next May? Will that mean that the commencement for providing benefits? Will there be any disparity in timetables there or are you looking to commence delivery at one fixed date after the introduction of a bill? It is really important to distinguish between commencement and delivery of the powers. The legal commencement of powers is the first stage in a process and is some distance away from actually delivering new benefits or existing benefits. It is fair to say that the Government and the Parliament will hold legislative competence for a while before we have the responsibility for delivering. We need to have the mechanisms and the delivery process and our agency up and running. We will have legal responsibility sometime before we are in a position to deliver. I think that we are already on record, convener, saying that we are not going for a big bang approach here. We are not going to come to a particular point in time, a particular date in history and switch on the lights. Our calculations and work to date would show that that would increase the risk and what we are about is reducing the risk as far as possible. That is why it is important to think of this as overall a period of transition and the benefits and delivery of benefits will come on stream in a phased and planned way. I can appreciate that and I think that that is sensible. Are you able to give an addictive timeline of which benefits you expect to come online first or a programme of delivery? I mean, we certainly have some thinking around that. I mean, I would be hesitant to give you a hierarchy or an order, but I think that it is fair to say that some benefits like perhaps the new jobs grant or funeral payments or talking up carers allowance may be easier to implement than some of the issues around DLA and PIP. We will want to come to a timetable and a plan and an order, but I am hesitant to go through each one, one by one and attach a timeline because we are not at that stage yet, but it is something that we would want to bring to committee so that it can be discussed and indeed tested. However, that is very much a phased approach. We are not going for the big bang reaching a date in history and switching on the lights one. There are a number of members who want to come in. Mr Adams is in the back of Mr Griffin's question and then I think that it is Mr Linters. Okay, thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. One of the things that I was going to ask is that you said that it is not like the big bang, the big switch on, the lights get things sorted. Is it not the case that you are effectively some of the benefits that you are inheriting are coming from what, from the so-called Tory welfare reform, which is a bit of a broken system if I be so blunt? We have to make sure that we get these right, especially with DLA and PIP. We are dealing with a lot of vulnerable adults, vulnerable people who are looking towards us to finally get this on the right track. Is it not the case that it is important that we are not so much talking about timelines but that we are getting the system to work properly for these people? I understand why timelines are important to people. I understand why people will want to very much press the Government on our plans and timelines. We certainly have a clear commitment that the agency has to be introduced and up and running over the lifetime of this Parliament. Of course, we have manifesto commitments, so there is a broad five-year programme of activity that we want to pursue over the next five years, but, of course, the absolute priority is getting this right, because people rely on getting their benefits. We need to ensure that they get the right amount of money on the right time. We cannot compromise on that. Through the Scotland Act, we will get 15 per cent of social security spend in Scotland. We are taking out powers and benefits from a system that has evolved since post-war period. It is fair to say that it has evolved in quite a piecemeal fashion over the last 50, 60 years. We are going to take that out, but we have to ensure, particularly in terms of passported benefits, that what we take out is plumbed in so that 15 per cent that we get is plumbed in and connected to the remaining 85 per cent. That is particularly complex, and we will proceed with caution and care, but all politicians are ambitious and impatient. We want those powers because we want to do things differently, but that has to be temperate with getting it right, because failure is not an option. That is one of the things that with only 15 per cent of the actual powers and having to work with a system that is already there. It is quite challenging, but one of the other aspects that I would ask is that one of the biggest things that I get coming through my door all the time is the MSP, and you will probably be the same Cabinet Secretary as the benefits sanctions. That is one of the things that we cannot touch from correct there, but that is one of the issues that is having a dramatic effect in our communities where people are getting their benefits sanctioned and I have got some tragic stories of a young man that gets sanctioned because he went to Aberdeen for a job interview and didn't turn up, and everybody could tell very similar stories. Is it not just a case of that that makes it even more challenging for you, as the fact that you have 15 per cent of the actual sum total and you are trying to work within that system? We have to make sure that the real issues that we are dealing with on a daily basis are issues such as sanctions, such as that young man that I was talking about that is coming in. What can we do to actually change our benefits in the sanctions side of things? You can create other benefits, but I believe that you are not allowed to do that. No, we do not have any powers over sanctions and that has been repeated on a number of occasions. I suppose what I want to do as I proceed is that this area is riddled with politics. We will have our differences of opinions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, between political parties and parliamentarians, and I would have wanted more social security and welfare powers, but it is also important that I focus on what we have. I try to disentangle the politics, and there will be lots of politics in this as we progress, whether it is debates and discussions in chamber or outwith this place, but I have to focus on the powers that are coming our way and on making those work, and you are correct that we do not have powers over sanctions. Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned strong communities in the opening remarks, and I welcome that approach to those matters. I am sure that you will agree with me that voluntary organisations can play a large part in strong communities. Following on from that, two questions, one a more general question and the second, perhaps more specific. First of all, what are the plans to bring in voluntary organisations into the consultation process with regard to implementing those new reforms as to how voluntary organisations can complement the social security benefits system that the Government provides and work with the system? Absolutely. I do not want to go off too much in a tangent, but in my previous portfolios, I have responsibilities for skills and employability programmes. Of course, the whole issue of employability is taken forward by Jamie Hepburn and Keith Brown, but I just want to reflect that some of the best employability programmes have been those that have been very person-centred and have been run by the voluntary sector. There is a real role for the voluntary sector, and we have to keep them as part of our thinking about the way ahead. The voluntary sector and social enterprise are crucial in our consultation process in relation to the bill itself, but the broader issues around the provision of social security in Scotland and I am confident that they will not be shy in participating in the consultation process, and that has to be welcomed. Following on from that, you talk about the provision and then the implementation. One of the issues that has been raised with me and by constituents in Edinburgh and Lothian is the mechanics of how it all fits together and how it all works. Are you going to look at the reform of DWP structures as these operate in Scotland as part of this process? If I can give an example, what has been raised with me by local volunteer organisations is the following. Some of the people that work with volunteer for or indeed benefit from the services of volunteer organisations are people who claim benefits of one sort or another. Sometimes, those can be complex for a lot of the individuals seeking to claim those, and they receive assistance from people who run voluntary organisations. However, the difficulty that sometimes arises is that, on the DWP side, the lack of a single point of contact, so a person whom the head of a volunteer organisation or the person employed by the volunteer organisation who assists with those applications deals with, they find that they are coming to a DWP office and having to deal with different individuals who may not be up to speed on the particular issues that arise in relation to the applications made. Is that something that will be looked at in terms of the structuring and approach to dealing with claimants or, indeed, where they can be assisted by those in volunteer organisations who understand their needs? Of course, I am not assuming any responsibility for the DWP. The DWP, even when the new powers are operational, will continue to have a big presence in Scotland because it will have responsibility for the other 85 per cent in terms of its reforms and its structures. That is currently, as you would expect, taken forward by Stephen Crabb, the Secretary of State for DWP Work and Pensions. I am meeting him next week. Next week will be the third time that I have spoken to him. I suppose that my discussions with David Mundell, I am sure, will not mind me sharing this. We are conscious that we will have different agencies and different services and that we need them to be working together on the ground. There has been some work done in Scotland in terms of the co-location of Scottish Schools agencies with DWP, but that has been quite small-scale in terms of my engagement. This is an example with local housing associations. They have worked very closely with the local authority in their area and I have had a local authority member of staff working in their offices around things such as discretionary housing, payments and bedroom tax and have found that very useful. We will have to explore opportunities, perhaps for things such as co-location, because we do not want people passed from pillar to post. As we assume responsibility for 15 per cent, we still have to ensure that that is streamlined with other services that we are responsible for and that it fits with services that we are not responsible for. In the point that Mr Lindhurst raises about lack of flexibility, I am conscious that for carers they feel that some of the criteria and regulations around carers allowance makes it very difficult for them to work or indeed to study. We have a working group on disability issues and we are looking at some of that to inform our thinking as we go forward. I am sorry, but we are running out of time. We have another three-speaking world people who want to ask questions. Ruth Maguire I would like to ask a little more about the consultation. I welcome that the third and voluntary sector are going to be involved. I wonder whether we will have an opportunity to go out into our communities and speak directly to people who require benefits and follow on on what the opportunities are for co-production and the actual design of benefits. Before I answer Ms Maguire's question, there is always a willingness on my behalf to engage with members outwith committee through correspondence or meetings. We will have an open door as much as possible. I do not want Mr Lindhurst to feel that he has been thwarted. The point that Ms Maguire makes is crucially important. Our consultation document with the best will in the world is not going to be a light brief document. We will work very hard and we are in the throes of that just now to ensure that it is accessible as possible. We will definitely, and we are planning this already, have a series of engagement events. I very much encourage members to think about how they engage with their own communities and local organisations. You are right that a lot of the consultation will have to be done face-to-face and to speak to people who have lived experience of the benefits system. I am conscious that there will be people who have literacy difficulties, there will be people who are not necessarily going to sit down and respond to the many questions in a consultation document, hence the importance of charities in the third sector, who will have that insight into community life and that lived experience of individuals. However, as ministers, myself and Ms Freeman, we are absolutely determined to have as much face-to-face contact with people who experience the system. Do you want to come back in again? Is that the point about co-production? No, absolutely. There are many partners in this, so in terms of people with that lived experience, we have already said that we will want to have user panels. I am not sure that is the right name, I am not quite comfortable with that, but we will just call it a working title. We will be wanting to have that on-going engagement, where people who have used services are constantly feeding in. We have got partners in local governments, we have got the voluntary in the third sector. We have to recognise that the Government cannot do this alone, there is no monopoly on wisdom or insight, so that ethos of partnership and co-production is very much what one will take forward. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am sure that the members here will be happy to feed in as well from the committee, and I am sure that you will be looking forward to that. Alison Johnstone, then it is. Thank you, convener. My apologies for missing the cabinet secretary's initial remarks. I welcome your open door offer and appreciate that. I think that it is fair to say that probably if we were starting with a blank canvas, there are lots of opportunities to do things differently. We are obviously constrained by the limitations of what has been devolved, and we can make big changes to things like assessment procedures that won't necessarily cost us any more money, but I just want to focus on the issue of the people who could be recipients who aren't at the moment because of the complexities of the system. In many cases, it is just another barrier for people who are already experiencing pretty difficult times. I think that that co-location point is well made, because you will be aware, and I am sure that the convener will, too, if the healthier, wealthier children scheme in Glasgow where midwives and health visitors were helping families to fill out forms and, on average, they increased what they received by over £3,000 in a year. I wonder what sort of focus there will be in the consultation and so on to increase the accessibility that you spoke about and to make sure that those who can or do receive what they are entitled to. I think that it is a very good point, convener. We know that, based on the information that we have today, the take-up rate of some benefits is particularly low, and a prime example of that would be funeral payments. I think that the terms and allowances have quite a comparatively low take-up rate as well. We have a clear manifesto commitment over and above our commitments to, for new benefits, an increase in carers allowance. We have a very clear commitment around working to improve take-up rates. A lot of the work on advice and information and income maximisation is very important in that area. That is why we are consulting not just on the nuts and bolts of what legislation will look like. I am very conscious that, in those straight and financial times, we do not want to have a duplication of efforts. We all live with the need for public service reform in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. However, I am conscious that, in terms of the evidence that I have read, we need services at various entry points to be aware of what people are entitled to and to be able to advise people of what they are entitled to. That is counterintuitive to streamlining processes. We can sometimes have a bit of lazy thinking around one-stop shops, important though they are, because we do not want folk past from pillar to post, but we have to think about how the public sector, over the peace, is the opportunities for our health service to be doing more to advise women of their rights when we introduce our best start allowance. People will be familiar with our plans in and around the baby box, so we need to be joining up all the dots. That is fair to say. Thank you. Good morning Cabinet Secretary. I do not think that it is complex. Is it really? I mean, it just sounds hugely complex. I was interested to ask you if, given the complexity, unfortunately there is the potential for a lot to go wrong. You have to think about that. I think that it is George Adam that looks to us. We really cannot have a transitional period where benefit claimants get disadvantaged by the transitional arrangements. I wondered if you thought that there was maybe need to put something in the bill to account for that in some way, to give some powers to the agency, if you like, or the pre-arrangements for the agency to ensure that claimants do not lose out. On the back of that, have you done any forward planning on any gaps and expertise that you might need to run a new agency and could assist with transitional arrangements? I will ask Stephen to come in in a minute. The powers and functions of the agency is going to be a crucial part of the legislation. As a crucial part of our consultation, although not the only part. I mean, we are conscious that this is, for all of us, unchartered territory, and that there will indeed be gaps and expertise and knowledge, and we need to have the humility that when we come across that to own it and rectify it. That is why that working relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is tapping into the talents and expertise of the third sector. Indeed, people who have used the services are important as well. I will ask Stephen to add a bit more detail to that. Making sure that people do not lose out is hardwired into the approach that we take. If you look at the UK Government approach, it has been to change, and it has been around testing, trialling and piloting change before it is introduced. You will all have views on whether it is the right change and whether the change has actually worked. However, that is the approach that we would take as well, as the cabinet secretary says. When the switch is flicked, we have strong certainty that the system is going to work and that it will talk to the UK Government system and that people, when they go to the cash machine and put their card in, get the money out. If I can share a personal story—I mean, I have a personal commitment to this as well. My mother is a DLA recipient, so I need to make sure that she is not affected by the changes that are going on as well. Absolutely. I will get it large. I do not mind it being in the record. She will expect it to be in the record, I dare say. In terms of skills and expertise, that is part of my key responsibility to build the capacity and to build the new organisation in the form of the agency. Being part of the UK Government civil service or the UK civil service is helpful in that regard because we fish in a wide talent pool. I have just recruited a programme director to take forward the work that has a 20-year experience in the UK Government, leading large and complex programmes of change over multibillion pound spending levels. We are looking hard at making sure that the appointments that we put in place give the whole programme the biggest chance of success. We expect to be coming as a team to talk to the committee from time to time about how that works. Practically absolutely on time in 9.45, just a couple of seconds to go. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, and your team also. It is going to be a very interesting committee, as has been said as well. It is very complex, but we look forward to meeting with you again and feeding in to any of the programmes and consultations that are coming about. Thank you very much. I look forward to the next committee meeting and the evidence. Thank you, convener. Just to end on the note of saying that my door is always open formally or informally. We want to have as much engagement with all members of the Scottish Parliament and we want to have an in-depth engagement as we go forward in this joint venture together. Agenda item 3 is witnesses' expenses. Just to note, perhaps once again for any new MSPs or people who are unfamiliar with the situation in witnesses' expenses, the expenses are for travel or accommodation and people coming down to give evidence. The norm in the committees is that when any expenses come forward, the convener would be the person who would either say yes or nay. I would open it up to the committee if they would like to continue on that vein or whether they would prefer the committee to make the decision whether they say the expenses or the convener is the one that goes to… That was the word that I was looking for, delegate. Thank you very much, Alice. Is that agreed, then? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Agenda item 4 is the research proposal, which will be in private. Members of the public, I think, have all left. Sound is off.