 cwm y gallu'n gweithio â gweithio i gael ac mae'n ddim yn fwy gydag gŵr a ddim gydig iawn i'r gydag gŵr ei ffrindio eu phall. Oni'n arweinydd ai gydig iawn i dechrau atiol yn gweld i'r dweud i'r newid 1 1877 yn y gym Eleven Barges i Dweud i Dweud i'r front i'r Scotland. Mae gennych i'r norau i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i pwysig arfer iawn i gydig ei ddweud yn ymwyllgor i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i'r frontiaeth a chymru i gael fel ddydd y broses. I'm delighted to open this Stage 1 debate in the principles of the welfare fund Scotland bill. I would like to extend my gratitude to Michael MacMahon and the members of the Welfare Reform Committee for both their scrutiny of the bill, and their Stage 1 report on it. Thanks are also due to the the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill and their contribution to the lead committee's scrutiny of the bill. The welfare reform committee should also be commended for taking evidence from such a wide range of organisations and individuals. The evidence from users of the fund was especially compelling. I am grateful to those stakeholders for the considered views that they offered the committee and also for the responses to the numerous Scottish Government consultations, which helped to shape both the policy objectives of the Interim Scottish Welfare Fund and the proposals within the bill. The committee's conclusion that the bill provides a suitable framework for establishing the Interim Scottish Welfare Fund on a secure statutory footing is to be welcomed. That conclusion captures well what the Government wants to achieve through this bill. That is to put in place a permanent reliable safety net for people on low incomes, a safety net in which they can have confidence. The committee made a number of suggestions and detailed recommendations and comments and called on the Government to consider and respond to those during the later stages of the bill's parliamentary scrutiny. The Government is reflecting on some of those at present and I will set out our position and all of them in our response to the report prior to stage 2 proceedings. In this afternoon's debate, the focus should be on the principles of the bill and what we want to achieve through it, though I will try and address some of the more significant points that the committee raised. As to the general principles of the bill, it has to be said that this is a slightly unusual bill in that it seeks to put an existing scheme on to our statutory footing. Members will be aware that the Scottish Welfare Fund has been operating on a voluntary interim basis since April 2013 following agreement between Scottish ministers and cosla leaders. It has been clear to me from the evidence that the committee heard and from its report that delivery of the current scheme is generally viewed in a positive fashion, albeit that there is scope to improve practice. In fact, most people have told us and the committee that local authorities are the right people to be delivering the fund and that the experience of applicants is generally more positive than experienced under the previous department for work and pension scheme. Indeed, Scott Robertson from Quarriers observed at the evidence session on the 7th of October that the comparison between the new system and the previous system is like night and day. It is also worth noting that there is no longer an equivalent local welfare scheme in operation across England, so this is a clear example of this Government taking a distinctive approach to protect vulnerable people in Scotland. Feedback on the patchwork of provision in England gives me confidence that the Scottish Government is doing the right thing with this bill. However, that does not mean that we are complacent. We have done a lot of work to ensure that lessons are learnt and good practice is shared since the fund was launched, and this work will continue as we move towards the permanent arrangements. We have been working extensively with local authority practitioners and third sector stakeholders to ensure that learning from the interim scheme is captured and good practice is shared. Only last month, a series of decision making workshops were held with local authority practitioners across the country to help them to hone their decision making skills. Those workshops included case studies from third sector partners such as Who Cares Scotland and Engender. The case studies help to enhance the quality improvement measures that we are undertaking with COSLA to make the Scottish welfare fund as effective as possible. Given the high-level nature of the bill, it has not been particularly affected by this work, but it will be of great value when we develop the associated regulations and detailed guidance that will really set out how welfare funds will operate under the permanent arrangements. At this point, it would be appropriate to reflect on the rationale for this bill. The reasoning behind its introduction was threefold. First, it demonstrates a long-term commitment to the Scottish welfare fund. As I said earlier, the current scheme is administered voluntarily and in agreement between Scottish ministers and COSLA leaders. Second, it provides the option of independent review of cases by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, which would not be possible without the bill. Finally, it allows for the funding for the welfare funds to be ring-fenced if required. The bill is designed to set a high-level framework that reflects the wording of the section 30 order, which gave the powers to the Scottish Parliament to deliver the type of assistance provided by the current Scottish welfare fund. The regulations and associated statutory guidance, which will set out the detail of how the funds should operate. Informed by the evidence of the committee that has heard on the bill, we will be consulting and draft regulations and guidance before the permanent arrangements come into force. We consulted on a draft bill between November last year and February this year, and the most significant change to the draft bill that we consulted on was to propose that the SPSO has powers to carry out independent reviews of local authority decisions. Responses to the consultation were divided on the best option for review, but I am convinced that the SPSO best meets the criteria for secondary reviews that we set out in our consultation. Most important, the independence of the SPSO will ensure that the right decisions are being made for applicants. That will give them and the people who work with them greater confidence in the Scottish welfare funds. The SPSO's national overview will also play an important role in continuing to improve the quality of decision making and in helping to maintain the national character of the scheme. I know that there is significant interest in how the SPSO will discharge its responsibilities in respect of the independent review function that is proposed in the bill. Indeed, that is something that the ombudsman raised in his written evidence to the committee. We have been in discussion with the ombudsman regarding how best to enable him to have the powers that he regards as necessary to discharge the proposed review function as effectively as possible, and we intend to bring forward stage 2 amendments that will give SPSO powers in relation to reviews that match his existing powers for complaints in areas such as evidence-gathering, confidentiality and reporting. I know that stakeholders have very different views on the powers to outsource administration of welfare funds under section 3 of the bill. That was included in the bill because it is a new service and we wanted to provide flexibility for the varying approaches to delivery among local authorities. However, others have expressed concerns that the provision would introduce the possibility of outsourcing to private sector firms and highlighted issues around delivery of welfare-related services by the private sector. I have given a lot of consideration to the unique position of the Scottish welfare fund in providing a safety net to a local authority's most vulnerable people, the value added by the local knowledge and signposting and referral to other services as part of a social work Scottish welfare fund application. I have also considered the different positions that stakeholders hold in this debate, including the position taken in the committee's stage 1 report. While I can see a case for local authorities collaborating to provide services across boundaries, I have concluded that effective provision of the Scottish welfare fund is not consistent with outsourcing of the service. I therefore intend to bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to remove the ability of local authorities to outsource provision of the welfare funds from the bill. I, clearly from the response in the chamber, that that is welcome and I welcome that welcome for it because it is something that was never the intention that this could be outsourced to the private sector. I think that, in listening to the evidence that was put to the committee, while it was never the intention or ever suggested, clearly there was a perception that that could happen and was going to happen. I think that it is right that at this stage to be very clear, that is going to be removed from the bill and will bring forward amendments to that effect at stage 2. As the committee recognised, the bill is about putting the interim Scottish welfare fund on a more secure statutory footing. It will enable us to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the Scottish welfare fund and to provide for independent review of welfare fund applications, and it will give us the flexibility to ring fence the funding provided. I want to work with all members across the chamber and all parties to secure those objectives, because that is about helping the most vulnerable people in our communities, the length and breadth of Scotland. Having the welfare fund, the interim fund that we had on a voluntary basis, we have learned a lot of lessons from that and ways to take things forward. I think that that is what we hope to do with this bill, but it will be the detail of the regulations that will set it out of how we proceed. I want to move the motion that Parliament agrees the general principles of the welfare fund's Scotland bill. Before I invite Michael McMahon to speak on behalf of the welfare reform committee, can I point out to members that there is a bit of time in hand today, so we will be extremely generous with your contribution. Michael McMahon is the convener of the welfare reform committee. Michael McMahon, you have 10 minutes or thereby. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the welfare reform committee following our stage 1 report on the welfare fund's Scotland bill. In opening, I thank the collapse of the committee and colleagues who served on the committee throughout the consideration of the bill at stage 1 for the hard work that they put into listening to those who I also thank for giving evidence to the committee and informing us of the issues and concerns of Civic Scotland and others to issues around the delivery of the new fund. Today, we are here to debate a bill that places that interim Scottish welfare fund on a statutory basis. The interim fund has already been a benefit to many vulnerable people across Scotland, and we know that from the evidence that we took. I would like to reiterate the example given by the minister from the comparison to the DWP fund, which was given by Scott Robertson from Corriers, who observed that the comparison between the new system and the previous system is like night and day. Local authorities have also reported the benefits. Creating a statutory duty will provide greater assurance and the ability to retain staff members, expertise and knowledge. It will also help to secure local authority funding and resources in the future and encourage better engagement with local partners. Section 2 of the draft bill sets out the circumstances in which a local authority can provide assistance. In particular, we heard about the need of families facing extreme financial pressure, not as a result of a sudden crisis but as an on-going part of their everyday life. When the scheme operated as the DWP social fund, it had a category for families under exceptional pressure. That is a group of people, which the current guidance clearly intends to fund the fund to support. However, it is not present on the face of the Scottish bill. That is why we have argued that the Scottish Government should reconsider the eligibility criteria in light of the evidence received to ensure that all those in legitimate need of the fund are able to access it. Section 3 of the bill allows for outsourcing or joint administration to the fund between local authorities. In evidence that we took, there are benefits that may be drawn from joint working, particularly from smaller authorities such as economies of scale, increased purchasing power, sharing best practice and increased consistency. However, the third sector organisations are very firmly against the use of private third-party providers being involved in the delivery of state benefits for profit. As a committee, we have heard horror stories of the Atos administration of the work capability assessments and we are clear that we do not want to repeat of that situation. The committee took some comfort that the Scottish Government did not envisage at that point the fund being outsourced to a private company. However, we did note that contracting out those services would likely be subject to EU regulations on public procurement, which requires public bodies to comply with rules around equal treatment and non-discrimination. In light of that, some members felt that outsourcing should be removed from the bill and that provision should be restricted to joint working with other local authorities. However, the majority of the committee was content to recommend that the Scottish Government consider the issue of outsourcing in light of EU procurement laws and thresholds to ensure that private companies are not allowed to undertake that work. That was probably the most contentious area of the bill and I am delighted from my own perspective that the minister, having heard the evidence, has made the statement that she did in her opening comments around that issue. I am not sure whether Alex Johnson will continue with his position in relation to that, but I am delighted that the minister has moved to the position that she has. Section 4 of the bill concerns the review of decisions and the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman taking on a new role as a second-tier review body. Witnesses' views on this new role were split. Local authorities commented that it would be more consistent with the principles of local self-governance for secondary reviews to remain in local authority control. The third sector was in favour of the use of the SPSO as it was seen as independent, consistent and impartial. We agree that those principles are essential in any review body. As such, we supported the Scottish Government's proposal for the SPSO to conduct secondary reviews and welcomed the SPSO's commitment to carry out a full consultation and to publish guidance. We also support the call for an appropriate provision to that effect to be included in the legislation. Section 5 of the bill sets out the circumstances in which payments or assistance may be repaid or recovered. We understand and support the Scottish Government's clear intention that the fund is a grant-making scheme. However, in the interests of future proofing, the fund, we recommend a clarification to ensure that recovery of awards only applies when dealing with fraud. In terms of funding the increasing level of demand on the fund and the increasing impact of welfare reforms, many of which are still to be seen, were concerns for witnesses. We also heard from third sector organisations as they highlighted concerns about the variation in spend across Scotland. The minister responded to those concerns with an assurance that the Scottish Government would consider a needs-based approach to future budget allocations, and the committee welcomes that proposal. We also recommend an additional category to monitor any unmet need, and the reason why that need has arisen is included in COSLA's benchmarking indicator. A strong message that came from the evidence was that administrators of funding is falling short and that local authorities are supplementing that from their own budgets. We heard from Dundee that they are short 30 or 40 per cent just on the cost of processing applications. COSLA said failure to address those concerns could potentially jeopardise the wider outcomes that the bill is trying to achieve. It is vital that administration of the fund is supported and that growth in demand is recognised. We welcome the assurances that the Scottish Government will reconsider the distribution of administrative funding pending any strong evidence that arises through an upcoming benchmarking exercise due to be completed by COSLA. We encourage COSLA to make its findings publicly available as soon as possible. The issue of funding allocated to the set-up of the SPSO and the role of second-tier reviewer provoked a mixed response. There was a focus in our discussions about the uncertainty around the number of cases that the SPSO will need to deal with. Jim Martin, the Scottish Public Service's ombud, has been said that, for planning purposes, we have had to arrive at a number in order to think through what the implications would be if we reached a certain level of appeals. What the actual numbers will turn out to be is anyone's guess at the moment. That uncertainty will have a significant yet currently unquantifiable impact on the funding, resource and space requirements for the SPSO. We welcome the SPSO's intention to be flexible in order to adapt to changing demands. Once legislation is in place, reviews should be conducted to allow the true nature of demand for second-tier reviews to be established. As the bill only provides a framework, much of the detail about the running of the fund will appear in regulations and guidance. As such, we recommend that the regulation should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Witnesses also put forward a wide range of evidence on the operation of the fund today. I will highlight one or two of those points. Strong arguments were made about whether it was better for an applicant to receive an award in the form of cash or whether it was better to receive vouchers or goods. The provision of goods allows councils to know that the award is being used as intended and opportunities can be provided for local businesses in procurement and distribution. However, being allowed a choice is essential to maintain a level of dignity, self-determination and reduced stigma. Treating applicants with respect, despite their circumstances, is vital. We welcome the Scottish Government's assurance that it will be looking again at the issue of stigmatisation and choice. Providing options and meeting individual needs should be central to the fund's process. We spoke directly to some of those individuals. In Connor, a welfare fund user said, I felt quite a lot of the time as though the person did not recognise me as a person. They just saw me as a voice on the phone looking for money. If they were to meet face-to-face with people, they could see the reality that you are a human being who has nowhere else to turn. Fund users have also had a view on processing times. In the interim Scottish Welfare Fund scheme, local authorities have 48 hours in which to process a crisis grant. However, in the previous DWP fund, that deadline was 24 hours. We view crisis grants as the essential part of the safety net provided to vulnerable people. It is essential that local authorities work as quickly as possible to deliver grants to applicants and keep them informed of the process. The committee notes to ministers that local authorities are working to that same-day deadline and that the 48 hours is the maximum time allowed. In conclusion, overall, we welcome the Welfare Fund Scotland bill and support its general principles. The committee recommends that the bill passes stage 1. Thank you very much. I now call on Jackie Baillie, an extraordinarily generous 10 minutes as we have a bit of time in hand this afternoon. It is not an offer that I am often made by the Presiding Officer, so I shall take him at his word. I start by saying what pleasure it gives me to speak on the debate on the Welfare Fund Scotland bill on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. As members may know, it will be full to Ken Mackintosh to close but to carry forward the portfolio in the future. I thank the minister for housing and for welfare, and I hope that she has enjoyed our tussles in the chamber over the peace. Perhaps not, but I am sure that she will be glad to see the back of me. I thank Michael McMahon, as convener of the Welfare Reform Committee, for his consideration of the bill, together with his colleague MSPs, the clerks of the committee and everybody that gave evidence. I think that they play a vital role in all of this. I thank the staff and local authorities across the country who process and make decisions on the claims. It has been a learning process for them, nor everything that we have all done has ever been right, but I think that we are now starting to get there. In the spirit of goodwill and the newfound consensus, it is Christmas after all, let me indicate that Labour will be supporting the general principles of the bill. I well remember when the Scottish Welfare Fund was first created following the devolution of crisis grants and community care grants from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. I look forward to more of that in the future when the Smith agreement is implemented, but that, of course, is a debate for Thursday afternoon. Suffice to say that the Smith agreement represents the biggest transfer of powers to this Scottish Parliament ever. It is a promise delivered, and I am excited at the potential that this presents—the potential to shape some benefits differently, the potential to top up existing benefits and perhaps the most imaginative of all the potential to create new benefits in devolved areas. That will not be the last piece of legislation that we see on welfare, in fact the contrary. There is much more to come. I thank Jackie Baillie for giving way. I am delighted that you are excited to be some of the new powers over benefits that will be coming to Scotland. Would you agree with me that any benefits paid by Scotland should be no cash clawback, say, from means to testing benefits across the UK such as income support, and that any benefits paid in Scotland or topped up in Scotland should not be taken back from a UK treasury at any point? I do not think that there has even been a debate on that. I think that the power to top up is exactly that. I would not anticipate that there would be clawback. I genuinely think that top up is to increase. Therefore, the member is probably getting excited before something is happening. I recognise that the Scottish welfare fund was established without statutory underpinning. I agree that that was the right approach to test the operation of the fund before legislating, because there has been much to learn. There are concerns in a number of areas, and guidance, as we know, has been changed a number of times to reflect those concerns, including the issue of being able to provide to people who have been sanctioned. The operation of the fund was devolved to local authorities, and it would be fair to say that it has been with a degree of mixed results. Local authorities naturally—there are 32 of them—did things in different ways. In some instances, not always to the benefit of those in need, but I am sure that that was completely unintentional. Decision making was inconsistent, some were tougher than others on awarding grants, others again had trouble spending their budget, some local authorities covering our most disadvantaged areas could have done with more money because the need in their area was greater than they could meet. Whilst we are on the budget, let me just record how disappointed I was that the fund was underspent at the end of the year. Time after time, we came to this chamber asking about the underspends from the very first quarter to the very last quarter, and we were assured that the money would be spent. It is not as if there is not a need out there. We are experiencing our worst cost of living crisis in generations. The level of sanctions is rising at a staggering rate, so to underspend that fund borders for me on the criminal. The total underspend at year end was £4 million. That is 12 per cent of the overall budget, money that could have helped to stave off hardship for families in the last year. No, I have already given way, I need to make some progress, but I am happy to take you later on. There is a question of whether it is also appropriate to provide goods rather than treating people with respect and dignity. I think that we all believe that they deserve and allowing them some choice, but I will come on to that later. Let me in turn, Presiding Officer, deal with a number of issues. Eligibility first was raised by the committee report and in a number of briefings from third sector organisations. I welcome the committee's recommendation to widen eligibility. We need to ensure that no vulnerable person is excluded from seeking support. We need to make information about the fund widely available. The bill's language implies that the majority of the fund's clients are already somehow in the system, but that excludes vulnerable groups of people who may well not be on benefits themselves. Many of the most vulnerable people may not be seen to fit the criteria as currently laid out. I hope that the minister agrees that more work is needed. Let me look at the language in the bill because my fear is that it might be restrictive. Third sector particularly note that the definition of qualifying individuals excludes care leavers, families under exceptional pressure or people with disabilities. Language about exceptional circumstances may also discourage applicants. For example, people whose benefits run out before bills who need to be paid. People who face intermittent costs like replacing a broken cooker or people facing benefit delays or sanctions. Let me be clear that I believe that language should be widened to include families experiencing exceptional pressure, as recommended by the CPAG and the Poverty Alliance. We know that they are facing a cost-of-living crisis, the likes of which we have not seen for generations. We already know that families under exceptional pressure are underrepresented in the Scottish welfare fund awards, 20 per cent of community care grants for 2013-14 versus 53.6 per cent from the UK social fund in 2013. There is clearly more to be done there. Let me turn briefly to the issue of outsourcing. I strongly disagree with the idea that the Scottish welfare fund could be outsourced to the private sector. I think that we have all been very strong in our condemnation of what we have seen at us do even just with assessments, so much so that they themselves have withdrawn from part of the delivery of UK assessments. I genuinely believe that decisions on benefits must be done by Government. I am delighted, absolutely delighted, that the minister has had a change of mind and I take great comfort from her view that she does not want that to be contained in the bill and I look forward on that coming forward at stage 2. I congratulate her on listening to the members of the committee, certainly not her own members who differed on this issue but other members in the committee who argued this particularly strongly. I do think that the bill should allow for joint work with other local authorities and I genuinely do think that outsourcing to the third sector would have produced a conflict of interest. Many of those groups are helping people to apply for grants. It would be difficult for them to advocate for clients and yet be the one to make benefit decisions, so that is all removed and I am grateful for that. Let me turn to the appeals process. It is essential, I think, for the Scottish welfare fund users that the review process is transparent, it is impartial and it is independent, especially since the first-tier reviews are carried out by local authorities having that independent agency carrying out second-tier reviews is crucial. I did raise almost a year ago, probably more, the question of social security commissioners with Nicola Sturgeon when she held the cabinet post. She denied that such an appeal mechanism was necessary, so I am delighted again that the Government is listening and changing its mind on that. Let me ask about the low number of appeals so far, because I think that we need to understand why appeals have been so low. Is it that people are content with the decisions? Are they not being informed that they have the right to appeal or is their crisis so bad that they actually cannot hang around and wait for an outcome? I am asking these questions because there is a significant overturn rate when there is an appeal. In 2013-14, there were 2,700 reviews for both community care grants and crisis grants, and in both cases more than 50 per cent of the decisions were to then change. I welcome that because we learned from it, but we need to understand exactly what is going on so that we truly learn the lessons from that process. We need to ensure that there is a statement in every decision letter informing people of their right to appeal. Local authorities must make applicants aware of their rights, whether they are given an award or not, and that whatever agency carries out the second-tier reviews, those decisions are binding. I am happy if my understanding is correct that the SPSO can overturn decisions rather than simply looking at the decision-making process. That is a change to how they operate, but I think that that is a welcome change indeed. We do need to look at timescales so that we have timely decisions. At the moment, the bill, maybe for understandable reasons, is vague on the review process and maybe that is for secondary guidance, but I think that we must have set out somewhere in statute our expectation in terms of timelines and reporting requirements, because we need a nationwide consistent approach. That matters and it matters to reviews and appeals as well. It is interesting that, in the evidence to the committee, the SPSO was also perceived as being the most fair and impartial body to take that forward in a way that local authorities just did not cut the mustard. Let me quote Bill Scott from Inclusion Scotland. Nobody, not one single disabled person whom we asked, said that the local authority should do it. People said that that would not be perceived as fair. Even if the decision was correct, the local authority would still be reviewing its own decision and that was just felt to be unfair. In closing, let me turn to an issue of stigma, because it was a key issue experienced by people on low incomes is the stigma that comes with living in poverty. The most vulnerable of us should not be made to feel small simply because we are poor. Like you and I expect to be treated with dignity and respect, the most vulnerable among us should also be treated in the same way. I very much welcome the committee's recommendation that trust and respect for applicants be one of the underlying principles of the fund. With those principles of trust and respect, to my mind comes choice. Vulnerable people should be given a choice in the decision making process that concerns their own lives. It should be a choice between receiving goods or receiving a cash payment instead, if an individual's situation calls for it. Simply giving out goods reverses decades of agreed policy and practice in relation to benefits. I am sure that the minister would not want to do that. Having that choice helps to reduce the stigma of poverty and enables people to live a dignified life. Finally, I close again by welcoming the general principles of the bill and look forward to the minister continuing to listen so that improvements are made again at stage 2. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to take the early opportunity in this debate to thank my former colleagues on the welfare reform committee. I left the committee some two weeks ago and have gone on to other activities. However, my three years on that committee have been a very enjoyable time, I must say. I thank my colleagues and members of the clarking team for the way in which they have taken my very different attitudes at some times. Contradictory would be a fair description, but they have taken them in good spirit and realised that I was doing a particular job and that I may not agree with my colleagues on everything. As a result, I think that I was taken as the kind of pantomime villain of the piece on a number of occasions and will attempt to... I was waiting for somebody to look out behind you and I'd ask them what exactly Willie Rennie was doing. However, the process that we have gone through in relation to this piece of legislation has been a very informative one. Not only did we look at this legislation in the normal process, we also had the responsibility of looking at the interim scheme as it was introduced. Along with the Government, we have had the opportunity to look at some of the difficulties that were experienced and work our way through them as the Government had to work through those problems. In fact, the interim arrangements were a steep learning curve for both the Government and the local authorities who had to administer them. The first step into the welfare arena, which has been mentioned by other speakers, is going to be repeated as time goes on and more issues are devolved. However, it was ironic that this particular attempt to implement welfare in one aspect of Scotland's responsibility did leave us in the unusual position of having a Scottish Government who took on that responsibility and perhaps underestimated the responsibility that it had taken on. The result was that, on more than one occasion, we heard of people who felt in the early days of the scheme back in 2013 that they had applied and should have been entitled to receive support and were not. There was a mistaken belief around that the social fund had simply been abolished rather than being devolved. As a result, many people did not realise that the new scheme still existed. We spoke to a number of people during the committee inquiry who had to be informed by some route or other and were surprised to discover that the money was still available. As a result of those early difficulties, there is firm evidence that applicants in key local authority areas may have been turned away from the scheme when they should have received help. Some applicants in the earlier part of that first year may have been refused when, if they had applied in the latter part of that year, they may have been accepted. I have spoken to people who were refused help in those early days and were referred on to food banks. Ironically, the Scottish Government may blame welfare reform for some of the shortcomings in social policy, although they themselves are at least a scheme that they administer and may have been one of the key drivers for that transfer. Consequently, we have learned a lot. The nature of the legislation that is being introduced is one that I am broadly supportive of and the Conservatives will vote in favour of the bill at stage 1 tonight. However, as has been mentioned, there is one area in the report where I felt it necessary to register my objection. That was in relation to the discussion around outsourcing. I understand that there are many people in this Parliament—a majority, I am sure—for whom the private sector is simply not an appropriate route for providing public service. I would dispute that on a fundamental level, but that is not where I wish to go at this particular moment. What concerns me about the failure to allow the private sector to become involved is that we are taking this decision away from local authorities. If we as politicians in this chamber have faith in local authorities, we should have had faith that they would not choose to take this action. One of the things that we are doing today as a result of the change that the Government has introduced—or I have promised to introduce—is that we are undermining the decision-making process of local authorities. Perhaps local authorities would not have used this power, but denying them the option to use that power is an example of centralising power and undermining local authorities. However, on the same issue, from another angle, there is also the concern that, by taking away the opportunity for private sector to wield this power, we may be taking away the opportunity for third sector organisations to enter into partnerships using a private sector model as a vehicle when we could, in fact, have allowed some very people of very high expertise to become involved. The decision has been made by Government that this avenue will be closed off. I believe that that will be shown in future to have been a mistake. The experience of the previous scheme, particularly the involvement of local authorities, teaches us a lesson that local authorities have the potential to be the vehicle for the introduction of a great deal of the new welfare powers that are coming down the road, thanks to the Smith commission. We have seen a steep learning curve, as I said earlier, but we have seen local authorities start in a very difficult set of circumstances and, at the end of that process, reasonably successfully finding their way through it. Taking evidence on the bill, we spoke to a number of people in local authorities who have demonstrated that they now have a great deal of expertise and a great deal to offer in this area. I commend those who came forward and gave evidence and were honest with us, were open with us and sometimes told the committee things that it did not want to hear, but demonstrated the great level of experience that exists now. On key aspects of the bill, there are a number of things that I have to express my support for or concern about. Yes, the second tier reviews being conducted by the SPSO is an excellent idea. I think that it is an appropriate way to go, but as has previously been expressed by other speakers in this debate, the issue of cost and the likelihood numbers that will go through that process remains a variable that we cannot predict at this stage. As a consequence, I have some concerns about how that might turn out. An issue that was raised on some occasions was the issue of administration costs within the schemes. Particularly local authority representatives who objected to the fact that not enough money within the scheme had been allocated to admin costs is a concern. We know that admin costs will be high, but I am worried that they may get out of hand in the scheme, and consequently we have to be sure that we are receiving the necessary levels of efficiency and ensuring that as much money as possible has been passed to those who need it, who qualify for it and who need it to carry on their lives and not simply being worn away in administration. The idea of widening the qualification criteria is one that I understand, but we must look at that in terms of the additional cost and how it will be financed. As we move forward, the Parliament must be accountable for its actions, it must be accountable for how it raises money as well as how it spends it, so it must be taken forward with both those concerns in front of our mind. On the issue of cash and kind, I believe that we took a great deal of evidence during the inquiry that indicated that people are very happy to receive assistance and support in kind. I think that we spoke to witnesses who were very pleased to have had white goods or carpets delivered and fitted when simply being given the money, especially in an area where it was difficult to acquire these things at reasonable cost, would have been the second preference. I will draw to her clothes now. On the issue of face-to-face rather than phone service for the application process, we did hear people say that they liked face-to-face meetings, but the speed of the phone process is also important to many people, and we should not ignore that. Finally, on the issue of the 24 or the 48-hour timescale, I believe that there is some discussion, some confusion perhaps, over what those two timings actually mean, but I believe that I heard people give evidence to the committee that suggested that their applications had perhaps been in the entry for an extra 24 hours simply to reach that 48-hour limit. We need to emphasise that if 48 hours is the limit, then if it can be done in 24, it should be done in 24 and there should be no back-up or stockpiling of applications. I can give my commitment that we will support this bill at stage 1 tonight. We now move to open debate. We have some time left in hand now. I call on Clare Adamson to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I welcome the debate this afternoon on this stage 1 report from the committee and welcome the minister's comments regarding the report and the bill that will put the report mentions that there will be a suitable framework in which the bill can move forward. It will give a secure statutory footing to the welfare fund and it also demonstrates the permanency and the commitment to a safety net and security in Scotland in this area. I recently joined the welfare committee and I find myself relatively new to this report and to the welfare fund's bill. I thank the convener, Michael McMathen, and the previous members of the committee for their diligence during stage 1 deliberations and for producing what is a comprehensive and welcome stage 1 report. I am enthused about taking this bill through the committee's stages in the coming months. I was a bit surprised to hear that one of the members had enjoyed his time in the committee. I have to say from having read the evidence and seen some of the reports, I think that enjoyment would be a difficult way to describe it. I am sure that it has been indeed harrowing and difficult for the members of the committee on occasion and I pay tribute to those who have given evidence and come forward to discuss what is very difficult situations that they find themselves in. I have mixed feelings about the bill. To me, it is regrettable that the Scottish resource that is in effort has started to be spent mitigating, bad and, indeed, in my opinion, appalling and inhumane decisions taken in another place. I regret that Scotland did not take on those powers here in this place, and that the welfare settlement proposed by the Smith commission does not bring significant powers to shape welfare in Scotland. I sit with both the STUC and some of the other third sector organisations have said that that is indeed a missed opportunity. However, the welfare reform committee has done an excellent job, which, as the minister said, the welfare front has already helped over 100,000 households, and the bill will put the fund in a statutory basis to ensure that vital help continues. I was thankful to some of the third sector organisations who have provided briefings this afternoon, and it was very struck in reading the CAB briefing when they describe what destitution means in Scotland. Since the welfare fund is about people in crisis, I would like to put that on record this afternoon. They say that destitution, while on a motive word, is a useful term to use to describe a situation in which a client cannot afford to obtain essentials for life through their own means. That goes beyond poverty. Where a person is unable to cut back any more and needs some sort of external assistance, bureau statistics do not record those situations specifically, although a number of indicators such as issues recording the number of food parcel recommendations show that that is increasing. The assistance advice Scotland is going to extrapolate the figures that they have for this year to show that, while they had one in 50 last year seeking advice, having a recommendation of a food parcel, they expect that, by the end of the year, that will be as much as one in 42 clients seeking advice. That is simply a level of poverty and, as they say, destitution in Scotland that is simply unacceptable. I am really glad that the welfare fund has been established and has been working since 2014, working and helping 32,000 families in Scotland. I am more than happy that the report at stage 1, which seems to be accepted across the chamber, will take that bill forward to ensure that that is indeed a permanent commitment to welfare in Scotland. It is really important to commend the Scottish Government on what it has done so far. The fact that it has topped up the money that was provided by the UK by £9 million is an indicator of how seriously the Scottish Government takes that situation. I note that that has not happened elsewhere where the full amount of the fund has not been given down into welfare funds across other areas in the country. In the stage 1 report, the welfare reform committee recognised the greater stability that a statutory duty for local authorities to maintain a welfare fund brings in securing staff and resources, as well as an improved, more holistic service. I think that that is really important. I think that the quarrier that has been used twice this afternoon about this being day compared to night of the previous operation of the system is indeed very welcome news in Scotland. I am glad that the Scottish Government is providing over £100 million in 2015-16 to mitigate for families in Scotland from the impact of Westminster welfare cuts, although it is regrettable that that mitigation is necessary. It is unacceptable that anyone should be living in poverty in a country as wealthy as Scotland. We are taking action in setting aside £104 million in the next year's budget to tackle poverty and inequalities and help those affected by the welfare changes. That is very welcome indeed. I mentioned the system of advice bureau earlier in my speech. I note that it is taking forward the issue of welfare reform and have announced that it has established a new Scottish leaders in welfare and benefits group. Lord MacFall shares that group and says that the overall aim of the group is to work collaboratively to highlight and respond to the impact of recent changes to the welfare and benefits systems on the people, services and communities of Scotland, especially vulnerable people and groups. I could not agree more. I am very glad that there is a group looking at the issue. I think that the response to the stage 1 report shows that consensus can be achieved across the chamber in such an important issue for Scotland. I take issue with the cab's title in the press release. It says that the new group aims to investigate Scotland's broken welfare system. I would have to say that if it was Scotland's system, I do not think that it would be broken. Indeed, if it was Scotland's system, it would be day to the night of austerity welfare cuts from Westminster. I will rise to speak in support of the first stage of the bill that is coming forward today. It is interesting that the minister said that one of the key objectives is to produce a reliable safety net or put a reliable safety net in place. If we look at the figures for 1314, the Scottish Government's own figures show that 8,200 crisis grants were paid out to some 56,000 households, while 36,000 community care grants were awarded to 33,000 applicants, some receiving both. It is a safety net, and those figures are quite staggering. Starting off and making a contribution to the debate, I would want us to be absolutely clear that, while we need to be tough on poverty and the welfare fund is there to support people who are suffering from poverty, we also need to be tough on the causes of poverty. It is well done more than half a century ago, since beverage came forward and set out the plan to create it, to tackle the five giants, the five evils who want Scotland's ignorance, idleness and disease. Here we are today in 2014, where we have people who are falling below the safety net to the tune of 82,000 crisis grants and 56,000 homes and 36,000 community care grants being awarded. It is tough on poverty, but it is tough on the causes of poverty. It is crucial that the Government ensures that there is an anti-poverty strategy that runs through every part of the work that it does, and that it runs through every part of government, including local government, and that it works with its communities. I note that most of the briefings that we have had in terms of the paper broadly welcomed the bill itself. I congratulate Michael Martin and the committee on the work that they carried out, because I think that that has been a good contribution to taking this bill forward. I welcome also the fact that the minister has announced today that there will not be the outsourcing continuing within this bill. I know that Alex Johnson still stands by the argument that he made previously, but, hopefully, some of his colleagues on the benches here will have changed their mind and will now support that being the position that was put forward by the chairman of the committee. If I could focus on some of the briefings that came forward for the poverty alliance, because, again, I think that they set out some important points that I hope that we can pick up as this bill progresses through the Parliament. In terms of accessibility, there are a number of points that are made there, one about publicising the fund and just how aware people are that the fund is actually there, because there was a 12 per cent underspend in the fund in 2013-14, and yet there are higher levels of deprivation and poverty out there that it would be difficult to explain. There needs to be a greater publicisation of the fund itself. There are increasing numbers of people who are experiencing pressures and families who are having to face the cost of life, the cost of living crisis that is out there, and, again, there is an argument being made that, in terms of looking at the grants, those should be widened to include families experiencing exceptional pressure. There are a lot of families out there at this current time experiencing pressure, and, in terms of the eligibility criteria, I remember in a former job sitting on a social work committee that, every time the budget became more and more under pressure, the eligibility criteria changed in order to manage the budget. We need to look at the eligibility criteria and take on board the views that are coming forward to us. The minister mentioned the fact that the fund had been in place since 2013, and we are now coming with the legislation. However, that has perhaps got an advantage to it, which is that the committee has been able to hear from people and organisations that have been supporting people to access the fund, and, therefore, hopefully, we are learning from that some of the issues. In terms of stigma, the poverty aligns give a quote here for someone who said, I felt small simply because I was poor and did not mean that I should have no choice. I think that that is an important point to pick up. Jackie Baillie made the point that the recommendation coming from the poverty aligns is that awards should be issued in cash unless it is not in the interests of the individual. I hope that the minister will pick up that point. However, my ambition is to drive people out of poverty so that they do not need to have access to such funds. There should be no stigma attached to it, and we need to ensure that people are treated properly and respect when going forward for those types of grants. Likewise, it has been highlighted about the appeals process. Indeed, the number of appeals that do not take place when people are aware of that is the support in place. Again, I would hope that some of the briefings that are coming forward will be picked up in terms of that. I have already welcomed the fact that the minister has said today that they will not outsource, and that is certainly to be welcomed. The only other point that I will very briefly pick up is this question about the variation between local authorities. I think that that needs to be looked at. Even if you look at the care grant and the average—the average, approximately—in Glasgow was £900, whereas the Scottish average was £640. We need to have some kind of clear advice and clear criteria that is in place so that it does not end up being a postcode lottery. I certainly support local authorities administering that, but there needs to be some clear guidelines in place. Again, I hope that the minister will pick up some of the issues that are being raised in this area as the bill progresses through the Parliament. Many thanks. I now call on Kevin Stewart to be followed by Willie Rennie, a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the fact that we are in the first stage of putting the Scottish welfare fund on a statutory footing. I agree with Councillor Norman MacDonald of Kenyon and Yellen Sharr, who says that legislation will give certainty not just to local authorities, but to the clients about what is in place. However, it saddens me that we have to do such a thing here. It saddens me that we are seeing £6 billion worth of cuts to families in Scotland due to the Tory Liberal welfare reforms. Mr Johnson described himself earlier as the pantomime villain of the welfare reform committee, but there is nothing pantomime about the policies that are emanating from his Government and Westminster that are creating real difficulties in our society. I welcome the fact that, in 2015-16, this Government will put £100 million into mitigating welfare reform, but the realities are quite simply that this is a drop in the ocean compared to that £6 billion cut. What are the realities? What is happening out there? What are real people facing? The other week, I was in the Truswell Trust food bank in the Seton area of my constituency. We know from Truswell Trust that, over the past year, use of their food banks in Scotland has risen by 400 per cent. We know that, last year, over 22,000 children had to rely on three-day emergency food parcels from Truswell Trust. I know from the folks that I spoke to that day that not only have they been relying on food banks, but they have also had the need to access the Scottish welfare fund. I spoke to one woman whose benefits have been sanctioned for over two years. She is entirely reliant on friends, on family and things like the Scottish welfare fund and support from the Truswell Trust. I spoke to two young families, both of whom their husbands were in work, who are reliant on food banks and on things like the Scottish welfare fund because they are not paid enough. It is a real shame that this Parliament does not have control over the minimum wage that I would have liked to have seen and helped to eradicate poverty, as Mr Riley and I want to see. That £6 billion of cuts is having a real effect on our society. I welcome our £100 million commitment from the Scottish Government, but what we actually need to do is ensure that that Government and Westminster goes and that whatever replaces it changes tack. I think that the only way that we will see that is with strong SNP representation at Westminster next year. Let's look at some of the issues in the bill. There has been debate today about outsourcing, and all members of the committee without a doubt were against privatisation of the Scottish welfare fund, apart from, of course, the pantomime villain, Mr Johnson. I am glad that the minister has ruled that out completely here today. That is unlike the Welsh Labour Administration, which has given all of their welfare funds over to a private company. Their social fund is being dealt with by a private company, so there is a certain degree of hypocrisy coming from the Labour benches today. Also, of course, we heard from Ms Bailey about the underspend that there was at the beginning of this fund. As Mr Johnson rightly pointed out, when folks heard that the social fund was going, they were often not told about its replacement. Ms Bailey, no, I won't because you didn't take an intervention for me and I'm sorry to be so petty, but this is the way that you operate all of the time, Ms Bailey, in not taking interventions. The reality is quite simply that 120 per cent of the funding provided to the Scottish Government was paid out in that year. I think that that compares very favourably to the fact that the Labour-controlled Welsh Government only managed to pay out 70 per cent of the funding that it received. I think that one of the most important things to ensure that people have a trust in the Scottish welfare fund is to have an appropriate appeals process. I'm glad that the Scottish Public Service is ombudsman. The SPSO will take over the second tier of appeals. I'm sure that the view of Derek Young of Age Scotland who said, our firm view is that if second tier reviews cannot be done at a Scotland wide level, no structural dynamic will ensure consistency. I also believe that that SPSO situation can lead to improvements of the funding. I'm sure that the view of Mark Ballard of Barnardo says that the great virtue of the overall review structure is that it enhances learning and the dissemination of best practice models that can be taken up across the board. I welcome the fact that we are moving to put this fund onto a statutory footing. I welcome the fact that this Government is doing what it can to mitigate welfare reform, but I will continue to oppose the £6 billion-plus cuts that the poorest in our society are having to face because of a harsh Tory-liberal Government at Westminster. I enjoy listening to Alex Riley's contribution because he reminded us that we need to think in the wider context about why many people find themselves in those circumstances and what we can do in a holistic sense to try and tackle the five evils that Beverage highlighted. I'm not sure if he wanted to echo Tony Blair and his famous quote from the past but it was opposite for today because we do need to consider the poverty as well as the causes of poverty. We welcome the fact that the bill entrenchs the fund that already exists and gives it a statutory underpinning so that clients, people, councils and local authorities can have the confidence that this is going to be a permanent feature for the long term. We support the principles of the bill today. I also thank the committee for the work that it has done and the harrowing evidence that it receives from people who have been affected by welfare. That is why I thank the committee for the work that it has done, also taking evidence from local authorities and the front-line organisations in the third sector. That is a precursor of what is more to come. Jackie Baillie wants to take an intervention and I am quite happy to let her in unlike some others because I am a bit a first-suk on those occasions. Jackie Baillie is right that we are creating a new Scottish welfare system with the DLA, the PIP, the attendance allowance, the discretion of housing payments, the universal credit flexibilities, the ability to create new benefits and I can give Bob Dorris the assurance that there is no clawback. The intention was clearly from the Smith commission that there should be no clawback. If there is a benefit, a top-up, a supplement or whatever it is here, there should be no effect down south. In a generous sense, I will give way to Bob Dorris. Bob Dorris? Not usually, Ms Baillie. You wanted to speak to this afternoon. I welcome that you have given that guarantee. Does that guarantee extend to any new benefits? We might want to give vulnerable groups who, for example, may be in receipt of income support, which are means-tested benefits. There will definitely be no clawback in any of that, cast iron guarantee. Willie Rennie? The intention is very clear within the Smith commission that there should be no clawback. I am sure that there will be issues that come up on the edge that we do not expect over time, but the principle, the guarantee is there, the intention and the commitment is given from the UK Government and the UK parties that this is what our intention is. Every effort—I am not going to take another mention, I have another few points, but I am sure that we can discuss that at a future occasion. The intention is quite clear that this should be the case, but this is a precursor of what is more to come. It is a steep learning curve, as Alex Johnson has rightly said. We are grappling with issues that Westminster and the Department of Work and Pensions have been grappling with for some time, including stigma, quite rightly raised by Inclusion Scotland. That kind of balance between suspicion versus threat, trust and respect. I think that that is something that everybody would want, as a system that has that trust and respect. In reality, in practice, it is a lot more difficult to do. The fine words uttered in this chamber need to be reflected in local authorities. It is important that we send that message out, but we also need to work out what are the triggers, the mechanisms and the training that is required to make sure that that is enacted. Another aspect is the gatekeeper aspect. I suppose that it has some connection to what Bob Doris was referring to. Is there some kind of people fear that they should not apply or that local authorities deter people from applying particular funds because perhaps the DWP is seen at fault for the reason why the person is without funds? That is obviously something that we should discourage, but we can understand why a local authority might feel that way that they would not want their funds to be affected because of a mistake by another authority. Again, we need to make sure that the principles are pretty well entrenched so that local authorities understand that they should help if somebody is in need, no matter who is to blame for the problem. Another issue raised by Inclusion Scotland is about the normal residence and how that would affect gypsy travellers. I would like some reassurance from the minister that gypsy travellers' human rights will not be affected by that phrase, and perhaps a review of that phrase might be appropriate over time. We should be striving to at least have a standard and a practice that is as good as, if not better, the Department of Work and Pensions. That is why I urge the Government to look again at the 24 hours versus the 48 hours issue about waiting times for the crisis loans. That is where the crisis grant is important. If you apply for such a fund on a Friday and it is 48 hours and the clock does not start ticking until the weekend is over, somebody could be waiting for some considerable period of time before they can access the funds. I would hope that the minister, although I am sure that local authorities will try to process those applications as quickly as possible, should be set a standard here that means that they act as quickly as possible by the law. The child poverty action group is quite rightly raising the issue about families under exceptional pressure. I urge the minister to look at that and whether it needs to be on the face of the bill so that people can be given confidence. The figures with comparison with Westminster are striking—20 per cent versus 50 per cent and over 50 per cent, in fact. That is quite a stark comparison. I would like to understand the reasons why that is the case, and perhaps putting it on the face of the bill might encourage more families under exceptional pressure to apply for such funds. Finally, on the SPSO appeal process, that makes eminent sense to have a body that is removed from local authority to be able to make the judgment. Not just dealing with the process, but as Jackie Baillie says, dealing with the substance of the application as well. Sometimes the process may be perfect, but the judgment might still be wrong. Therefore, I think that it is appropriate to have that wider powers, which is not the normal way that the SPSO considers those matters. Liberal Democrats support the bill. We think that there are a lot more difficult issues to come. Today's debate is an indication of some of the difficult issues that this Parliament will need to come to terms with and make judgments, difficult judgments, but ones that are necessary if we are going to create that new Scottish welfare system that we can all be proud of. Richard Lyle will be followed by John McAlpine. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also welcome taking part in this debate, as it is a situation that touches all communities in Scotland, not just my constituency of the central region. When the Department of Work and Pensions decided to abolish elements of the discretionary social fund, namely crisis loans for living expenses and community care grants, the Government rightly had to look at how to replace the DWP's one-size-fits-all approach with a service that was fairer to those who used it and contributed to Scottish policy priorities, such as tackling child poverty and reducing homelessness. As those in the chamber know, this new service has been in place in an interim basis since April of this year. The Scottish welfare fund aims to steer people towards a range of social services, as well as helping people in a financial crisis or enabling them to lead a more settled life by providing essential household goods. Scottish welfare fund is a discretionary budget-limited scheme that prioritises applications that are according to need, and the grants provided do not need to be repaid at any time. Local authorities have the discretion to provide support in different ways, not always providing grants and cash payments. That support may take the form of vouchers, a household fuel card or furniture if they think that that is the way to meet the need of the applicant. I personally would support a cash payment, not vouchers, which I would suggest and agree with, as has already been said, would cause embarrassment to the applicant. In essence, the Scottish welfare fund aims to provide a safety net in an emergency where there is an immediate threat to health and safety, to enable people to live independently or continue to live independently preventing the need for institutional care. That is also providing assistance to families facing exceptional pressures. As members will be aware, the interim Scottish welfare fund was designed to take advantage of local delivery while maintaining a national character. Local authorities are able to supplement funding from Scottish ministers, however, are under no obligation to do so. With the intention being for the funds to link to other local services, they are providing an overall better service to vulnerable members of the local community. With that in mind, the most common services that applicants are referred to for are advocacy, welfare rights, housing, money and debt management. The Scottish welfare fund, despite only being in place on an interim basis, has already helped, I am led to believe, over 100,000 households. The bill will put the fund on a statutory basis to ensure that vital help continues for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government has also shown its commitment to the welfare fund by topping it up by a further £9 million, as has already been stated, which will be maintained, I am sure, in 2015-16. I welcome the announcement made by the minister made earlier in the debate, and the Scottish Government's commitment to the Scottish welfare fund as in contrast to what is happening south of the border. In England, the social fund has been abolished, and the funding has been provided to local authorities to provide funding for local welfare assistance schemes. However, the funding for that has not been ring-fenced, and no duty has been placed on the local authorities to provide such schemes. Furthermore, the UK Government plans to withdraw dedicated funding to local authorities for the scheme for April 2015. That will result in many local authorities having to scale back English local authorities having to scale back or to scrap completely their local welfare fund provision. It is my view, and I know that it is shared by many of my colleagues in this chamber today, that this is completely unacceptable. Anyone who should be living in poverty in a country as wealthy as Scotland, in light of that, I was pleased to see that this Government is doing something about it by providing £104 million in next year's budget to tackle poverty inequalities and to help those affected by welfare changes. I was particularly pleased to note that, in 2015-16, the Scottish Government also will provide £35 million to allow the full mitigation of, to my mind, the hated bedroom tax for the 71,000 people affected in Scotland. I am pleased to be able to say that I am a member of a party that stands up for those in welfare, as opposed to the Tories and to the Labour who have signed up a further welfare cut after the general election. Very excited, as has already been said by my colleague Kevin Stewart, the extensive of over £6 billion of cuts. Save a Children has estimated that, over the next four years, the welfare spending cap will push an additional 345,000 children across the United Kingdom into poverty. That is completely unacceptable in this day and age. I am glad that this SNP Government is committed to doing what it can to protect the most vulnerable in Scotland. Can I really tell a story from a number of years ago? As a councillor, I was called out on Christmas day to a house in my ward, which I had went on fire. The lady was left without a home, clothes, etc. Everything was destroyed. Luckily, no one was injured in that fire. The lady, whilst being rehoused, was left to wait for a crisis loan. To wait several weeks and the point was made by Mr Rennie very ably in regards to when they apply and when the loan is paid out can be sometime. I would suggest that the new bill will help people like that lady in the situation that she was in. I hope and I am sure that this Government will take all the powers that it can and all the help that it can give to people who are in that situation because we have to ensure that people who are in crisis are helped by their Government and politicians. We all wish to help people in poverty. As I said before, we have a country that is rich in oil but we have people who are still in poverty. That is not right and we should do something about it. I am pleased to be able to speak today in this stage 1 debate on the welfare fund Scotland bill. I am, of course, a new member of the welfare committee and was not present when they took evidence on the bill, but I endorse the report that they have compiled at stage 1. It is a reflection on the diligence with which the committee goes about its work that the Government has indicated already that it intends to bring forward amendments to make absolutely sure that the fund cannot be outsourced to third-party organisations, particularly the private sector. I know that that was never the minister's intention but it is correct that she has responded to concerns and makes things absolutely watertight in this regard. I may be a new member of the welfare committee but, like every other MSP in this chamber, I am all too familiar with the dire consequences of UK Government welfare reform on some of our most vulnerable citizens. We should all be very proud, Presiding Officer, that this Parliament, working with local Government, has stepped in to provide a local safety welfare net in Scotland. The fund has already helped over 100,000 households, as has been mentioned several times, and putting it on a statutory basis will ensure that this vital help continues. It is true that the discretionary elements of the former social fund were abolished but the funding was devolved. However, it has been, as others have mentioned, topped up by the Scottish Government by £9 million a year, and I welcome the fact that that will be maintained in 2015-16. It is worth noting at this point, Presiding Officer, that the Scottish Government was under no obligation to use the funds to set up a welfare fund for people in crisis, but it reflects well across this Parliament that we work together to meet that need. It beggars belief, Presiding Officer, that in England, unlike Scotland, the funding for local welfare assistance schemes is not ring-fenced and no duty has been placed on local authorities to provide such schemes. A survey of councils in England by the local government association in October found that three quarters of council areas plan to scale back or scrap their local welfare provision next year, while one in 10 or 15 per cent plans to scrap their local schemes entirely, which is a very frightening prospect for the vulnerable people living in those areas. Turning to the committee report, I am aware that others have addressed its recommendations in detail. It welcomes the general principles of the bill and makes some helpful suggestions about the operation of the fund today, which I hope will make it work even better in particular to respond to the needs of vulnerable people in a sensitive and appropriate manner. I was struck by reading the report that signposting of the fund has been a problem in the past, and that came across quite strongly to those members who recently attended a child poverty action group event in the Parliament about welfare reform. Signposting is improving, and that is reflected in the take-up of funds, but more needs to be done. When the committee took evidence from fund users, it stated that no one had heard about the fund through their local authority. Many were signposted by a third sector organisation that they were already working with or by a friend or family member, and some users were unaware that crisis funds had not been abolished altogether but had been reconstituted in the Scottish welfare fund. When asked what was the best way to inform potential applicants to the fund, users said that a key point was when they were starting a new tenancy. They suggested that the housing association or landlord could give them information about the fund at this key point. I therefore agree with paragraph 106 of the committee's report, which recommends that all social housing providers get information on the Scottish welfare fund to be passed to new tenants. The committee acknowledged that private rented tenants are harder to reach, but very sensibly suggests that information could be provided to landlords when registering or through various tenancy deposit schemes. The committee also welcomed the assurances of the minister, as do I, that she will look at ways to improve the flow of information on the fund between local authority departments. As I said earlier, clearly we are making progress on that all the time. The committee also made some other practical suggestions, for example, reviewing the length of the application form for the fund. Research by the Scottish Government itself shows that one in five applicants to the Scottish welfare fund have an identified vulnerability. One in three have children. For those applying for a crisis grant, mental health difficulties feature significantly. Those applying for community care grants tended to be low in parents, again those suffering from mental illness, homeless people and people with a physical disability. In those circumstances, we should do everything in our power to make it easy for those people who are not distressing to have to get the funds that they need when they are at the lowest point in their life. Obviously, long complicated application forms do not help that. I agree with those who have said that they support the bill with a heavy heart. We should not have to pass such legislation. In a fairer society, we would not need to pass such legislation. Others have noted that £100 million will be used to mitigate welfare reform by the Scottish Government, yet it is clear that this is a bottomless pit. My colleague Kevin Stewart MSP pointed out that families in Scotland will be hit by £6 billion of benefit cuts in the five years to 2014. The autumn statement suggests that it is worse to come, but even if you take the £6 billion to 2014 in those five years, that equals £1.2 billion a year. That is the equivalent of the entire budget of NHS Lothian, for example. No amount of mitigation that this Parliament can do can address the devastating cuts that are coming from the UK and hitting the most vulnerable people in society. While I welcome what others have said about some of the new benefits that are being suggested in the Smith commission, you need to have the ability to pay for those benefits. In my view, not enough has been done to give this Parliament all the powers that it needs to address what Alex Rowley identified as the causes of poverty rather than the effects of poverty. I now call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Bob Doris. I also welcome the bill, but I cannot help by wishing that we did not need it. It is absolutely wrong that in a rich society we still have people struggling for the very basics that they need for survival, to keep the roof over their head and to live independently. Food banks are becoming the norm rather than the exception. Despite that, we have an underspent welfare fund last year, and I think that that is a bit of a disgrace for all of us, and we need to do something about it. The Scottish Government commissioned a report into the operation of the welfare fund from Herriot-Watt University. That bill, or secondary legislation, needs to deal with the issues raised. It is startling that most of the applicants only knew of the fund through professionals or by word of mouth, and there appears to be little or no local or national advertising of the fund. That was a point echoed by the committee report. Witnesses acknowledged that work needed to be carried out to raise awareness of the fund and its availability. Witnesses also told the committee that they had been unaware of the fund, despite needing to access money in an emergency. We cannot be sure that everyone who might need access to the fund is in touch with the statutory services and the professionals that know about it. We know anecdotally that many people accessing food banks, for example, are the working poor. They are less likely to be dealing with the statutory services, and they are less likely to be claiming benefits, and they might not know that crisis loans are available. The committee also pointed out that there was a case for those wishing to access the fund. They might not be in the system and, therefore, be unaware that the fund was there in the first place. Although there was agreement that more could be done locally to raise awareness, I would ask and suggest that we maybe have a national advertising campaign to make sure that everyone is aware that the fund is there. There are also concerns about the amount of discretion available for decision makers with regard to loans. There is also evidence that people were being discouraged from even applying, and I think that that is unforgivable, especially given that the fund was underspent last year. I was interested in what the committee said about eligibility to apply for the fund. It suggested that criteria should be widened to disabled people who would not be able to live independently without a grant. To all the young people who had been looked after by the state and in that, I think that they included kinship care, people who had experienced kinship care, but also those delivering kinship care for members of their families and, indeed, friends' children. Of course, to families, many of whom were suffering most of the impact of welfare reform. Surely anyone likely to become homeless or unable to live independently needs to be eligible to apply. It also seems to me that, if we are really serious about tackling child poverty, surely families need to be eligible. There were also concerns in the report about the use of gatekeepers who put people off applying in the first place or turned down applications without adequate consideration, and those cases go unrecorded and have no right of appeal. It is sad that we presided over an underspent budget last year without any real idea of who applied and who was turned down. All applications need to be considered fully. Every application denied needs the reasons for that decision in writing, but also needs to be told of their right to request a review. Given the reluctance due to stigma of many people to apply for those loans, they tend only to come from people who have nowhere else to turn. That should mean that we should have more positive outcomes. The results of decisions that were subject to review tend to bear that out. The committee also looked at how the grant could be paid, be it through the provision of goods, vouchers or cash, and all seemed to have good and bad points. However, like many others in the debate, I believe that cash should be the default position. It is often the case, however, that those source and goods are not always able to access the best deals. That is especially the case in rural areas, where people may not have access to the internet and the like. In those cases, the provision of goods is a very good idea. As long as the recipient is involved in that choice and has a say in what those goods are and indeed what their functions are so that they are suitable with their family, I can also see where vouchers might be useful. There are some very vulnerable people due to addiction and it might be that if they were given cash they could be tempted to use that money for alcohol and drugs, especially when their circumstances are such that they are needing to apply for the fund in the first place. However, I would have to say that the use of vouchers needs to be discussed with the applicant and only used in a way that respects their dignity but also supports them while acknowledging the problems that they face. It is really important that we must help people to succeed rather than setting them up to fail. A number of people in the debate, Alex Rowley, Willie Rennie and others talked about the causes of poverty. It is really important that we are looking at a bill that will tackle some of the extremes that causes poverty. We should also look at the causes of poverty itself. We know that every child growing up in poverty has their life chances damaged and therefore we need to deal with it. There are many things that Parliament can do to deal with poverty. We can tackle the wages, we can tackle unemployment and we can tackle the lack of an affordable childcare. Those are things and very practical steps that we could be taking here and now and not waiting for decisions to be taken elsewhere. I welcome the minister's change of heart regarding contracting out and I hope that she listens to the concerns raised in the debate and maybe includes some of those concerns within amendments for the bill. The bill is welcome, but we need to make sure that it covers everybody that finds themselves in extreme circumstances and who needs help from the fund. I begin by commending the welfare reform committee for its constructive scrutiny of the welfare fund Scotland bill. In particular, the steady leadership of Michael McMahon and his former vice convener, Jamie Hepburn, has now, of course, elevated to ministerial office. I think that was an example of looking across party to provide constructive and challenging scrutiny where needed and it does this Parliament a great credit, I believe. I am pleased that my most direct experience of the interim Scottish welfare fund demonstrated an efficient and effective referral that I have been taking from myself over the telephone after a vulnerable woman walked into my campaign rooms in Mary Hall Road a few months ago. She had been sanctioned by the DWP and was unsure when she would have recourse to public funds. Again, the woman was three months pregnant. Thank goodness that the Scottish welfare fund was there at that time of crisis and it worked well in that situation. Of course, it has to work well in every situation and the report looks at ways of making sure that it happens consistently well and I get that and understand that, but that traumatic experience at least had the Scottish welfare fund there to pick up the pieces to an extent. Let's be clear when the UK Government abolished discretionary social fund in April 2013, it was actually a political choice to reinstate it in Scotland. It didn't have to be done and I am proud of this Parliament, the Scottish Government, that it decided to do so. I was disgusted that the UK Government took a political choice to cut the social fund money available when it passed the responsibility of that area to Scotland. Thankfully, the Scottish Government, with cross-party support, topped up that cash by £9 million so that our most vulnerable wouldn't lose out any more than they already are. There has been a mention of whether there would be a widening of criteria to support those who do not or may not qualify for the fund. I note that the welfare reform committee looked at that issue, raised that issue, but crucially did not overtly support that position. Indeed, it took no set view. I believe that that was a very prudent decision of the welfare reform committee. The Scottish Government is already spending £100 million a year to try and mitigate the devastating effects of the UK welfare reform on Scotland's most vulnerable. That is, of course, cash that could otherwise be spent on a whole series of other priorities across Government, as Scotland feels the full strain of UK austerity, be it local authorities, be it our colleges. The wish list that comes from politicians across chamber for more money to be spent is limitless, but that is £100 million spent on our most vulnerable, which I believe is the right choice, that is spent on that because of UK cuts to Scotland that could, in theory, be spent elsewhere if different political decisions were taken at Westminster. Let me just give two examples of that austerity that is biting. Child and working tax credits. There are 100,000 homes in Scotland that are around £700 a year worse off because of UK reforms in that area. People in in-work poverty on the bread line who often have to have recourse to food banks and the like, or the 100,000 working-age adults who are set to lose at least £1,120, and they are worse off because of changes to disability benefits. In that area, I think that Kevin Stewart gave the figure in relation to the overall welfare reforms, a £6 billion cash cut to Scotland in five years. Let's put the Scottish welfare fund in some kind of context. It's £38 million a year, so we shouldn't pretend when we talk about extending the criteria of the Scottish welfare fund that it's going to tackle that £6 billion, that would be the great lie, the great deception to the poor and vulnerable in Scotland. It's like putting a finger in a dam to stem a tsunami. You just can't do it. I do also have concerns and I raised them earlier in relation to not necessarily the Smith commission itself but in terms of topping up benefits or creating new benefits to complex UK welfare rules and the potential of clawback, but of course to top up or create new benefits as well you actually have to have the money to do it in the first place. Child poverty action group was quoted as saying that families under exceptional pressure could perhaps apply to the Scottish welfare fund. Maybe they could, maybe they could, but would the 100,000 homes that are £700 worse off? Would they be families under exceptional pressure? Would the 100,000 disabled homes for their families who are £1,120 worse off be termed as under exceptional pressure? Let's be very careful, let's be very clear, if we can't identify resources, if we can't identify additional criteria to help the most vulnerable then please across party let's do it but let's not sell the big lie that that £38 million, that finger in the dam of a tsunami that's sweeping across Scotland is going to plug that £6 billion gap, it's simply not. People know what the solution of my party and the Scottish Government is in relation to that and in the context of the Scottish welfare fund in this stage one bill today I do have to say again, Smith doesn't even scratch the surface of defending the most vulnerable people in Scotland and getting them off of benefits and into work or out of in-work poverty into prospering in work but short of the powers that I think are needed we must do all we can across party irrespective of our various views to do all we can to help the most vulnerable and I believe that's what this new Scottish welfare fund put in statute or rather an interim basis will do and I commend it this afternoon to the chamber many thanks and I call on Rob Gibson to be followed by Ann McTaggart well thank you very much presiding officer a lot has been said mostly in support of the Scottish welfare fund being put on to a statutory basis and I very much welcome this stage one report which lays out the details and to the work of the welfare reform committee which has been able to get the kind of evidence which shows just why this is needed I'd like to concentrate first of all just now on some examples from my constituency and from the north of Scotland it's been said that some of the actual payouts in places like Glasgow have been higher than an average in some other parts and yet in the north of Scotland we're talking about having dearer transport with further to go to services like hospitals, dearer parcel delivery, dearer electricity with a two-piece surcharge at the present time on electricity, colder wetter weather, broadband difficulties and often lower wages than in the cities and indeed in my constituency there are eight out of the 17 most deprived areas in Scotland four of these in WIC it means that we face the kinds of problems in spades which many other areas do but because we're a much smaller population less of it is noticed but I've spoken with the citizens advice bureaus in WIC in Gauls Bay and in Allnes in my constituency about these matters and dealt with issues like food banks presiding officer but I think when we see how much the citizens advice Scotland has had to give advice on the Scottish welfare fund some 7400 pieces of advice in the last year 2013-14 we can see that issues related to the social fund community care grants and crisis loans in this final year of operation of those at 8300 is going to mean that in fact we're going to see far far more people lining up for advice but we hope that the way in which this Scottish welfare fund is now structured that it will make it easier for people to access what help we can give however tight that is in terms of their real needs and you know talking about these real needs citizens advice Scotland gave an example about general provisions and I give you this as an example just now in the north of Scotland CAB reports of a client who received a community care grant which was awarded in the form of goods and other members have talked about this question goods or cash or in kind the client felt that they had no say in the decisions regarding their furniture and were ending up with unsuitable items the client had requested a table but this is flat is extremely small we prefer a coffee table to a table in four chairs the CAB called the welfare fund and with some difficulty organized the changes however it will have to be a new order so the table and chairs may be delivered and then uplifted and the coffee table will come later these kinds of communication difficulties for people in dire need about basic furnishings in their house are something which are a function of the way in which this whole system works and I mentioned the question of that dearer transport and another example from the north of Scotland was of a client who called her local authority to apply for a crisis grant for travelling expenses to visit the father of her children who's very seriously ill in hospital in another part of the country she was told she could not receive a grant to pay for travel expenses the CAB adviser then spoke to the welfare fund person who explained that if the client could get the funds to pay for the travelling expenses and this caused her to be in a bad financial position on her return she could apply for a crisis grant the client decided to use the money she was going to spend on paying her bills to cover the travel costs and reapply for a crisis grant at a later stage these kinds of options which are being forced on people who are utterly vulnerable is one of the most detrimental ways for families in our country to be treated and detrimental to their potential to become normal tax paying in work persons in our community and it is example an example at that which is a family in exceptional under exceptional pressure but how far can we go to do Westminster's work because Westminster has decided to retain control of much of the benefits system and indeed to cut these for by 12 billion pounds in the next government's time much much worse than people have experienced in the last four years and so it brings me at this point to suggest that we need to discuss the issue that Jackie Baillie raised about the ability to create new benefits well actually if we had our way we should be thinking about a very different approach which would be about a basic social wage for each individual over the age of 16 based on a progressive tax system everybody could have such a basic social wage and it would allow them to make decisions not about eating or heating because they could afford the basics but to go and look for work or training or whatever knowing that their benefit was secure and if we were in a position to be able to do that then I believe it would be far better than creating new benefits and using only one side of the equation a living wage and the ability to create work are the bits that Smith don't allow us to deal with and that's why the whole argument about this stage one report about support is something which should never have happened had this been a fairer society but since it isn't I would like people to take account of the folk in my constituency four out of the 17 most deprived areas just in a small town like Wick they need every help they can get and I hope that this welfare fund scotland bill will do that for them at least in part thank you and I now call Ann McTaggart to be followed by Nigel Dawn thank you dear Poseidon officer I'm pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the stage one of the welfare fund scotland bill which is hugely important and vital to many of my constituents in Glasgow I am broadly in support of the general principles in the welfare funds bill however there are a number of reservations which I and a number of support organisations are of the opinion will have to be addressed first a principal aim of the interim Scottish welfare fund known as the SWF is to provide a safety net in an emergency when there is an immediate threat to health and safety through the provision of a non-repayable grant which is known as a crisis grant and enable people to live independently or to continue to live independently preventing the need for institutional care through the provision of a non-repayable grant which is known as the community care grant this includes providing assistance to families facing exceptional pressures an example of that could be where there has been a breakdown in the family relationships perhaps involving domestic violence which results in a move however although this is a vital issue there has been no clear explanation or discussion by the government as to why the interim SWF fund was so underspent I reiterate the point others have made earlier but I reckon it merits repeating that in 2013 the SWF was underspent by 12 per cent grants totaling 29 million were handed out by the Scottish welfare fund in 2013-14 amounting to only 88 per cent of the 33 million that was available Scottish government figures show that over 82,000 crisis grants were paid out to 56,000 households while 36,000 community care grants were awarded to 33,000 applicants I am aware of the fact that Harriet Watt University has published a review highlighting a number of concerns regarding the interim scheme and proposed possible recommendations to these concerns although the applicants of the community care grant found out about the SWF from their existing networks in most cases such as their social workers or third sector organisations the awareness of SWF among staff across those organisations was extremely varied the report found that the applicants did not commonly find out about the SWF through local advertisements or online information a number of the third sector respondents felt there was scope to greatly improve marketing to make people less dependent on the third sector or public sector providers for access and awareness of the scheme I strongly believe that as recommended in the report local authorities should proactively signpost and advertise existing training advice support and consider developing some online training resources local authorities should also raise awareness of the SWF through information materials provided to their own departments third sector agencies job centre plus and others another concern raised was that the third sector staff commonly felt that not all SWF staff fully appreciated the nature of the poverty and the vulnerability of applicants and there were and that there was an emphasis on strict adherence to rules and criteria rather than the discretion and the decision making process there were also some worry that some applicants were discouraged from applying this is a vital issue which should be addressed by the Scottish Government and an example of how this could be addressed or how it could be achieved is through anonymised case studies being produced to provide examples of who has accessed the scheme and how it has helped them this would provide third sector staff and applicants with useful insights into how discretion could or should be used I also strongly believe that guidance on awarding discretionary grants is needed to ensure that people are treated equally across Scotland I am aware that guidance is an on-going problem with the SWF which I note has been changed on numerous times and which will again change the passage of the in the passage of the legislation it is therefore vital that the bill has to incorporate permanent guidance arrangements which would benefit from more clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the SWF In conclusion, although I am broadly in agreement with the aims of the welfare funds bill the Scottish Government must clarify why there has been a repeated underspend in order to ensure that the SWF operates properly in the coming years and should also address the concerns I have raised and in order for this bill to fulfil its principal aim which is to provide a safety net for the people on low income during a disaster or emergency through providing crisis grants thank you many thanks and I now call Nigel Dolly thank you Presiding Officer I have to say that I am enormously grateful to Bob Doris who I thought put the whole thing in its context very eloquently because unfortunately Mr Bob Doris made this point as I understood it tens of millions in a fund is not going to deal with any more than scratching the surface of a problem which is measured in billions and I think he's absolutely right to put this in that kind of context and say look we're doing a little bit it's marginal it's important we need to get it right but please let's not pretend that this is any more than that what it is perhaps is the start of things to come because we're talking about crisis grants because crisis is the right word for the folk who need these it's going to get worse public funding is going to drop whether we like it or not and we're going to have to get better at distributing it appropriately and we're going to have to find ways of doing so efficiently and effectively section 4 of the bill refers to the second tier review by the Scottish public services ombudsman and several members have referred to this and I'd like to do so that's slightly greater length first of all can I suggest that when you have a good review mechanism actually of anything but certainly of anything lawful then that actually improves the decisions anybody making an administrative decision is going to be looking over their shoulder and saying who's checking this and if they know the checking system is going to be good then they're much more likely to think carefully and come to the right answer in the first place so actually review mechanisms are extremely important and it's also very important that the review itself works well and I'm sure the SPSO will do that I also know that Jackie Baillie is writing it's no surprise to say that Jackie Baillie is right because of course what's in this bill is different for the SPSO it's not about just reviewing it actually has the opportunity to or he has the opportunity to overturn that and that's what section 4 4 tells us and that's quite in fact it's actually very useful it's what one would have expected it does however beg the question of whether the other SPSO powers actually remain but that is actually probably put in context by just looking at the very words which are there which says at section 4 4 the ombudsman may quash the decision and otherwise direct and direct in another way I do just put it's presiding officer to the government they might consider on reflection whether may quash is actually the right thing to have in here because it does seem to me that if the ombudsman on reviewing it draws the conclusion that a different decision should have been made that probably the ombudsman should quash that decision rather than just may quash that decision and then the options of directing the authority to reconsider or else deciding what the decision should have been are the normal ones you would have expected from a court anyway so I just wonder whether the minister might like to reconsider that in that context I also know that section 61 of the stage 1 report which I have to say I think is a model of of report writing and I thank the clerks for that says that the SBO said in its written submission that it intends to ask the Scottish government to include a provision in the legislation allowing the SPSO to produce rules after appropriate consultation showing how it will consider those reviews now I'm sorry presiding officer but I'm struggling the SPSO knows perfectly well how to do reviews that's actually what it does and any student of administrative law will be able to tell you the following that you need an independent investigator you assemble and review the information from both parties you reach an objective and explicable decision and you communicate that decision and its explanation to the parties and you do all of that as fast as is reasonably practicable now maybe I've missed something but I'm not quite sure why the SPSO needs to consult on a set of rules never mind have them provided form to do what is actually mainline stuff in its job section 5 2 f may not mean very much to the casual observer but it is the very subsection that's talks about the circumstances under which the counts may require to be repaid or recovered several members have talked about the issue of fraud and I think it's a general recognition that where something has been obtained by fraud it should be repayable members have also commented that it would be good if that were clarified that that's the case can I endorse that it does seem to me that if section 2f refers to fraud or is meant to refer to fraud then it'd be very good idea if it actually said so because if that is the reason why you might want to recover then why don't we say so and take the ambiguity off the face of the bill sorry I may be being very simple this afternoon but there is I think some merit in actually saying what do you mean there was also correspondence reaching us about the cost effectiveness of this whole process and looking at the data which has been assembled I'm hope I'm correct in saying that the average crisis grant is of the order of 80 pounds and the average community care grant is of the order of 650 though I note comments from others that this does seem to very quite considerably between local authorities if those sums are anything like right and I'm sure they are then it really would pay local authorities to make sure that they have a pretty slick process for coming to these decisions because quite frankly if it's costing very much to get those kind of sums out it would be better simply to pay the money and and not to have another person checking otherwise there's a real risk we spend our time paying officials rather than paying those who are in crisis and I think I'm echoing other people's comments on that as well the same thing there for a place to the idea of involuntary gatekeeping to which again members have referred advisers in one capacity or another just saying to a possible claimant that it's just not worth it probably isn't terribly helpful it might be very much better if they said well maybe you should just apply because actually if people are in crisis then that's where the money should be going and if we've got a sensible system for paying it out then we should be trying taking the opportunity of doing so I've also taken a look actually look at those statistics and end the documents and they're online and I think the statisticians might say they were very variable they do seem to cover all four corners of the graph I think the technical term is a plum pudding the speed with which things are paid out the amount that's paid out varies quite significantly across councils and the correlation doesn't seem to apply to in the same way to different councils I do think there is some consistency required in there I'm quite sure the government would be aware of that I'm not quite sure how they get it because it's delegated to councils then clearly it is council's responsibility but I think some consistency some understanding of why the inconsistency is there would be helpful to all concerned finally I'd pick up on the issue of the funding of sign posters the various people's CAB perhaps in particular who are often the first port of call apart perhaps from ourselves of those who need help it does cost money to provide that kind of advice it's important that advice is good and those facilities are available again it's all about cost effectiveness like not inviting the government to spend the money more than once but I do suggest that we do need to have a serious look at where the advice is coming from and making sure that's properly and effectively funded because at the end of the day I'm sure every member of this chamber is going to share with me that whilst the sums involved are in the grand context of austerity not huge they are enormously important they are dealing with people and families who are in crisis and that system really needs to be good at the point of delivery. Many thanks we now turn to the closing speeches and I call on Alex Johnson around eight minutes please. Thank you very much Deputy Presiding Officer this has been as we often say in these events an interesting debate it's a debate that has existed in two halves there are those of us who have been talking about the legislation the stage one report that is in front of us and there are those who have been pursuing a rather different agenda but nonetheless these two issues are of significance and importance and I welcome both and we'll take the opportunity to comment on both. The first is to point out something which was pointed out by many many during the debate but ignored by some is that the predecessor scheme to the interim scheme which is administered by the department of work and pensions it was of course not abolished but it was devolved yes it was devolved and the funding came having been top-sliced but the 24 million pounds that initiated the fund were the funds which came from that predecessor scheme the further 9 million which has been added by the Scottish Government is welcome and has made a significant difference to the ability of the scheme to cope with its demand we have heard from a number of speakers concern about the fact that the scheme at the end of 1314 was four million pounds underspent I don't share of course it's a disappointment that that four million pounds was not spent but I don't share the concerns that have been expressed by some when you look at the record of the interim scheme there was a great difficulty in getting the funds in place or two people in the earlier part of 1314 and that was driven by the fact that many didn't know what the scheme was many didn't know what the eventual funding level of the scheme was and consequently some local authorities found it difficult to make awards in that early period it has to be said that in the second half of that year the scheme did perform much more efficiently than it had done previously and I think it is important to recognise that the scheme is now spending at the level it was supposed to spend and that four million pounds unfortunately was not spent but it was underspent at a time when the scheme was building up yes Alex Shiley thank you thank you um Alex Johnson for giving way do you not agree that it is absolutely disgraceful in 2014 that we have over a hundred thousand people in Scotland having to access these kinds of crisis grants that is there and should we not be tackling poverty at resource source rather than creating more poverty Alex Johnson I have tremendous respect for the view that Alec Rowley just expressed but perhaps the common view that we both have is that welfare payments should not be necessary because everybody should have a level of income above that requiring welfare payments is a basic on which we will always agree but as we look at individual schemes we have to recognise that some are there for one purpose some for another and what I would point out is that in relation to the Scottish welfare fund what we're doing is providing two methods of support crisis grants which are designed to provide a safety net when someone experiences a disaster or a health emergency or as we heard from Anne McTarger during her speech a relationship breakdown perhaps due to domestic violence these are things which will happen to individuals unexpectedly and regardless of their level of income so I would suggest that that for example is a measure of support which will remain necessary even if we achieve our objective of significantly cutting the level of welfare due to reduced demand so I think this is a scheme which is important and will continue to be important the other purpose of course community care grants are designed to enable independent living or continued independent living and prevent the need to go into care I think that also is an example of an area of expenditure which is worthy and which will continue to be a responsibility we need to take seriously even if we can increase standards of living and reduce overall demand for welfare so I think those who have criticised this scheme in terms of their broader view on welfare which I share I think are wrong to criticise this particular provision because I think it would be important for us to continue to provide resources for these purposes into the future if we look further at the debate one other thing that Alex Rowley also mentioned was the issue of variation in performance between local authorities and I think there takes us back to another version of a discussion I was having with the chamber earlier in this debate and that is about devolving decision making to a local level one of the purposes behind even the Westminster government's decision to pass this funding on down was to allow local decision making because local decision making can be good you can have good understanding of local needs and you can do it in a way that is appropriate and fits with local needs but of course Alex Rowley also used the phrase postcode lottery you cannot have both things it's going to be one to one person and another to another person we also heard the same issue raised in a slightly different way by Rob Gibson who told us some horror stories that he'd come across in the highlands but my criticism of those who are responsible for administration is that the decision making criteria are to a significant extent in their own hands and if bad decisions are being made in a particular area then perhaps it's time we actually work to ensure that best practice in the best areas of Scotland are understood and can be copied by those who are struggling to get best practice in place and who appear to be making poor decisions also on the some on Rod Gibson's contribution some of the broader criteria that he set out for paying benefits more generally did begin to remind me of the terms that are the basis of the universal credit which will be introduced progressively in years to come and which has been the source of many a complaint in this chamber but I believe could actually deliver a great deal of what Rob Gibson asked for Rob Gibson with all due respect the idea is not to save money in terms of benefits but to give people a basic social wage which is paid out of progressive taxation on those who can afford to pay it and who don't pay enough at the moment Alex Johnston Indeed if we move on to cover some of the brief areas that were discussed there was of course the myth put about that there has been somehow six billion pounds worth of cuts which we heard from Kevin Stewart and others of course it was clarified by others during the debate that that six billion pounds is actually accrued over a total of five years so in annual terms it's rather lower than six billion pounds similarly in order to get that figure you have to count up all the cuts that are being made and not actually count any of the ways that money is being passed back for example we heard at some length how the reduction in child and working tax credits has resulted in a £700 fall and income per household not taken into account of course the fact that raising the tax threshold will mean that these same households by April next year will have an additional £820 per household that wasn't taken into that calculation. Direct constituency experience I've got families who had tax credits who are in employment who are now worse off in employment rather than unemployed because of Tory changes to tax credits don't you think that's appalling? Alex Johnston The balance between the reduction in tax credits and the increase in tax threshold should have delivered for the majority of householders and if there are individuals who have suffered as a result then we need to know about them but that on balance these figures that are quoted regularly are simply inaccurate. To close I think it's important that we realise as we move forward that the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Government are about to come into a great deal more power in order to be able to use their resource to pay benefits to pay welfare but the system that we are about to enter in is one where if you want to pay more you will have to tax more and many of the backbench speeches today have failed to address that prickly subject and that is that if we choose to do something differently then we will have to explain how that will be paid for and yes there's a great deal that we can do differently but there's a great deal that we will have to find ways to pay for so the deputy officer. I conclude by committing once again my support to this bill at five o'clock. Many thanks into now Colin Ken Macintosh. Ten minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer and I begin by thanking the minister for her foresight in instigating a debate on welfare reform within one hour of my promotion to the social justice brief elevating me to closing the debate. I also say to my colleague, immediate predecessor in the role of Jackie Baillie, that she should read absolutely nothing into the fact that on a subject which is normally very fractious and disputatious, the tone of today's debate has in fact been very consensual and there is no link between my appointment and the following comments and the tone. What's the member telling you about the role of Jackie Baillie? Can I just say to the member that I find his previous sentence very disappointing because my experience indicates that that member probably will be very consensual and I just hope that he's actually going to carry on being so because it's much better that way. Ken Macintosh. Thank you Mr Dawn. I was in fact being ironic but it is worth noting on that consensual note that both Labour and in fact every party in this chamber today supports the general principles behind this bill and are going to vote for this legislation. In fact, although there have been relatively heated discussions between SNP and Labour members on such matters in the welfare reform committee, we are in broad alignment in opposing the Tory welfare reforms and in taking action to mitigate their effect in Scotland, this bill being no exception. The bill is in fact a relatively straightforward measure. The UK Government has decided to abolish the old social fund and to devolve the responsibility for emergency welfare payments to Scotland and to local authorities in England, along with most, if not all, of the funding. The Labour Party supports the Scottish Government in passing on the administration of emergency welfare payments to our own local authorities. We support them in replacing the system of loans with one of grants and, crucially, in trying to make at least some of that shortfall in funding. In taking evidence, the committee found a broad consensus for most stakeholders from welfare recipients, local authorities and the voluntary sector to this general approach. It is fair to say that there were a few misgivings that were expressed about the other notable feature of the bill, namely the appointment of the Scottish public services Ombunson as the body responsible for adjudicating on second-tier appeals. However, as several contributors have highlighted, we are also broadly in agreement that, on balance, this is probably the best-placed organisation to take on the task, given the circumstances. That said, there have been a few issues that have emerged from the evidence and where the Scottish Government could undoubtedly make improvements to the bill. The committee convener Michael McMahon, for example, listed a few, including the importance of reviewing eligibility criteria, notwithstanding Bob Doris's comments to defend the issue. The convener also highlighted the need to reconsider the redistribution of funding among local authorities and that the regulations should be subject to affirmative procedure. Jackie Baillie pointed out a very important issue, which is that the current fund has been underspent. Although the current fund has made available funds, if we do not advertise its availability to recipients, that is not helping to address the need that exists in Scotland. However, I want to focus on three issues in particular. The first and the most notable was, of course, the very odd insistence initially from the minister that she should take powers in the bill that would allow her to privatise this service at some future date. Witnesses from the third sector were unanimous in opposing this measure and universally hostile to the prospect of allowing private companies to deliver state benefits for profit. In fact, given the very vocal comments of SNP backbenchers, both before and this afternoon, on the issue when it comes to Westminster, I do not think that I was alone in being a little bit surprised that the SNP committee members voted to keep this proposal in the bill at stage 1 rather than follow the very person, Mr Stewart. Kevin Stewart. Mr Mackintosh is well aware that SNP members looked at outsourcing and the possibility of outsourcing to the third sector, which some of the third sector supported, but SNP members were clear all the way through that they would be against handing any of those contracts to private companies. That will be why Labour suggested removing it from the bill, but the SNP voted instead for this trenchant line. However, in light of the evidence received, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government consider the issue of outsourcing in light of EU procurement laws—a bold statement from Mr Stewart. Oh, he's not jumping to his feet here again. Oh, he is. Mr Stewart. Kevin Stewart. And if he reads to the end of that paragraph to ensure that private companies are not allowed to undertake the work. Ken Mackintosh. Well, hardly. The point is, a caveated statement versus the minister's own actions. The minister has now removed the whole measure from the bill. Can I just suggest that we are— I was just trying to tease Mr Stewart on the forum. Mr Doris, please come down. I was just trying to tease the former members of the committee, including the current member, Mr Stewart, that we were in agreement on this, but Mr Stewart's principles clearly are compromised by the minister's instructions. Who has now changed her mind, and I think that the chamber should all welcome that. Now, the second issue that I wanted to highlight and came up a number of times was that of making cash payments as opposed to providing support in kind. For community grants, that is, for example, helping to furnish a new flat in an emergency, for example. I have no doubt that there were and there are good arguments put forward for providing white goods, furniture packages and so on. The evidence in favour of this approach was much weaker, however, when it came to crisis grants. Many witnesses talked openly about being judged and about being stigmatised by the welfare system, and voluntary sector organisations such as Oxfam and many more said that if we were serious about wanting to maintain dignity and respect for individuals and families in the system, then at least one way to do this would be to look at allowing clients to exercise choice. This was a theme that was expanded upon by Alec Rowley, Jackie Baillie and a number of others, and I noted that Willie Rennie, in a particularly thoughtful contribution, talked about the difficulty of grappling with those issues, and he said that our fine words need to be reflected in our actions if we actually want to end stigma and build a system based on trust and respect. I thought that the argument was most succinctly evolved by the Scottish campaign on welfare reform. In their evidence, they said that there is a risk that by systematically allocating goods rather than cash payments local authorities will remove choice and undermine the dignity of the individual. Hading out vouchers, for instance, cannot only limit the choice available to applicants but can also create stigma, undermine dignity and lead people to feel that they are receiving handouts rather than exercising a legitimate right to assistance during a crisis. I would leave the minister with the thought that the Scottish Government's own statistics show that, in the first year of the interim scheme, more than 80 per cent of the spend was in kind rather than by way of cash, check or bank transfer. The final issue that I want to highlight is the decision by the Scottish Government to set a two-day deadline for turning around crisis payments rather than the 24-hour target that was laid down by the DWP. Again, I do not doubt that the minister has good intentions for the process to be as speedy as possible. However, when I asked her about that in the committee sessions, she said, and I quote, that the DWP's 24-hour deadline for decisions applied only once all the information was there. Sometimes such a decision could take three weeks because the DWP said that it did not have all the information. I am simply saying, to the minister saying this, that that is not happening now. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, I quote, that this is not entirely accurate. I should stress that, when the committee spoke to the Child Poverty Action Group, it was after we had taken evidence and it gave us written information from which I would like to quote. It pointed out that both the current SWF guidance and the draft regulations both state exactly the same position as the DWP, that the deadline only kicks in after all the information has been gathered, so there is no difference there. It went on to point out that any lengthy delays in processing crisis loans under the old DWP system were more likely to have related to the need to make a decision about whether the applicant was likely to be able to repay the loan rather than their eligibility for an award. Clearly, ability to repay is not a concern in relation to the Scottish welfare fund and should not, therefore, slow down the process of decision making. Crucially, the CPAC highlighted the crisis loan statistics produced by the Scottish Government that show that, in the last year of the DWP scheme's operation, a decision was made within two days in 98.6 per cent of cases, but in the quarter to June 2014, the SWF achieved only 94 per cent against the same measure. It included that there is no implicit reason that processing times should be longer in relation to crisis grants than they were for crisis loans. It also made another point—this is a point that Alex Johnson made earlier—that it was concerned that the reference, by including a reference to a 48-hour time limit once all relevant information is received, might lead some decision makers to request evidence when it is not needed. This is not a minor or unimportant matter. Just in the last week alone, the Feeding Britain report into food banks across the UK highlighted the impact of benefit delays and the number of people left with no income at all in forcing those families to turn to food banks. The Scottish Government's own review of the interim scheme by Herriot-Wall University made a number of recommendations on this very point, including the maximum target processing time for crisis grants should be the end of the working day. To conclude, the Parliament will have the opportunity to return to the subject of welfare later this week. I hope that we will have a broader discussion on our whole approach, for example, on the powers of the Smith agreement that is going to be delivered. However, I recognise that there are differences to explore in that debate, but today, at least, we have a relatively uncontentious bill before us, one in which we all agree in the need, in which we all agree in the broad approach and in which I hope that we can focus on a practical and collaborative manner to get this legislation right. To wind up the debate, minister, you have until 4.54 pm. I congratulate Ken Macintosh, who is now going to be shadowing me in this. He started out and also to Jackie Baillie on her new post. I will miss some of the exchanges that we have had here in the chamber. I would say to Ken Macintosh that it is a consensual bill, as you said, but he then went on, Presiding Officer, to be controversial in criticising myself and members of the SNP members of the committee in actions that they have taken, and that is not how I see being consensual. However, I am grateful to members for their contributions to this afternoon's debate, and it is encouraging that the benefits of statutory Scottish welfare funds have been recognised across the chamber. Funds are designed to help the most vulnerable on our society to meet short-term financial needs, but they are also to put them in touch with other services that might help. A number of members have spoken about the destitution of Claire Adamson and Kevin Stewart in their contributions about just what it was meaning to the individual. The bill gives permanence to the funds at a time when other forms of support are being eroded, as many members, Bob Doris and others, talked about in their contribution. I will try to address some of the points that were made. The bill is at a high-level nature, and the bulk of the discussion has been on what will take part in regulations and guidance, but I will try to touch on it today. The bill reproduces the wording of the section 30 order, which provided the Scottish Parliament with powers to legislate for welfare reform, which means that it gives the funds the broadest possible scope to operate within the reservation. The Parliament can legislate about welfare funds only because of the exception to the social security reservation order set out in the section 30 order, so it is not possible to go wider. I will add to that that there have been a lot of contributions about exceptional families under exceptional pressure. I would have to say that families under exceptional pressure are not excluded from making applications to the bill. Under the previous social fund, it was a criteria for families under exceptional pressure. There was the guidance that gave examples of what exceptional pressure is. The regulations that we are publishing alongside the bill, which we will be consulting on if the bill is passed, clearly and explicitly talks about families under exceptional pressure. We are looking at the way that the bill is being recorded in local authorities, because at the moment 44 per cent of the money that is paid out is for community care grants and households with children, but not that number has been recorded is under exceptional pressure. We are working very hard with local authority partners to see that we are getting the definition correct and that we can deal with that. It is not something that is not being addressed and families under exceptional pressure can apply to the Scottish welfare fund. I will say a bit more about the outsourcing. Ken Macintosh, if I am quoting correctly, said that my insistence in putting outsourcing out to the private sector. I think very clearly when I appeared at the committee, the one thing that I made very clear was that there was never an intention, never even a thought from me that this would be outsourced to the private sector. Like my colleague Kevin Stewart, it might be an option for the third sector to administer the fund for local authorities. However, in getting back the information from the welfare reform committee and looking at what that might mean under EU legislation and all the rest of it, it seemed to me that the best way to do was to absolutely remove that. There was never an intention to outsource to the private sector. I just find that something that I would not have ever considered and, like members in the committee, likewise. It is the best way to take it out, but there is still the power there to allow local authorities to work jointly together to administer the funds if they feel that that is best. I think that we have to look at a number of speakers. I think that Joan McAlpine and others talked about access to the fund. We want to make the fund as accessible as possible to everybody. There is no intention that people should be turned away or any gatekeeping and we will make that very clear in the guidance. There will be no gatekeeping. Anybody who makes an application should be recorded as making an application and should be given the right to have that application reviewed if they are turned down. We will make that again clear in the guidance. I would say that there has been criticism on the way that local authorities are administering the fund. Jackie Baillie spoke in her contribution about thanking the local authorities who are delivering the fund and the workers there. At this time, I said it to the committee, that I spent a good part of my time during the recess going round and speaking to the teams in the front line, the local authority teams in the front line. I can tell you that all of them found this job something that they had not envisaged doing before. They had not seen that being so close to the people they represent, the people in their community. They are bursting a gut to get that money out to people and absolutely recognise the difficulties that families are facing in their area and are doing all that they can to get that out. The 48-hour thing—I will come back to what Ken Macintosh said in the 48 hours—is not that you have got 48 hours to deal with this. It is very clear that it is to be dealt with as quickly as possible and certainly within 24 hours where possible. The point that I made, if there was any suggestion that I misled the committee, there was no intention ever to do that. I am well aware that in the Scottish welfare fund it is only when all the information is there that the decisions are made. The point that I was making—I think that there is a night and day approach between how we deal with it now and how the DWP dealt with it in that the welfare fund officers—I will take it in a moment if you let me finish this point—in our local authorities are proactive in getting that information so that it is not sitting behind waiting and being collected. They have been very proactive in getting that information and that was the point that I was making at the committee. I will take the intervention from Alex Johnson. Although I would not suggest for a moment that the minister misled the committee, it has to be said, however, that while we took witnesses from people who were users of the fund, the clear impression was left with us that some of them believed that their applications had been held till the end of the 48 hours rather than dealt with in a much quicker timescale. Minister? Again, this is something that we will be looking at in dealing with in the regulations. Very clearly it is not a matter for the face of the bill but it is something that we should be looking at in regulations and certainly in guidance as well. However, what I do not want to happen is that to put a deadline on that people are working to or they are not getting all the information or gathering the information or in some ways making a quick decision which perhaps is not the right decision because they are pushed for time. However, it is not something that I have said that I will not look at again. What I have said is that it is something to look at in regulations and not in the face of this bill. There were a number of speakers, such as Jackie Baillie, Ken Macintosh and Alex Rowley. Variety of speakers talked about the underspend in the first year of the Scottish welfare fund. I think that what we should be saying here is that in the first year it was a new fund, it was new to local authorities, it was new to the Scottish Government and I make no apology for changing the guidance. I do not think that you should have a guidance that is permanent, never to be changed, never to be altered. I think that you will learn and you will change the guidance when you see what is happening in practice and that is what we are doing. However, in all of that, we still paid out more money. Our local authorities still paid out more money in the first year of the Scottish welfare fund than was paid out in the last year of the social fund for grants and loans. I think that we have to look at that. Although we did not meet the £32 million, that money is not underspent, that money is now getting spent and this current year that money will be spent by local authorities in this current year in the Scottish welfare fund in its ring fence for that purpose and that purpose only. I would also say in terms of the members who have mentioned that, of course, the best way to address it is to address the root causes of poverty and that is what we are doing through our child poverty strategy and also through appointing a poverty adviser to the Government to ensure that poverty is considered across every single portfolio of government. However, there will be areas where the operations of the scheme can improve and should improve and we will work with local authorities to ensure that people who need help do not come up against any unintended barriers. There should be no stigma to anyone applying from the scheme and that, again, will address guidance. The points that have been made about grants, cash or goods are arguments on both sides but, clearly, the vast majority of crisis grants are paid out in cash and we are going to be making that very clear again in the guidance as we move forward. However, there are sound reasons for some of the goods to be provided and the evidence from Heriot-Watt University and from users of the fund has been very clear. They found that very helpful to them but, of course, they should be involved in it and there is no suggestion that people should just be provided with stuff that they do not need or that it is not suitable to their needs. We can look again at addressing that to make sure that that happens. The variation in the levels of funding paid out in different areas I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to put a figure on for every single item and say that that is how much should be paid out. Local authorities have to have that flexibility but what is paid out is what the person needs that has made the application. It is not about because you make an application for a certain amount of goods, that is all you get. I think that we have to be careful on that and look at what is required. I have been told here to wind up and I will do so. If the Parliament is content to approve the principles of the bill, I will work with the committee to amend it where necessary to ensure that it does what we want it to do and also to listen very carefully to the further evidence that we will get during the consultation for the regulations and the guidance. Thank you minister. That concludes the debate on the stage 1 of the welfare fund Scotland Bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion number 11311 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the welfare fund Scotland Bill. I call on Margaret Burgess to move the motion in the name of John Swinney. Formally moved. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 11878 in the name of Fergus Ewing on the infrastructure bill UK legislation. I call on Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion. Mr Ewing, I would appreciate if you could go till five o'clock. Well thank you, Presiding Officer. I will always seek to oblige. This LCM relates to provisions in the infrastructure bill relating to the renewable heat incentive. The motion is that the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the infrastructure bill 2014-15, which was introduced to the House of Lords on 5 June this year relating to the administration of the renewable heat incentive, so far as those matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or also the functions of Scottish ministers should be considered by the UK Parliament. Those provisions relate solely to the administration and scheme delivery of the renewable heat incentive. Members will be interested to know that they allow for the appointment of an alternative administrator of the renewable heat incentive along with the introduction of a new appeal mechanism. They relate to the assignation of payments made under the RHI to a third party nominated by the owner of the renewable heat plant. Thirdly, they relate to some elements of existing secondary legislation to be changed using the negative resolution procedure. Administration of the RHI scheme is currently limited to either Ofgem or the Secretary of State at DEC. There is presently no scope to put delivery of the scheme out to competitive tender and appoint a body other than Ofgem as administrator. The amendment is essential for ensuring the long-term cost-effectiveness of the delivery of the RHI scheme and will allow appointment of an alternative administrator. Amendment is also required to enable a new appeals mechanism to be established so that decisions by the scheme administrator and administrator can be appealed. The new appeals process will strengthen the appeals rights for consumers and businesses. Details on the arbitration of appeals will be set out in secondary legislation and the Scottish Government will work with DEC to ensure that any new appeals processes are robust and do not diminish the protections currently afforded to RHI participants. Of particular note is the amendment that allows for all or part of the payments made under RHI to be made to a third party nominated by the heat plant owner. That will make it easier to raise finance to assist with upfront capital costs, helping to drive uptake of renewable heat technologies through RHI. Assisting towards meeting the Scottish Government's target to deliver 11 per cent of Scottish non-electrical heat demand from renewable resources and significantly reduce carbon emissions from heating. We have had the opportunity already on the Energy, Enterprise and Tourism Committee to discuss those matters. I was very pleased to canvass in some detail those arguments before members of the committee. If Mr Johnson wishes to have been happy to show you— Alex Johnson was going to ask the minister if he could clarify at this point for my benefit whether the regulations that we are discussing here would apply only to renewable heat or whether they could apply to the renewable heat element of a combined heat and power unit? No, I can clarify that they would only apply to the renewable heat incentive. In moving this LCM, I wish to make it clear that we are giving consent to the measures relating to the renewable heat incentive and only to the measures of the renewable heat incentive, and not to other matters that are contained in said legislation. We are making this motion because we wish to co-operate and be constructive where it is appropriate so to do. Whilst we do so, we cannot accept other parts of the bill relating to underground drilling access rights for oil and gas and geothermal electricity companies, which will allow such companies to drill under people's homes without their permission. It is unacceptable that Scottish people have not been afforded the right in this place to scrutinise and debate this important principle that affects fundamental property rights. We have already made our opposition to the UK Government's plans clear on numerous occasions. We will continue to oppose those measures as the bill makes its way through the House of Commons. We are supportive of the devolution of onshore oil and gas licensing powers to Scotland, and we are looking to work jointly with the UK Government to take forward the Smith recommendations in full and as quickly as possible. We will work to ensure that any such developments can only happen under the strictest environmental and planning rules to ensure communities are protected and local voices can be heard. I thank the minister and Mr Johnson. We now move to decision time. There are three questions that we put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 11877. In the name of Margaret Burgess on the welfare funds Scotland bill, will she be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The next question is at motion number 11311. In the name of John Swinney on the welfare funds Scotland bill, is she agreed to? The next question is at motion number 11878. Someone in the name of Fergus Ewing on the infrastructure bill, UK legislation, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The next question is at motion number 11878. In the name of Fergus Ewing on the infrastructure bill UK legislation, our committee, our committee, ourJA will confer it as well on effective academic opportunities? The next question is at number 118878. In the name of Fergus Ewing on the infrastructure bill, UK legislation, us is agreed to. Are we all agreed? The next question Is it that Mr Johnson This decision time. We now move to the member's business. Members 소per M British