 Good morning and welcome to the third meeting of the Social Security Committee in 2018. I can remind everyone to turn mobile phones and other devices to silent mode as they do disrupt the broadcasting. No apologies have been received for today's meeting. There is only one item on today's agenda, consideration of the social security bill at stage 2, and it has been agreed that we will not proceed beyond part 1 today. There are 13 groups of amendments in part 1, and it may be that we do not get through them all this morning, but as we have to be finished around about 11.30 to allow members to get to chamber for questions, I welcome the minister to committee this morning, along with our accompanying officials, and we now move to stage 2 proceedings. Can I call amendment 77 in the name of George Adam, grouped with amendments 1, 102, 78, 5, 6 and 113, and invite George Adam to move amendment 77 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I wanted to move amendment 77 for one very important reason. I wanted to be the first one out and speaking first, but in all seriousness, I believe that it is important that we set the foundations correctly for this bill. We all know how important this bill is and how it is one of the biggest bits of legislation that this Parliament has produced since this place came into being itself, and it is important that we set right from the beginning what we want to do enough. When you say that everybody talks about documents all over the world, everybody remembers that the founding principles are mentioned right at the very start of that document. The idea that the delivery of social security as a public service puts that out to everyone exactly what we are trying to achieve. During the stage 1 debate, the Minister herself said that the Social Security Scotland Bill comes to the Parliament as the legislative foundation for a new public service for Scotland to deliver a rights-based social security system that is founded in the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. She is right, and it is noteworthy in the meaningful principle. Therefore, the founding principle of the bill should be that it is going to be a public service. I think that that sets out to the 1.4 million people in Scotland who will be using the service, how important this Parliament is and how the Scottish Government sees that as a way forward and putting those principles forward. I think that it is very important in any documentation and anything that you do to get the founding principles correct. I believe that putting in this amendment at the very beginning tells everyone exactly what we want from the social security system in Scotland. I now invite Alison Johnstone to speak to amendment 1 and the other amendments in the group. The principle section of the bill, as my colleague George Adams just pointed out, is absolutely crucial. Laying out the foundation stones of the system sends out a really clear message that the new Scottish system will not be one that will chop and change at will, creating uncertainty for applicants and recipients. I think that the minister is absolutely right to take this approach, and it is one that I welcome. If every other aspect of the system is going to flow from the principles, which I believe is the policy intention, then it is absolutely imperative that they are the right principles. I think that a principle that the system should reduce poverty is absolutely key. Social security performs many functions, but one of them is the reduction of poverty, based on the belief that poverty is unacceptable. That is one of the fundamental tenets of the post-war social security system, and it should be a fundamental principle of the Scottish system that is now being built. The principle has already been established in the Child Poverty Scotland Act, and as a result of the work of this committee, it acts as several references to the important role that social security plays in the reduction of child poverty. That being the case, it would be remiss not to have in this bill a similar recognition that social security is vital to the reduction of poverty and for that recognition to be right up front as part of the core principles of this new system. I now invite Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 102 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I will be supporting the two earlier amendments that have just been spoken on. The purpose of amendment 102 and the related amendments that I have tabled that will come to further on in the debate this morning is to make sure that equality is embedded in the face of the legislation and therefore in the Scottish social security system. In itself, those amendments have the support of gender, Scottish Women's Aid and the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights. I feel that when equality is not embedded in policy from the beginning, there is the danger that it then becomes an add-on, something that happens after the fact, but it has not been considered sufficiently to shape the system in itself. Take-up of benefits for BME groups in Scotland is not routinely published and monitored to determine how significant disparities come about and to determine the best way to then go on and address them. We know that many equalities groups, in particular women BME groups and disabled people, have higher rates of poverty and therefore may depend on the social security system more. That is the reason that I have lodged amendment 102. On amendment 78, I lodged this amendment to start a debate around the issue, and it is not an amendment that I would be intending pressing. It has come about on the back of support from disability agenda Scotland. That is to get a debate started on the issues faced by disabled people and the higher costs that disabled people face in their everyday life. Almost half of the people in this country who live in poverty have at least one disabled person in their household and how the Scottish social security system goes about covering the additional costs of a disability that can push someone into poverty or how it breaks down the barriers for a disabled person to get into work to lift themselves out of poverty. That amendment was supported by disability agenda Scotland, as I said. Camp Hill Scotland Careers Trust aligns the Scottish independent advocacy alliance and Leonard Cheshire. As I said, that was about starting a debate around the poverty that a lot of disabled people find themselves in, and how the Scottish social security system can work to alleviate that. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 5 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, and good morning to the committee. If I could start with some of the other amendments in the group, I am pleased to support amendment 77 in the name of George Adam. We have always intended, as Mr Adam said, that the Scottish social security system would be delivered as a public service, and I believe that this new principle fits well with the ethos that is expressed in the other principles. I am also happy to support amendment 1 in the name of Alison Johnson, a proposal that recognises that the Scottish social security system has a role in reducing poverty. I understand that it has the support of a wide range of stakeholders, including the poverty alliance. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for his indication that he does not intend to press amendment 78, which I could not support. I do not believe that singling out a specific group at this point in the bill reflects the spirit of the other principles, but more fundamentally, amendment 78, as it is written, misunderstands the nature of disability assistance and the scope of our powers as ministers in relation to social security. Disability assistance is not designed as an anti-poverty measure, although I accept that, for some, it has that effect. It is not means tested, it does not seek to top up or replace income. Its purpose is to help people with costs of living who have a disability or terminal illness. The Scottish Government has no control over the forms of assistance that, in my view, could really make an impact on reducing poverty for disabled people, but I do welcome the opening of a debate, one that I am sure through this committee and elsewhere we will continue to have. Amendment 102, in Mr Griffin's name, seeks, in my view, to achieve broadly similar goals to amendments 5 and 6 in my name, but the wording is problematic. Devolved assistance will be capable of delivering equality of treatment, however, it will not be possible or appropriate to seek to guarantee exactly the same outcomes for every person purely on the grounds that they belong to a specific group. To ignore individual needs in this manner runs contrary to the international human rights framework, which, as a broad rule, puts meeting the needs of individuals at the heart of a rights-based approach. More technically, the amendment is silent on precisely which category of outcome it is targeted at and to what group or other benchmark the amendment seeks equality with. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, to discern exactly how the system could live up to such a principle. The amendment also fails to recognise that the term protected characteristics can only have meaning if it is used in a comparative way. Since all of us have age, sex and religion, which, for the purpose, includes having no religion, use of the term protected characteristics in this amendment does not make sense, in my view, because everyone in that sense has some protected characteristics. I am sure that Mr Griffin will remember that his colleague Ms Bailey and indeed Ms McNeill lodged a similar amendment to the child poverty bill, but we are persuaded on the basis of the arguments that I have outlined not to press those, and I hope that Mr Griffin will reach a similar view in relation to amendment 102. Because I believe that equality and non-discrimination are important ideals to capture in the principles law, I hope that Mr Griffin and other members will support amendments 5 and 6 in my name. Amendment 113, in the name of Ms McNeill, seeks to introduce a new principle on matters that I am sure we all agree are important and worthwhile. However, my view is that health and mental wellbeing are already strongly reflected in the principles of respect, dignity and, in our human rights approach. Those existing principles should facilitate a system that is supportive, accessible and sensitive to the particular needs of individuals. That is already taking shape through the commitments made to local delivery, face-to-face pre-claims advice and the elimination of jargon in correspondence. All of that speaks directly to the realisation of a system and keeping with the culture that is envisaged by the amendment. I therefore ask Ms McNeill not to press amendment 113. I now ask Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 113 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 113 seeks to promote health and wellbeing. I believe that social security system has a role in promoting improved health and wellbeing. The section deals with the principles of the legislation. I think that there is some evidence to support the evidence provided by SAMH that experiences of those who have had the employment support allowance and PIP has been stigmatising for some people and has had a negative effect on their health. Studies by Harriet Watt show that work capability assessments for employment support have had a lasting negative impact on some people with a mental health problem. I believe that a well-designed social security system must have a real commitment to eradicating stigma. I think that there is a case to have that specifically in the principles. I have to say that I am a bit disappointed that the Government will not support specific mention of the importance of the social security system to promote mental health and wellbeing, but I think that there is a case for that to be included in the principles of our social security system. By any other members who wish to contribute to the grouping, I will take Mr Tomkins. Thank you, convener. Good morning. We remain very concerned about the legal effect of section 1. We think that section 1 is hugely important as a statement of political principle, but we remain concerned and we have amendments later today to seek to clarify what the legal effect of the principles will be. Some of the amendments that have been debated in this group I think will exacerbate those problems, particularly amendment 77 in the name of George Adam. It is completely unclear what, including the delivery of social security as a public service, will do in the legislation. What difference will it make in the legislation? The sentiment is clear, but the legal effect is obscure, so we will not be supporting it for that reason. We will be supporting the amendments in the minister's name. I think that Mr Tomkins raises a point that we will get to in due course around future amendments and the status of the principles. I do not want to speak in detail about that now, but it is important to recognise that the principles have been set forth as detailed in the Government's response to our stage 1 report to define the ethos and nature of the Scottish social security system. Therefore, I will be supporting George Adam's amendment 77, because the clarity and the statement around the fact that the Scottish social security system will be a public service is important for that description and explanation of the fact that we are creating an ethos and a nature here. I will also strongly support Alison Johnston's amendment 1 in the name of Alison Johnston supported by Mark Griffin. That is a very helpful amendment based on the recommendation that we made at stage 1. I definitely think that the Scottish social security system should play a part, although it of course cannot do so in itself, but it plays a part in reducing poverty in Scotland. I am glad to see that we have not taken forward the word eradication, because from a legal perspective and a definitions perspective, that would have been problematic. I will move on to Mark Griffin's amendment 102. Although the sentiment that has been brought forward in the amendment to try to make sure that equality is part of the system that we are creating in the times with a lot of the evidence that we took and some of the evidence that I took in person at one of the outreach sessions that we had at MECOP, the minister's wording around promoting the goals of equality and non-discrimination is more holistic and therefore more effective, so I would urge Mr Griffin not to press 102 and instead to support 5 and 6. On 78, the problematic nature of that amendment and Mr Griffin's name is that the Scottish social security system, as created under the Scotland Act 2016, does not have the power to create income replacement benefits. Amendment 78 does not consider that position. On 113, in the name of Pauline McNeill, although we should be trying to improve health and mental wellbeing across the public sector, that is primarily a function of the health service for me. The promotion of health and wellbeing is already taken into account in the existing principles around dignity and respect and human rights, as the minister said. It is very important that, while we want to try and, as committee members on the basis of the evidence that we took, while we want to try and enhance the principles that were originally drafted, we also need to be mindful and careful about not creating an exhaustive list that might lose the meaning that we want to take forward in terms of the point that I started on about setting the nature and the ethos of the Scottish social security system. I wonder if I can briefly talk to the amendment in Alison Johnson's name and say that we will not be supporting that. The reason for that is that it puts very high up what the social security system is for and what the benefits are for. I do not think that the primary reason for benefit is to contribute to reducing poverty. In fact, I would adopt almost the words of the minister when she was speaking to another amendment ago, because benefits are there to help those with disability or terminal illness to live a normal life as possible. That is the key that we want to say about benefits. We may well be an added benefit that it will contribute to reducing poverty, but that is not the primary reason that we give big people benefit. That is said because we have universal benefits, so PIP is not means tested in any way. I think that those types of words, if they appear early on within the act, will give the implication that some people will be put off, because I am not actually poor, I shouldn't be applying for this award. That is why I think this is not a helpful amendment and deflects a way of what we want to see for benefits, which is allowing disabled people in particular—whether it is physical or mental—to live a normal life as possible and to give them the money to be able to do that and also to help their families to be able to bring in the support that they need. I think that reducing poverty may well be a secondary thing, but to have it as a principle within the bill could, in time, take people away from applying for benefits, because the issue will act like I don't fit into that category. I want to be absolutely clear with the committee that, in not supporting Ms McNeill's amendment, that should not at any point be taken as an indication that this Government does not believe that the social security system or, indeed, any other matter that we are engaged in as a Government does not have a responsibility in terms of paying proper attention to the importance of mental health and wellbeing. I think that that would be an unfair characteristic. My reasons for that amendment are very clear. If I may say that I think that Ms Johnson's amendment is important, that is why, as a Government, we support it, although the points that are made with respect to disability assistance are not being a universal benefit and are not being specifically targeted in terms of what is currently PIP or DLA on anything other than to provide additional financial support for those with a disability or health condition. Of course, some of the other benefits that we will take responsibility for do assist those on low incomes in particular, I am thinking about best start grant, funeral assistance and others. It is also important to be mindful, certainly in the Government's view, that we are today, and as we go forward through stage 2 to stage 3, laying the foundations of a social security system, which, in this instance, will take responsibility for 11 benefits, but it is, of course, my hope that it will take responsibility for significantly more parts of social security in the future. I invite Mr Adam to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment. I would like to press my amendment, convener, but I would also very quickly, because I know quite a lot on today, I think. Principles and documents historically have always been the part that people have remembered. It has always been the most important part of a document where you can actually stay quite clearly and quite succinctly what you are wanting to achieve with all that. The fact that we are saying that it is a public service, it is said to serve the people of Scotland as and when they need it, I think is extremely important in itself, because it tells you exactly what that service is for. Not to get involved in too much of what has already been discussed, but I think that we have to ensure that that is the way that we are looking forward. People may think that those are just words that we are putting on the document, but words can be extremely important. They can be something that can change history and change people's lives. In this occasion, we are stating right from the onset what is the most important point is that we have set up a service that is there to serve the people of Scotland, and I would like to just move my amendment at that point. Thank you, Mr Adam. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. The question is that amendment 77 is agreed to. Those in favour, please raise their hands. Those against. Are there any abstentions? The result of the division is seven votes four and two against, so the amendment is agreed. I call amendment 1 in the name of Alison Johnstone, already debated with amendment 77, and I ask Ms Johnstone to move or not move the amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? So there will be a division, and the question is that amendment 91 is agreed to. Please raise your hand. Those against the amendment? Thank you. And any abstentions? Thank you. So the result of the division is seven votes four and two against, therefore the amendment is agreed. I now call amendment 4 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 7, 7a, 7b, 114, 115, 140, 14, 126, 128, 129 and 51. I invite the minister to speak to her amendment and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This is a group where I hope we can reach consensus. I'll begin with the Scottish Government's amendments 4 and 7. These have been prepared in response to the views of this committee and stakeholders that principle D should be strengthened to say that ministers have a duty rather than a role in promoting take-up. In practice, these amendments go considerably further than that by removing the principle and creating a separate and legally enforceable duty. Amendment 7a and 7b, in the name of Mr Griffin, seek to change amendment 7 to state that ministers simply have a duty to ensure that everyone gets what they are entitled to be given. While I'm sure that this is intended to strengthen the duty, I would ask Mr Griffin to consider that, in fact, it makes it weaker than what I propose. Ministers already have a duty to give people what they are eligible to be given. It is their basic duty to determine entitlement to assistance under section 8 of the bill. My amendment 7 requires more than that. It frames the duty as something that requires continuous improvement, with ministers always keeping under consideration what more could be done. An additional problem with amendment 7a is that it removes the discretion of ministers to take steps that they consider appropriate. Taking the amendment through to its logical conclusion, that could mean that ministers should take any steps at all within the law necessary to fulfil that duty. It removes discretion and removes the need for ministers to be continually considering the keep under consideration part of my amendment. What more could and should be done to increase benefit take-up? That would apply to all Governments. It is, I think, our amendment 7, a very active amendment. It also argues that our language that Mr Griffin's amendment seeks to remove fits much better, I think, with the upcoming amendments on income maximisation. Amendment 7b is, in my view, ambiguous. It defines other social security assistance by reference to schemes other than those listed in the Scotland Act Exceptions, but the exceptions do not list social security schemes. I would ask Mr Griffin to consider not moving those amendments on the basis that what he seeks to achieve is, I believe, already delivered by amendments 4 and 7 in my name. Ms McNeill's amendments 126, 128 and 129 are essentially aimed at making life easier for people who apply for assistance by either providing them with information about what else they may be entitled to and, where appropriate, treating an application for one form of assistance as an application for another. I am pleased to support all three amendments. I will, however, look to discuss with Ms McNeill ahead of stage 3 amending this to treat an application of one type of assistance as an application for any other type to make clear that nothing should be done without the permission of the individual in question, in line with the person-centred approach that I have referred to in which I am sure she supports. Amendments 140, 144 and 51, in the name of Ms Johnson, seek to achieve something very similar, so it seems that there is a broad agreement. However, I am sure that Ms Johnson did not intend that, but the wording of her amendment does not meet the intention that she outlines. In effect, it means that someone in the agency or on behalf of Scottish ministers who now have the duty placed on them would need to consider any application that it receives against eligibility criteria for every other form of assistance and make this decision for people. We think that Ms Johnson would like to ensure that people would have information and for applications to be treated as for another type of assistance, as Ms McNeill's amendments achieve, and therefore I would strongly urge Ms Johnson not to press her amendment and impose the social security agency having to judge if an individual applying one type of assistance should be entitled to another. That leaves amendments 114 and 115 in the name of Mr Griffin, and I am pleased to support those. As I have outlined, we are serious about achieving improvements in take-up as our approach to this group indicates. I hope that my position on those amendments provides any further reassurance that Mr Griffin may need to reconsider his position on amendments 7A and 7B. Drawing all that together, the package of measures that we support in this group would, I believe, provide a very robust approach to improving take-up, something that I know we all agree should be a priority in a system founded on the ideal that social security is a right. I now invite Mark Griffin to speak to amendments 7A and the other amendments in the group. I would not be supporting amendment 4 in the name of the minister, but I would be supporting all other amendments in the group. We feel that amendment 4 goes beyond the evidence given to the committee where we were expecting a one-word change, removing the word role and in certain a word duty. The committee anticipated and included in its report was the backing of Citizens Advice Scotland. We would therefore seek to reinstate the duty in that revised paragraph. We feel that keep under consideration in amendment 7 is an ineffectual word in which waters down any duty. The committee agreed to introduce a duty on Scottish ministers rather than a role to ensure that individuals are given what they are eligible to be given under the Scottish social security system, to which the Scottish Government said in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government agrees with that recommendation that the proposal would more accurately reflect the work that would take forward to remove stigma and to improve the take-up of assistance. The Scottish Government committed to bringing an amendment to the bill at stage 2 to place a duty rather than a role on Scottish ministers to ensure that people get what they are entitled to from the Scottish social security system. I feel that amendment 7A and B more accurately reflect the committee's recommendation and the Government's response. What I have attempted to do in 7B is recognise the minister's comments at stage 1 that she does not feel that it would be appropriate for the Government to have a duty to maximise uptake on benefits that were not the responsibility of the Government. That is why it is drafted in the way that it is to say that the Government should have a role in encouraging individuals to apply for the social security assistance that the Government is not responsible for. That is to attempt to improve the uptake of the £2 billion worth of benefits that go unclaimed every year, which are mostly reserves. I think that we have made the argument before that that money could lift families and communities out of poverty and boost local economies. It is reflecting the debate that we have already had that no duty could be applied to the Government and it has been drafted to accommodate that on amendments 114 and 115. I appreciate the Government's support for those. Those set out wide range of requirements in the Scottish Government to make its duty to promote take-up a reality, to record progress and set out in detail what areas that more work is required that is target-based. It requires the Government to come forward with measurable outcomes for what statistics should be released regularly. I would ask committee members to support the amendments that are lodged in my name. Thank you. I now invite Alison Johnson to speak to amendment 140 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Throughout our stage 1 hearings, we heard much about how the new Scottish system could be more streamlined and easier for claimants to navigate. We are all aware of the complexities of the current system. In October, Derek Young from Age Scotland told us that people would find it extremely advantageous if there were an opportunity to look at the different forms of assessment and how processes could be streamlined. We hear quite a bit from older people who complain about having to answer the same question several times. In written evidence, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said, Glasgow City Council has explored automatic payment of benefits and have successfully implemented this approach for school clothing grants by identifying eligible families. The amendment seeks to create a right for individuals applying for any form of assistance to be considered for all other assistance. Ministers have reason to believe that they might be entitled to. I see that very much as a companion amendment to Pauline McNeill's amendment 128, which seeks to establish that process in the part of determinations. It is also very much in the spirit of the minister's amendment to create a duty on Scottish ministers to keep under consideration what steps they could take to ensure that individuals are given what they are eligible to under the Scottish social security system. That would be such a step. I know that the minister shares the intentions of this amendment as she has proposed something very similar as a way of improving the interface between the Scottish system and other systems at UK and local levels. Just last week, on 24 January, the minister put forward the very good idea of sharing an application made for Scottish benefits with another agency, the DWP, or a local authority, for another benefit provided by them, so that multiple applications do not need to be made. I understand that Pauline McNeill's amendment is to propose something very similar, but for within our Scottish system. When someone applies for one benefit, they should have the option to be considered for any other benefits that ministers might be entitled to. I understand that the minister or other committee members might have reservations about the wording here, and I am happy to discuss how it might be improved as we go forward to stage 3. However, I would suggest that what is being proposed here is uncontroversial. It is about helping people, some of whom find the benefit system really difficult to navigate, to make sure that they receive everything that they are entitled to, and that is a theme that runs all the way through the bill. I think that this is a really important part of the legislation that we are discussing at stage 2. There is some common ground with all of us in what has been said so far in designing a progressive system that ensures that someone who comes forward to ask for assistance is given that support to find what other assistance they might be entitled to, and we know that there is a huge issue about unclaimed benefits. Amendment 28 specifies that, where it appears to Scottish ministers that an individual who is applying for a particular type of assistance may be entitled to another type of assistance that is detailed in chapter 2, that it may be treated as an application for other types as an alternative or in addition. Let me see. I welcome the ministers' support for these amendments. I am really delighted about that and I give that commitment to work with the Scottish Government at stage 3. I know that this is a concern that the minister has raised in previous debates to ensure that an individual is clear all the step of the way what has been done in their name. I am happy to work with ministers on stage 3 if there is any adjustments that are needed. Amendment 129 is important because it specifies that the claimant must be informed where it appears to Scottish ministers that they may qualify for other benefits. Can I now invite contributors from other members? I think that, in terms of 7A and 7B, I am a bit concerned. No Mark Griffin gave an explanation there, but I still find it a bit ambiguous and I am not sure what he is trying to achieve. On my reading, it seems to dilute the minister's amendment and I would be concerned about the loss of continuous improvement for ministers. The other amendment that I would like to speak about is Alison Johnston's amendment. I fully agree with the thinking behind it, but I believe that it is covered in 1.1.4 and 1.1.5. The bit that is problematic for me in it is setting targets for the take-up. I would hope that the target for take-up would always be 100 per cent, and that would be how we would be measuring against that. I would also be interested to hear from the minister if we have baseline take-up at the moment. Our intention in this group is to support the amendments in the name of the minister, but not the amendments in the names of Mark Griffin, Alison Johnston or Pauline McNeill. It seems to us that a number of the opposition amendments in this group are overly prescriptive and do not need to appear on the face of primary legislation. For example, the amendments 128 and 129 in the name of Pauline McNeill, it seems to me would be better in the operating manual of the new Scottish Social Security Agency than in primary legislation. The amendments 114 and 115 in the name of Mark Griffin on income maximisation strategy seem to us to be over-prescriptive for primary legislation. We are not opposed to the policy intent underpinning those provisions. Indeed, we would encourage the policy intent underpinning those provisions, but we do not see the need for them to be in primary legislation. I will pause to note that Alison Johnston's amendment 140, which I think that the minister is not supporting, is an indication of just how difficult it is going to be to navigate the meaning of section 1. Section 1 says that the Scottish Social Security Agency will be a rights-based system, and Alison Johnston's amendment probes the extent to which that rights-based system will become a reality. It is an amendment that the Government, if I have understood the minister correctly, is not intending to support. It illustrates the real difficulty that we are going to have in implementing this legislation once it is passed in terms of knowing what is a right within the Scottish Social Security System and what is not. I would like to echo the words of my colleague Ruth Maguire. 7a and 7b with Mark Griffin, I think that I know what you are trying to achieve with it, and I think that that is part of the problem. I am not totally convinced that that is what you are. If it is about eligibility and income maximisation, I think that 114 and 115 achieve that anyway. I am not too sure about what you are trying to achieve with 7a and 7b, and that is what probably gives me the doubt at this stage. If I am confused about it then probably there is something—I might just be in confusion all the time right now—that is for others to say and not for me to comment on. However, the whole point is that if I am struggling to understand what it is trying to achieve then I have problems with it, so I will not be supporting 7a and 7b. Let me start with amendments 4 and 7 in my name, which I believe do go beyond what has been asked by stakeholders not only transforming the role to promote take-up into a duty but placing it in a distinct legally enforceable position within the bill, and in a manner that requires Scottish ministers to continuously consider what more can be done as part of an on-going policy improvement. In terms of 7a and 7b, making a principle a duty does not, in my view, make sense. Mr Tomkins has already touched on this, but the principles are not the place to impose legal duties. I am happy to support Mr Griffin should he move amendments 114 and 115, which would strengthen the duty that Scottish ministers would have to ensure maximum possible take-up of Scottish social security assistants. As I have said, I am happy to support amendments 126, 128 and 129 from Ms McNeill, and I am grateful to her for her indication that we could work together towards stage 3 to ensure that individuals retain decision making in this exercise. I would ask Ms Johnson not to move press her amendments 140, 114 and 151. I do not believe that amendment 140 is a companion amendment. The problem is that it requires the agency to make the judgment, and I believe firmly that, in a rights-based system, the decision and the choice should remain with the individual. Ms Maguire also touched on the question of targets, and it is the case that we would have a limited baseline to start from in terms of benefit take-up. We would, of course, be looking to DWP for the current position in terms of benefit take-up, and, as members know from discussions elsewhere on this whole matter, the DWP does not routinely collect such statistics, and they do not routinely distinguish between the UK or Scotland and the rest of the UK. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this amendment, and I am not keen to approve or support amendments that I do not believe that we can deliver on. There is also the question of what you would set the target. I am sure that all of us would set a target of 100 per cent, and that in itself would make this a relatively amendment that would not take us much further forward. All of that said, convener, I think that the package that we have brought forward and the amendments that we are minded to support will create the strongest possible duty on Scottish ministers to maximise the uptake of Scottish assistance. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. The question is that amendment 4 is agreed to those in favour, please raise our hands. Those against and any abstentions. The result of the division is 6, 4, 3 against. The amendment is therefore agreed. I will call amendment 102 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 77, and ask Mark Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. Can I ask amendment 102 to raise our hands? Those against and any abstentions. The result of the division is 3, 4, 6 again. Then the amendment is not agreed. I will call amendment 78 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 77, and ask Mark Griffin to move or not move. I will call amendment 5 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 77, and ask the minister to move or not move. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I will call amendment 6 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 77, and ask the minister to move or not move. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 113 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 77, and ask Pauline McNeill to move or not move. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 113 to raise their hands? Those against? Any abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division is 3 votes for, 6 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I will call amendment 57 in the name of Adam Tomkins, grouped with amendment 138. I invite Mr Tomkins to move amendment 57 and speak to the other amendments in the group. In this committee's stage 1 report on the bill, we recommended at paragraph 143 that the Scottish Government clarifies the legal status of the principles contained in the bill, and where appropriate amend the bill to achieve this clarity. We made that recommendation unanimously because we took evidence, principally from academic lawyers, that there was likely to be grave doubt about the legal status of the principles. My amendment 57 is designed to avoid what would otherwise be, I think, wholly unnecessary and very expensive and potentially quite protracted litigation designed to obtain an answer from the tribunals or the courts what the answer to the question what is the status of these principles. Professor Mullin, my colleague at the University of Glasgow Law School and one of Scotland's leading administrative lawyers, said this in written evidence to us, convener, and this is in our stage 1 report, but I want to read it into the record for today. He said this, if the legal status of the principles is not clarified, citizens and their advisers may be unsure what their rights and the Scottish Government's obligations under social security legislation are and there may be wasteful litigation to determine their meaning and effect. My amendment 57 is designed to ensure that we do not have to endure that unnecessary, and as Professor Mullin puts it, wasteful litigation to ensure their meaning and effect. The wording of amendment 57 is based on or drawn from a wording that we already have on the statute book in the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2016, which provides for the legal status of codes of practice on police searches, which are to be made by ministers in that context. Amendment 57 says, as section 75 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2016 says, that courts or tribunals in relevant proceedings may take the principles into account when determining any question arising in the proceedings to which the principles are relevant, but breach of the principles itself does not give grounds to a fresh legal action. That, I hope, clarifies the legal doubt that exists with regard to section 1, as it was in the bill as introduced, and meets the concerns that Professor Mullin and others put to us in our stage 1 inquiry and satisfies this committee's unanimous recommendation in paragraph 143 of our report that this is an issue that needed to be put right at stage 2. I invite Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 138 and the other amendments in the group. I lodged amendment 138 because I felt that, without any link to the principles, that there was a real gap in the provision of the act to ensure that the principles are enforced and that ministers are bound by them. We have been in discussion with the Government about amendment 138, and I understand that how it is drafted could have unintended consequences, and that there is a potential for payments to claimants to be stopped as a result of a court decision. I would not be pressing amendment 138 at this point because of those unintended consequences and hope to explore further with members and the Government before stage 3 on how we can go about closing that accountability gap in terms of how there is a duty on the ministers to abide by the principles. I invite other members who wish to contribute to come in. I first speak to amendment 57 in the name of Adam Tomkins. I am glad that he brought amendment 148 forward, because it is an important point that we need to consider, and he and I asked questions on the matter during stage 1 evidence. I think that we are creating a very important and leading piece of legislation here in terms of the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish people. That is an innovative and forward-looking approach to have these principles per se within a piece of legislation. The importance of that cannot be stressed enough. That is something that is defining the ethos and nature of the system within the legislation of creation. A similar manner in my mind in the creation of this Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, where it is stated in section 1 that there will be a Scottish Parliament. To me, section 1 of the principles of the bill that we are debating today set the tone, character, ethos and nature of the Scottish social security system. They are principles to be taken and easily accessible for individuals all across Scotland who will be interacting with the system. Therefore, I am welcoming that position that they are defining the value of nature and ethos of the social security system on the face of the bill at the beginning. I think that the place for considering their legal status and considering where they have a relationship with the individual in terms of rights, the place for that is in the charter. That is why I would not be inclined to support Adam Tongassie's amendment 57, however, I will absolutely support his later amendment in a similar manner on the charter at 61. I am also glad that Mr Griffin has decided not to press 138, as he stated. I think that there are potential unintended consequences there for claimants and cohesion, and I thank him for deciding not to press. I want to speak to amendment 57, because, in my opinion, I think that this will prove to be, if it were to pass stage 2 and stage 3, a really important section of the bill, because often courts are not clear on what sources or references it would be competent to use, and I think that it makes it absolutely clear that, in any tribunal, civil or criminal proceedings, that courts may take the social security principles into account when determining any question. However, it is important to note on the second part that the breach of the principles does not itself give rise to legal grounds, and I think that that is an important caveat to that. I am always in favour of clarity whether the courts are concerned. I think that there is less scope for the courts to make it up if they do not have a parliamentary reference, so I think that that will prove to be a useful aspect of the bill when it comes to determining what is meant or how to apply the principles in cases that I am sure will happen in the future. I will do. Thank you. I think that the problem that I should have touched on in my earlier remarks for me is that, if we give the principles the sort of legal effect that 57 would envisage, then we would then need to go through the principles afresh and think about how we create a large set of complex legal definitions around the principles as drafted. There is a whole set of unintended consequences that could possibly be… I do not really see it that way because the way that it is worded, if it had said that they must take it into account, I think that that would be different, but my reasoning of it is, and I am sure that Mr Thomson will get to sum up on that. I think that courts might be argued that they were not competent to be a reference point for a quarter-child, but it seems to me that they provide some clarity. The fact that the part 2 of it is why I am prone to supporting it is that each of the principles itself does not give out any grounds to legal actions. I do not believe, as it stands, that we then have to go back and provide any further detail on the principles, but that is my view. On the basis of my intention to support Mr Thomson's amendment 61, which we will come to later on the enforceability of the charter, I would invite him not to move amendment 57. As section 2 of the bill makes clear, the charter is the expression of the principles in concrete terms. Therefore, it is right that judges take that into account, which is why I would support his amendment on the charter that we will come to. However, I do not support the amendment that he is moving at this point. The principles define the ethos of social security in Scotland. They are high-level statements because they express ideals intended to hold over time, but what upholding those ideals look like changes in practical terms as society changes. That is where the charter comes in. Its purpose is to translate the principles into the specific actions that ministers must take and the standards that they must meet to ensure that the principles and ambitions are realised. The charter is the bridge between the ethos and the services that people receive on the ground. Every five years, through a process of consultation with the people of Scotland, the charter will be looked at again. Where necessary, it will be updated so that it continues to reflect what society thinks the principles should mean in practice. In addition to informing the charter, the principles also inform social security regulations, which members will see when we get to discussing the amendments on the independent Scottish Commission on Social Security, will assess and report on whether proposals for regulations are consistent with principles. The commission's report will then form part of this Parliament's consideration of draft regulations, so the principles will be translated through this process with people who have direct experience of the current system into standards outlined in the charter and into legal rules through regulations. Therefore, by taking account of the charter and applying the regulations, courts and tribunals will already be part of the system for upholding the principles. It is, in my view, neither necessary nor appropriate for judges to look behind the charter to the principles. By doing so, they would be substituting their own views about what the principles mean in place of the views that are expressed through the charter. I do not believe that this is a job that the judiciary would thank us for giving them. I am, like Mr McPherson, grateful to Mr Tompkins for raising those issues, as he has done consistently, because I think that it is important that they are debated and we are all absolutely clear. However, as I have said, it is right that courts and tribunals have a role in ensuring that the standards set by the Scottish people are met, and that is why I will support Mr Tompkins' amendment 61 in relation to the charter. However, it should not be for the judiciary also to look behind the standards, and so I invite Mr Tompkins not to move amendment 67. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for not pressing his amendment and welcome the opportunity of a discussion with him in advance of section 3 to see if we can find an appropriate way to meet his intention. That has been a really important debate, and I am grateful to all the members and the minister who have spoken in it. It is important because, as the committee said in its stage 1 report, we believe that the current confusion on the legal status of the principles contained in the bill is not helpful and that their status must be clarified. There is no other amendment at stage 2 that clarifies the legal status of the principles, and so I will press this amendment to a vote today. I will do so because I think that it provides the clarity that we are seeking without being overly prescriptive. It is very important, I think, that as legislators, as lawmakers, we do not tell courts how to decide cases. However, the amendment does not do that because it provides that courts and tribunals may take the principles into account in proceedings that they deem relevant, so it leaves all of the discretion in the hands of the courts and tribunals. It does not tell courts and tribunals how to decide individual cases, but at the same time, I think that if we are translating, as we are, political principles that we all share, notwithstanding the fact that we come from different political perspectives, if we are translating political principles into law, Mr Adam referred earlier in moving his amendment, the first amendment on which we voted this morning, to principles in documents. This is not a document, this is an act of Parliament, this is a statute, this is a law, and it is incumbent upon us as lawmakers to ensure that courts and tribunals and the people who will use courts and tribunals have clarity and not vagueness about the meaning of the words that we are putting onto the statute book in Scotland. This committee was unanimously of the view in its stage 1 report that section 1 does not have that clarity and my amendment 57 seeks to bring that clarity. I very much welcome Mr McPherson's and the minister's support for amendment 61 on the charter to which we shall come, but legal clarity about the charter and legal clarity about the principles are both important. They are not substitutes for one another, and amendment 61 does work which is different from the work that is done by amendment 57, so for that reason I will press amendment 57. Thank you. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. It will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 57 to please raise their hands? Those against. The result of the division are five votes war and four against. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 138 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 57, and ask Mr Given to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. I call amendment 7 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 4, and ask the minister to formally move. Move. I call amendment 7a in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 4, Mark Griffin to move or not move. Move. The question is that 7a be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. It will be a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 7a to please raise their hands? Those against. The result of the division are three votes war and six votes against. Therefore, amendment 7a is not agreed. I call amendment 7b in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 4, and ask Mark Griffin to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. I ask the minister to press or withdraw amendment 7. Move. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I now call amendment 8 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 9, 58, 59, 112, 139, 39 and 75. I invite the minister to move amendment 8 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm grateful for the opportunity to open the discussion on this group, and I'd like to start by stressing the areas where I think we all agree. We agree on the importance of independent advocacy and advice. We agree that it is vital that people have a right to receive information about how to access the support that they need when interacting with the new social security agency, and we agree that there should be a statutory duty on ministers to ensure that people know about the independent advocacy and advice services that are available. All that said, I want to take this opportunity to ask Mr Balfour not to press amendments 58, 59 and 75, because, as I know and other members know, there remain disagreements amongst our stakeholders as to the appropriate definition to define the group of people who should receive the support. I am sure that Mr Balfour and colleagues can well understand the difficulty. That is not easy, but I do want us to try. I would ask Mr Balfour not to proceed on the basis of disagreement, but to work with us to see if we can reach an agreement with stakeholders and representative organisations in advance of stage 3. I think that an agreement can be reached, but I want us to use our time before section 3 to get this right and ensure that we are providing support for those who need it. As things stand, amendment 9 sets out the Scottish Government's starting point, our baseline, if you will, that we are prepared to move on if we can reach an agreement in advance of stage 3 on how far we need to move. Amendment 9 provides a specific right to advocacy and places the Scottish Government under a direct duty to ensure that sufficient advocacy services are available. We have used the definition of mental disorder set out in the Mental Health Act 2003 as our starting point, but I would stress that it is only a starting point to define the group who will have the statutory right to advocacy. I believe that individuals covered by the definition in the 2003 act, which includes those with learning difficulties, mental illness or a personality disorder, are those who would most benefit from an advocate to assist them in discussions with the social security agency. However, I realise that there may be others who do not fall into this category but require such advocacy. As I have said, I am open to further discussion to develop this definition in advance of stage 3. Our proposals are further strengthened, I believe, by amendment 39, which places a right for an individual to have a supporter if they need or want one. A supporter could be a friend, a family member or someone from any one of the excellent organisations that provide independent advocacy and advice services across Scotland. I have heard and Ms McNeill raised this during stage 1 debate that the right to a supporter is not consistently honoured during health assessments in the current DWP system. That runs contrary to our rights-based approach. If we truly want our system to have fairness, dignity and respect at its heart, we should give people the right to have a person to support them when they need it. Mr Balfour has lodged amendments 58, 59 and 75, which also address the issue of advice and advocacy. Amendment 58 would place a right in the bill for independent information and advice to be provided for anyone applying for or thinking about applying for Scottish social security assistance. While I agree with this principle in its intent, it is similar to the aims of amendment 98 in my name. Mr Balfour's amendment provides a list and advice topics that should be provided. I do not think that we should be restricting what information and advice should be provided. I believe that providers of independent advice should, by definition of their independence from the system, be allowed to advise on any aspect of social security, as well as operate in a manner in which best serves their clients. Also, much of what Mr Balfour's amendments list, such as what assistance an individual is entitled to or the content of the social security charter, are, I believe, covered by other aspects of the bill. That is why I am asking Mr Balfour not to press his amendment 58, and I urge the committee to support amendment 8 in my name. Amendment 59 widens entitlement to independent advocacy services to everyone who is applied for social security assistance. As I said earlier, we know that our stakeholders are divided on that matter. As I have said, I want to get to stage 3 where we can agree on a definition of the group that requires that support. As I have said earlier, I would urge Mr Balfour to work with us and with our stakeholders and, indeed, with this committee to ensure that we can secure that in advance of stage 3. I know, convener, that amendment 75 is a technical one from Mr Balfour and would not be required to be pressed if he chooses not to move amendment 58 and 59. If I turn to amendment 112 in Ms Maguire's name, I am pleased to support this amendment on inclusive communication as it goes to the heart of our ambitions to take a rights-based approach and to place the needs of individuals at the centre of a new public service, and I know that it is one that stakeholders have pressed for. Supporting this amendment would mean that amendment 139 in the name of Mr Griffin is not required, as, essentially, they have the same aims. Amendment 139 has difficulties, in my view, in that it is overly prescriptive about the kinds of information that it lists, such as claim forms and notices of determination. Those are basic and fundamental documents that will be provided to people in an accessible format if we support Ms Maguire's amendment in a particular accessible format to a standard, as a matter of course. In addition, it is important to remember that our system has co-production and a rights-based approach as two of its founding ideals. The people who will use the system through our experience panels and by other means are helping us to design the forms and the correspondence, and therefore helping us to make sure that the system and the matters are accessible. I have asked Mr Balfour not to press his amendments 58, 59 and 75, but if he does choose to go ahead, I would urge a committee not to support those, along with amendment 139 for Mr Griffin. Instead, I would like to ask members to support numbers 8, 9 and 39 in my name and 112 from Ms Maguire. I believe that those, along with previous amendments, will provide a much stronger legislative framework for advocacy, advice and support for those who will use the social security system and that we have the opportunity today to move forward in this matter, but also to continue discussions in advance of stage 3 to reach further agreement around the question of independent advocacy. I invite Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 58 and the other amendments in the group. If I can work backwards, we will be supporting Mark Griffin at 139 and Ruth Maguire at 112. I believe that they are both very important pieces of amendments, and we actually do something slightly different. I think that we deal with different disabilities and different inclusion, so I think that both of them on the bill would be helpful. Although the minister again has indicated that the working with stakeholders to design forms and everything is going to be cuddly, we do have to put legislation that is down there for years to come, and I think that to have the protection for those who have visual and communication impairments is actually really helpful. If I could turn to the two amendments or the three amendments in my name, from someone who has spent 20 years sitting on tribunals and also somebody who himself had to apply for DLA and also for the new PIP, I think that this is actually a very important area for claimants. I welcome that there is now a clear recognition, both from the committee and from the Government, that there is a difference between advocacy and that of information and advice. I think that initially, perhaps particularly within the committee's thinking, those were seen as collectively the same thing, and I think that to prove them apart is very important. I welcome that and I welcome the way that the Government has put forward two separate amendments. If I can turn to amendment 58 and move that, I will be pressing this one at this stage. The reason for doing that is that I think that there needs to be clearly set out within this bill and, hopefully, act that claimants will be entitled to information and advice. That will range from somebody going in to the local CAB, advice shop or other charity organisation, and saying, I have got this form, I just simply do not know how to fill it out. I was talking to a family member who has a daughter who has Down syndrome, and they are transferring at the moment from DLA on to PIP. She is very well educated, but they are literally just trying to fill out that form without any help, caused her immense stress and difficulty. I think that a lot of the issues that will be resolved is that if people go and seek advice and assistance at an early stage, get the form filled out in a way that is helpful and correct, and then the system should then flow much clearer after that. However, for others, there will be the need for help in regard to going to tribunals if that is necessary and other legal issues. I do think that it is important that we move that section 58 is there, and I would move that. In regard to independent advocacy, I am grateful that the minister has put down what she has. I do believe at the moment that the definition in regard to mental disorder, which is in her section, is too limiting and does exclude people who would need that. I do recognise that my amendment opens it to anybody and everybody, and I also accept that that might be too wide a definition. I am at this stage going to not move section 59, and we will support the Government's amendment, but under the caveat that we need to get a better definition for mental disorder, and if we cannot find that by stage 3, it would be my intention to reintroduce my amendment, because, ultimately, we cannot get a definition that we agreed on, and I think that it is better to be too wide than too narrow. I think that it is also very helpful the wording that the minister again and Pauline McNeill have got in regard to having somebody there. For me, advocacy for some people will require a professional help, will require someone who is paid to do it, but, for a lot of people, advocacy will simply be somebody who can sit with them, a family friend or somebody like that. Advocacy has to be seen in a holistic and wide-ranging way. I think that, hopefully, with using stakeholders and other people's advice, we can get to a definition that allows people to feel that they will have somebody there for the whole process to give them the support that they require. First of all, I would like to say that I am grateful to Kim from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, Inclusion Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland and Camp Hill Scotland in all their work on the amendment. Inclusive communication is communication that is inclusive of the largest number of people in the population. The key message would be that inclusive communication is for everyone and no one has ever complained that a public service was too easy to understand or to get your point across to communication. Disadvantage is strongly associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, and we all know that difficulties understanding compliance instructions, expressing yourself verbally, as well as the ability to read and write, is a major barrier to education employment and outcomes generally. Studies have shown that 80 to 100 per cent of young people not in employment, education or training have underdeveloped communication skills. Communication disability is also experienced by many of those living with disabilities and long-term conditions, including everyone who has a autistic spectrum disorder, dementia or Parkinson's and around 80 per cent of people with a learning difficulty and at least 30 per cent of people who have had a stroke. If communication is not inclusive, we can expect that actual and potential recipients of entitlements won't respond to advice and information, won't turn up, will make mistakes in applications and won't fulfil their obligations. I'm grateful to the member. In my garden, would she recognise that her amendment doesn't help people who have visual impairment and you can't communicate if you can't read the form and that's why the form needs to be right before you can communicate? I think that your question gets to the key of it. This isn't about forms. Inclusive communication is about giving information and letting people provide the information that we're looking for in whatever form mode—not form, paper form—that they need to. I think that where we don't have inclusive communications, which would include braille and those things, we'll have a lower take-up of entitlement, things will take longer, there's reduced efficiency, which can mean more cost and, troublingly, there's an increased potential for frustration and challenging interactions between staff and recipients. I think that we need this on the face of the bill as an opportunity for Scotland to lead in transformational change. It took legislation to implement communication inclusion for BSL users and I think that we need it for all communication disadvantaged groups. The centralised approach, supported by primary legislation, will facilitate consistency and mainstreaming of quality inclusive communication practice that is for everyone and I would urge everyone to support this amendment. Thank you. I now invite Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 139 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'll come on to 1, 2 and 1, 3, 9. I just want to speak about the committee's recommendation in the Government's response that independent advocacy should be included in the bill. I welcome the minister's amendment and how she has set out that we would be looking at that as a baseline of entitlement and looking to work further towards stage 3 as to how we can get an amendment that more adequately fits with what stakeholders are looking for and to make sure that everyone who needs it and would benefit from advocacy would be adequately supported and so will be supporting the minister's amendments in this group. On 1, 1, 2 and 1, 3, 9, my amendment 139 is supported by RNIB and I thank them for the work that they have done with me on that. I and stakeholders do not feel that amendment 112 fully covers accessible formats. It recognises the importance of communicating in an inclusive way, which we welcome, but that does not ensure that all documents relating to the system will be accessible. Ministers can quite easily have regard to the importance of communicating in an inclusive way, but not follow through on that with any real adjustments that would make the system inclusive. My amendment 139 sets out exactly which information would need to be accessible. As a result, I and stakeholders feel that that is much more comprehensive. I would argue as well that the amendment goes... Thank you for taking intervention. Your amendment is quite prescriptive about what is needed. If that is on the face of the bill, if there are additional forms to be added or types of paper and things that are needed, does that mean that we will need to amend primary legislation to update it? I am happy to come back and amend at stage 3 to reflect that further information could be required and that those could be added at a later stage, but I would continue to press with the amendment as it is at this point. Is the point that Ruth Maguire makes not covered by paragraph 8 of your amendment that says any other document that the Scottish ministers are required to publish? Thank you, Mr Tomkins, for that helpful intervention. I would close there. I believe that it is the case that I will be supporting all the amendments that we have discussed so far. I do not see that Ruth Maguire's amendment and Mark Griffin's on the subject of inclusive communication and accessible information are mutually exclusive. I thank them both for the work that they have done in those areas. I very much hope that we do arrive at a strengthened position regarding right to advocacy at stage 3. I appreciate the minister's commitment to look at that issue more broadly and I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Griffin when he says that the position is a baseline one. If Mr Balfour is content to withdraw his amendment for the time being with that guarantee that a strengthened amendment will be brought forward at stage 3, I too am content with that. It is right to say to the committee that it has given good time to discuss the need for advocacy and the need to advice. There is a recognition that some people will require one, some people will require the other and some people will require both. It is important that the completed bill gets it absolutely right, but I will be supporting all the amendments. As other members have said, I think that it is a really important aspect of the bill. I would like to wholeheartedly welcome the Scottish Government's approach to this in principle, that we are recognising the importance of advocacy in the system and that there is obviously a differentiated position between those who professionally advocate on behalf of others and those who are there to support. Just to clarify, when I was talking about this at stage 1, many professional advocates were saying that they were not allowed to speak on behalf of claimants because there was no formal recognition of their role. I think that we should be welcome by all of us that the principle is going to be contained within the bill, perhaps between now and stage 3. We can get some consensus about how wide that is. I always find stage 2 a bit of an odd procedure because if you are the mover of the group, you sum up, but if you have an amendment in the middle, there is no summing up procedure. I think that interventions are important. I would like Jeremy Balfour to perhaps intervene in me to answer that question. Amendment 58 is about information and advice. As you rightly pointed out, there is an important difference between advocacy, support and information and advice. I am interested in this amendment, but I just want to be absolutely clear what the implications of 58 are. An individual applying or considering applying for assistance with the Scottish sources is entitled to independent information and advice about, in particular, how to apply for assistance, etc. Does that mean that there is a financial implication for the Government in making that provision? How did you envisage that 58 would be supported if it is passed into the act? If I could intervene, I would be grateful. I do not see this changing how things work at the moment, particularly in that the Scottish Government, through local authorities or through other ways, already funds CAB advice shops in some parts of the city. That either comes through local Government or through national government. For example, here in Edinburgh, we have things such as the Grant and Information Centre in Mr McPherson's constituency. That is the type of people that we would be seeking to continue to do the work. I do not see that as a major change in what is already happening. There would be a financial money that would have to be provided for that, but I think that that has already been provided by either Scottish Government or local authority. To answer the minister, it is not absolutely prescriptive. My A2E could be looked at, but I have clearly worded that it is not prescriptive. That is not the only thing. For me, there would not be a major change in regard to what is happening already, but it is just a speech on a statutory basis that is not there. Thank you and helpful interventions. We are welcome, but it is just to be clear that I will try and let members in before we move to summing up if they want to come back on issues. I now invite Mr Adam and Mr McPherson. I agree that the importance of getting this right. I know that we have talked about this constantly and that we have been around the houses with regard to advocacy and advice, but one of the things that I have concerns with and Mr Balfour touched on towards the end of his contribution was the fact that there is already a process in his advice centres, but it is currently quite patchy all over the country. You have a situation in one area, where you have both CAB and you have council advice, plus you have other organisations. Other areas you do not have that necessarily. The whole point is in getting this right. I think that we need to make sure that we know exactly what we are trying to deliver. That is why I have problems with 58 in particular. Jeremy Balfour also said that he wants people to have someone with him, and that his advocate might be a friend or family member. That is exactly what the minister has already offered, to have a supporter in the right... Well, okay, no problem. I am grateful to Mr Balfour. I think that that is the issue that we are getting confused on. Somebody, depending on what their disability is, may require at a tribunal or at a medical assessment or whatever. They may require a friend or an advocate there to give them the support that they need, but they also then need somebody to be able to put their case of course in a way that is legally understandable. Again, I think that there is an absolute difference in function between the two. Often, at tribunals, you end up in a good situation where it is right for the claimant, where the claimant has a parent or friend or brother sitting there giving emotional support, but then you have somebody else there from CAB who is able to put across their case and explain why they are entitled to that benefit. I do not think that it is an either-or. It can be or it can be both, and that is what this seeks to do. That kind of makes me even more concerned as the fact that we are back to the muddling. As I have already mentioned, the fact that we do not necessarily—some areas do not have CAB support in the area or other advice areas—I am a bit concerned that we are going back to the muddling of advice information advocacy and moral support. I think that we need to make sure that we are clear in this one and we have to ensure that we create a system that everybody gets the access to the advice that they need. At the same time, I do not think that 58, however well-intentioned it is, does do that for us. One of my questions would be to both the minister and to Mr Balfour when they are summing up. Who would provide us, how would you provide us, how and who would provide us service and how do you see it? At this stage, it seems like warm words, but there does not seem to be anything there. I saw those who have brought amendments on those points. I absolutely recognise the importance of independent advice and independent advocacy. I think that the evidence that we took throughout stage 1 was crucial in delineating between the two different aspects. Sometimes it was muddled in evidence sessions that we took particularly at the beginning. That is why we need to be very clear about that and distinctive in that differentiation between advocacy and advice, as Jeremy Balfour stated. The recognition of the importance of both would be taken forward by the minister's amendment 8, and that is exactly why I will be supporting it. The right to advocacy will be taken forward in the minister's amendment 9, and that is why I will be supporting that. I have difficulties around 58, and it is for those reasons. Like I said, the importance of independent advice and independent advocacy is both significant. However, to place an entitlement to independent information and advice, when we need to be pragmatic, and we need to consider, as Mr Balfour alluded to in his comments, that a local Government funding settlement covers that in this city and elsewhere. Giving an entitlement to a right to advocacy is important, but a right to advice is something different, and it is not a right to independent advice. A right to information and advice in itself would have been more pragmatic to consider, but independent information and advice is something that is much more problematic for delivery and something that, as I said, is already covered by the local Government funding settlement. I appreciate the position that Mr Balfour has taken on 59, and I am grateful for the reasons and the fact that he is not going to press that. I fully support my colleague Ruth Maguire in terms of absolutely the recognition and importance of inclusive communication. I think that that covers holistically and comprehensively the points that Mark Griffin seeks to add in 139. I appreciate the point that Adam Tomkins made about how H gives accessibility to new documents. I do not think that we need to be as exhaustive as the list in Mark Griffin's 139 to seek to take forward. I will not be supporting 139, but I will be supporting 112, because that is absolutely, quite rightly, recognising the importance of inclusive communications. I am conscious of time, but I must require a few quick comments. Very briefly, convener. Just to add to what Ben Macpherson was saying about advice, one of my main concerns about 58 is that people who need advice and who get advice from citizens advice or local authority, money matters teams or housing are about all aspects of their life. It cannot be dealt with in isolation, and I think that that is where it gets very complicated in making it an entitlement. It is provided by multiple providers, and I just wanted to have that on the record. Does anyone wish to come back in? I just want to pick up two points that have been raised. The first thing is how will this be implemented in section 58 subsection 4? It is delegated by ministers, so I think that that is how it will work. I am just slightly intrigued by George Adam's comment, because I do agree that, somewhere like Paisley, Scottish Borders has good advice, here in Edinburgh is good advice, and I agree that it is patched in other parts of the country. However, because it is patched in other parts of the country, it does not mean that those in other parts of the country should not be entitled to the same type of advice and assistance that we get whether we are in a big city or in a rural place. I think that that is my slight concern, in fact that you are arguing what we cannot show. The argument is that we are making a right from to get that advice, but I am saying that it is the cart before the wheel situation here. If you admit that there is no advice here, then you are saying that you have the right to do that, then where is the structure? That is what I asked you. How would you deliver it? I think that we would deliver it through supporting to be more CABs across the whole of the country. It would be one very practical way of doing it. I am convinced that the community wants me to wind up. Just very briefly, I think that it is really important to note that citizens advice bureau and citizens advice Scotland do magnificent work, but locally for me there are a number of housing associations, the local authority, individual community associations and I think that there needs to be space and room for all those. There is not a simple answer to that, so I think that it is very unclear. It will be up to the individual claimant to decide which organisation they want to go to. As happens at the moment, in Edinburgh you can go to CAB, you can go to the advice shop, you can go to the grant information centre, you can go to this. I am not being prescriptive, I will allow it to the claimant to make the decision who they want to give out advice for them. I think that we are going to move to the minister to sum up. Thank you very much, convener. I will try to be as brief as I can. Can I start by saying that I am grateful to Mr Balfour for not moving amendment 59 for support for the Government amendment and to him and other committee members for their understanding about the approach that I want to take? Amendment 9 does do what many stakeholders have asked for, but, as I have made it clear, I fully appreciate that it is our baseline and I look forward to the constructive discussions that we will have as we move towards stage 3 with stakeholders and Mr Balfour and others to try and improve on that position if it is at all possible. I would urge likewise support for amendment 8 stating that Scottish ministers must have regard to the role that independent advocacy and advice can have in ensuring that an individual is given what they are eligible to be given under the social security system. That must include providing or ensuring the provision of information about independent advocacy and advice to those individuals. That takes me to the difficulty that I have with Mr Balfour's amendment 58, which I would urge him not to press, but if he does, I would urge the committee not to support. For a number of reasons, I think that it is overly prescriptive in the terms of the nature of advice, which for me is not an appropriate prescription to give to independent providers of advice. I also think that, although I am sure that it is not intended, the wording of the amendment is ambiguous in terms of the implications for resource allocation and resource demand. That ambiguity, where we lack clarity in that, where we are talking about the potential expenditure of public resource, is not ambiguity at this point that makes for good law. I urge members to not support amendment 58. I am grateful for support for amendment 39, which places a right for an individual to have a supporter if they need it or want it. If I may say so, I think that that is a significant part of the legislation. It has not been much pressed for, but I know that stakeholders welcome it greatly, and I think that it will, for everyone who uses social security in Scotland, make a significant difference. We all need somebody beside us to give us a helping hand. I have three of them right at the minute, but I fully appreciate the importance of that, simply in psychological terms, if for no other reasons. I am very happy to support amendment 112, in Ruth Maguire's name. Inclusive communications is precisely that. It supports a rights-based approach, which is at the very centre of the Scottish system. For that reason, I would ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 139 for two reasons. First of all, the inclusive communication has a standard to which the Scottish Government is signed up. It was part of the argument that stakeholders brought to us and that Ms Maguire has now translated into her amendment, and it includes, of course, those individuals with visual or hearing impairments. It is also the case that the Equality Act places an additional duty on us all to ensure that communication is accessible. Communication, of course, is much wider than forms and bits of paper. I know that, although we all appreciate that, it is also important to say that, again, we are establishing a social security system not just for 11 benefits, but capable should that opportunity arise for growth and to be founded over the years. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that the kinds of written and other communication that the agency might wish to use is reasonably likely to change over time. I remind members again that we have committed to co-production in terms of how the agency communicates with those seeking the assistance that it is entitled to. I would not want, unintentionally, to exclude our experience panels and others to whom we have made that very strong commitment by anything that we might do for the best of reasons, but unintentionally, we cut them out of what might be possible. With that said, I urge members to support the amendments in my name and in Ms Maguire's name and to express my gratitude to Mr Balfour for not pressing amendment 59. I am very mindful of time, and that was an important debate to let run on. I feel for the stage 2 proceedings, but I am reminded to have a five-minute comfort break for members. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so there will be a division. Can I ask that those in favour of amendment 8 please raise their hands. Those against amendment 8? Any abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division are seven votes for and two votes again, so amendment 8 is agreed. I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 8 and asked the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. I call amendment 58 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 8, and I ask Mr Balfour to move or not move. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No, so they are not agreed, so there will be a division. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Those against? The result of the division are five votes for the amendment and four votes again, so the amendment is agreed. I call amendment 59 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 8 and asked Mr Balfour to move or not move. I call amendment 112 in the name of Ruth Maguire, already debated with amendment 8 and asked Ruth Maguire to move or not move. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 114 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 4 and asked Mark Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed, so there will be a division. I can ask those in favour of amendment 114 to please raise their hands. Those against? Any abstentions? The result of the division are seven votes for and two votes against, so the amendment is agreed. I call amendment 115 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 4 and asked Mark Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so there will be a division. I can ask those in favour of amendment 115 to please raise their hands. Those against? Any abstentions? The result of the division is seven votes for and two votes against, so the amendment is agreed. I call amendment 139 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 8 and asked Mark Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so there will be a division. I can ask those in favour of amendment 139 to please raise their hands. Those against? Any abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division are five votes for and four votes against, so the amendment is agreed. I call amendment 140 in the name of Alison Johnson, already debated with amendment 4 and asked Alison Johnson to move or not move. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so there will be a division. I can ask those in favour of the motion to please show their hands. Those against? Sorry, any abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division are three votes for, four votes against and two abstentions, so the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of the minister and our group on its own, and I ask minister to move amendment 10 and speak to amendment 10. Thank you, convener. I will breathe as brief as I can. I have always been clear that profit should never be a motive or play any part in decision making or assessing people's eligibility for disability assistance. I gave a commitment to this Parliament and to the people of Scotland in April 2017 that the private sector should not be involved in assessments for Scotland's benefits. I am bringing forward amendment 10 in response to calls that this commitment should be made clear on the face of the bill. It makes clear that Scottish ministers can never require an individual to attend an assessment by anyone who is not employed in the public sector and applies that across the social security system in Scotland. The amendment allows decision makers to consider evidence derived from the private sector, for example, where the person has private healthcare arrangements but only where the individual is content with that. It also provides for receipt of UK benefits or other assistance, where, as a condition for eligibility, entitlement to those benefits depends on private sector assessments. That may be relevant in relation to early years' assistance, for example, because as members who have looked at the Government's published illustrative regulations will know, it is proposed that eligibility will depend on being a receipt of certain UK benefits. All of that said, I hope that members can support this amendment, translating, as it does, my stated commitment on to the face of the bill. We will not be supporting this amendment. This is an issue on which the committee was divided at stage 1, but the majority of the committee at stage 1, including the Scottish Conservatives, believed that to include a formal ban on private sector contractors in the bill may lead to unintended consequences. The majority of the committee did not support the proposal at the time. The Government also did not support the proposal in its response to our stage 1 report. The minister has said both to the committee before and in the chamber that she does not support a statutory ban on the private sector because of the danger of unintended consequences. This is an unwelcome U-turn on the minister's part. It is disappointing that she has caved into ideological pressure from the left, but it is not entirely surprising that we will not be supporting the amendment. Mr Griffin? There will be no surprise that, as one of the minority on the committee at stage 1, evidence and reporting session pushed strongly for the Government to consider translating its policy ambition to exclude the private sector from any assessments into legislation. I am delighted to see the Government do so. Stakeholders and their evidence were clear that they wanted to see a statutory ban that would force any incoming Government who did not share the same policy as Labour members and Government members had. The private sector has no role in assessments for social security, and it gives helpful assurance and clarity to the 100,000 or so disabled people who still have to go through PIP assessments and are desperate to see that being enacted. It is a very welcome U-turn. It is not an unwelcome U-turn, as Mr Tump can say. It is a very welcome U-turn, and I am glad that the Government and the minister have caught up with our position that we felt that it was always something that could be placed within the bill to give people who would be going through the assessment the assurance that profit would never be a consideration. Ms McNeill? I would also like to add to what Matt Griffin has already said that the Scottish Government will not have to be commended for bringing this amendment forward. When I joined the committee, the whole subject was quite new to me, and I was shocked at the extent to which the assessment aspect of people claiming benefits in the manner in which it was conducted. I believe that this amendment is quite clear that it is a restriction on the private sector in relation to undergoing an assessment of physical condition or mental health. It does not preclude what the minister meant by the unintended consequences, perhaps when we are debating at stage 1, which might be to use the private sector for other appropriate aspects of money in a social security system. It is important, however, to read the amendment in conjunction with what we have already debated, which is in tandem with a system that is designed to promote the dignity and respect of people. To me, it is important that the rules that accompany that restriction are the all-important thing. I believe that this amendment is a substantial progress and important in the type of social security system that we have the chance to design in Scotland, and I will be wholeheartedly supporting amendment 10. If we want our social security system in Scotland to be all that we would wish it to be, this is one aspect where we really want to move away from the Westminster model. I think that those assessments are the most loathsome and some of the most loathed aspects of what is in place at the moment. It is absolutely clear that the private companies who have been carrying out those assessments have not been doing a good job, but otherwise there would not be so many successful appeals. I wholeheartedly welcome this amendment and will be pleased to support it. This is ideology against good practice. If you go back 20 years for private companies, we are doing medical assessments without any complaints. What an individual wants is a good assessment. Frankly, they do not care who does it. We need to improve the assessments, but to the rule out private companies from doing that, I think that we will have the unforeseen circumstances and the question that I have been trying to, if the minister could answer, is who is going to do it, where are the people available to do this that will do that. Secondly, when we used to do assessments at home, no one complained, done by the private sector. What we need to look at is a good assessment and make sure that the assessment is done properly, whether it is done by private companies or by the state. Frankly, the claimants do not care. It is probably a little bit unfair to characterise this as a U-turn, whether it is on the far right or far left. I am sure that the minister will want to clarify what our concerns were around unintended consequences. My reading of this is that, if a claimant chooses to use evidence from a private provider that there is medical evidence that they are able to do so, no one will ever be compelled to attend an assessment by a private contractor. Perhaps the minister would clarify that. The minister has been pretty consistent throughout this, as she has always said. This has been specifically about the cases that we have had in front of us with regard to PIP in general and the disaster from the Westminster Government in the way that people have been dragged through that system with one specific company, a private company in particular. That shows the difference. To be honest, I do not see the idea of how it is a U-turn, because, as she said from day one, the minister has said to us all that this has been a case of that we did not want to have these private companies involved in that specific process. I do not unlike Mr Balfour, I do not agree that the public does not care who assesses them, because I am quite sure that if you mention a certain private company, you will end up with a whole stack of people complaining to you. Let us stick to the issue that we are talking about here and remind ourselves how we are in this position. Let me make a couple of points. First of all, it is not ideology set against good practice. All of the practice that we have seen in terms of how the Westminster system delivers health assessments tells us that that is very poor practice indeed. The reason for that is twofold. First of all, it is because of the system that is operated where the initial decisions are made without adequate information. That is in part because of how the UK system imposes time targets on DWP staff making those assessments. It is also because any private company, quite legitimately, pursues profit. For me, the pursuit of profit should not be the driver in how we deliver social security. It is simple. In terms of previous practice, I am certain that I am older than Mr Balfour. I recall the days when assessments were done for benefits by members otherwise employed in the public sector in health primarily, which, in addition to their day job, undertook those assessments. That is the model, to some extent, that the expert advisory group and the work chaired by Dr McDivitt from the BMA, the GP group and Ms Burke from the GDA in Glasgow working on behalf of the expert group are taking forward for me to develop the model of how we will deliver the limited number of health assessments that may be required for disability assistants that does not require people to undertake an assessment delivered by the private sector. That is not a formal ban on private contractors. Members will recall my concern about that idea because of the unintended consequences that others have referred to. Nor is it a U-turn because, as colleagues have said, that has been my consistent position. What I have sought to do is translate that public commitment into the face of the bill in a way that makes sense, does not incur unintended consequences and is clear about what ministers will not do but, sensibly, also allows individuals to bring forward evidence in support of their application for the financial support that they are entitled to if that evidence comes from a private sector assessment through the means that I have already described. My amendment is clear. It allows us to translate, as has been asked for, that very public commitment into primary legislation while retaining the right of the individual to choose the evidence that they bring forward to support their application. All the way through that, I am very clear about the centrality of individuals in our system choosing what happens to them and our system facilitating that. I think that our amendment is worthy of support. It is not a ban on the private sector inside social security but is a translation of the public commitment that the private sector driven as it is and, understandably so, in its terms by a profit motive should not be the deliverers of health assessments inside social security in Scotland. Thank you minister. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Sorry, my apologies. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and I would ask those in favour of amendment 10 to raise their hands and those against and any abstentions. The results of the division are seven votes four and two against and the amendment 10 is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 141 in the name of Pauline McNeill grouped with amendments 142, 143, 144, 146, 147 and 150 and ask Pauline McNeill to move amendment 141 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Those amendments are concerned with the chart being approved by our regulation put before Parliament. The purpose of it is to make it subject to Parliamentary scrutiny so the regulations would go before Parliament if those amendments were passed and arguably give more emphasis behind the charter itself. Amendment 141 adds the words that Scottish ministers why regulations will set out from time to time will revise. Amendment 142 deletes the word is prepared to publish from time to time to be reviewed and inserts the words and publish the charter to leave before the Scottish Parliament the draft regulations and that's in relation to the first charter. Amendment 44 inserts the reference to the draft regulations for consultation. Amendment 146, where the Parliament has approved the regulations only then would they be made publicly available after parliamentary approval. Amendment 147 inserts where the Scottish Government decided to make changes to the charter that they also must be laid before the Parliament. Amendment 150 is a technical amendment for completeness. Thank you. I invite any other members to speak to this group. Briefly, I am unable to support these amendments in the name of Pauline McNeill simply because I feel that as we heard in the evidence during stage 1, the charter is going to be a document of co-production and one of the key elements behind that is accessibility and accessible language and clarity over redress and my concern is that having looked at many regulations now in my time as an MSP, they are not constructed or drafted in such accessible language and therefore I have concerns that these amendments will undermine that accessible language through the co-production of the charter and so I won't be supporting them. I'm going to move to the minister. Thank you. Let me start by saying I have no difficulty with the principle that Ms McNeill is attempting to realise in that the Parliament should have a role in improving the charter and any changes to it. The difficulty that I have with the amendments as they stand is that they put the charter into the form of regulations. Regulations are a very particular form of legal document. They are rules around how they are expressed, how they are formatted and how they are published. None of those rules are appropriate in my view for the charter, which is intended to be an easy read document, not a legalistic one. If the intention is to give Parliament a role in improving a final version of the charter, then I would ask Ms McNeill not to press those amendments but to work with us in advance of stage 3 so that she can bring an amendment forward at that point that gives Parliament such a role. Without undermining the intention of the charter, members will recall that we said that the charter is the concrete expression of the principles and is one that should be co-produced with our stakeholders and is one in which the commission has a role. Those amendments, as they stand, do not do that and they are not amendments that I can support. Stage 1, the committee heard expert after expert give evidence welcoming the charter as a valuable and innovative step that could make a real difference to the people who rely on the system. It is true that many said that the charter should have more teeth, something that the Scottish Government propodes amendments 17 and 18 deliver on. However, what was universally agreed at the debate was that, above all else, that document must be a clear and accessible statement of what people are entitled to expect from the system. Indeed, we have already debated amendments that aim to improve clarity of communication. I am afraid that the amendments from Ms McNeill, as they stand, will not deliver that. Not only would they require a document in regulations that are legally precise, they would require a document that would constitute part of the law of Scotland itself. Far from something clear and accessible, we would be issuing people with detailed and complex legal provisions. Furthermore, we would be forced into a position of potentially restricting what could appear in the charter no matter how much it is something people wanted, because it may not be compatible with direct legal application. That is not what people have told us they want from the charter and what we have promised to deliver. The idea of Parliament having a role in approving a final version of the charter is not, in and of itself, an issue. So long is the process by which the charter is developed has co-designed at its heart, so long as it is transparent and research-led, and so long as we are able to translate that engagement and research into a clear, accessible document, then I have no objection to the end result being laid before Parliament for its approval. That is not what those amendments would achieve. I ask again that Ms McNeill consider not pressing those amendments but allowing us the time with her in advance of stage 3 to have a further discussion and bring forward an amendment that she can propose at stage 3 that realises that intention to allow Parliament to have a final say on the charter and on subsequent reviews of the charter. However, if that is not something that Ms McNeill is willing to do, I would urge the committee to reject the amendments. I invite Pauline McNeill to wind up and to press or withdraw her amendment. Thank you very much. I am persuaded by what the minister has said today that perhaps trying to seek maximum and appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny does not quite square with the idea of the charter being a co-produced document, and I acknowledge all those points. I would be very happy to discuss at stage 3. I think that that would be the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny that the Parliament would simply see the final version and persuade it that that is the right way to do it. In view of that, convener, I would seek to withdraw amendment 141, which had already moved, and I would not be moving the other amendments in that group in view of that. I invite Pauline McNeill to wind up and to press or withdraw her amendment. Thank you. I call amendment 142, and I ask Pauline McNeill to formally move or not move. I am very mindful of time, but if we finish the next grouping, we will have finished section 2 of the bill. On that, I call amendment 11, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 60. I invite the minister to move the amendment and speak to the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 11, in my name, is a minor amendment to make it clear that the charter can set expectations about all of the Scottish ministers' functions under parts 1, 2 and 3 of the bill. This is important because amendments are being made that add functions for ministers into part 1, such as the duty to promote take-up, and those should also be captured by the charter. I would ask Mr Balfour to withdraw amendment 60, since I believe it to be unnecessary. The Scottish Government has no intention of delegating any of its functions in the bill to another body. Indeed, our amendment 10 to restrict private sector involvement in assessments and our support for amendment 77, in the name of Mr Adam, make clear the strength of our commitment to social security being delivered as a public service. If it is the agency that Mr Balfour has in mind, I would say that there is no legal distinction between ministers and the agency. The functions of ministers are therefore functions of the agency and the charter therefore binds the agency and, as it binds the ministers, because they are the same legal person. Even if a future Government did seek to outsource or delegate some of its functions, legally they would nevertheless continue to be functions of ministers who would rightly be held accountable for exercising them in the various ways that are required by the bill. I move amendment 11. I invite Mr Balfour to speak to amendment 60 and the other amendments in the group. In the light of the minister's remarks, I won't be moving anything to say. No, we can then move to the question, which is that amendment 11 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 60 formally for Mr Balfour already debated and ask Mr Balfour to move or not move. The question is that section 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I thank members of the committee and the minister for their contributions this morning. That completes our session for today. A reminder that members that the deadline for amendments up to the end of part 2, chapter 2, is tomorrow at noon, and we will consider consideration of further amendments. The updated marshaled lists and groupings will be issued to committee members on Monday.