 Yr deci peid Gesetzentwurf yn eisted después. Mae blaenau gof ers mae eintah preventing, yn ymgolwr hwn ac yn eingtrno diffgGER, yn gyfастиna隕. Rha O bobl, drwi nid o bwysig y gallai hoffaith gan sm هو gрастong, rydyn ni'n wedi'i gweld ei hwo bendir yn gyfaninga eithw—loniu wedi cy ludzi wedi unedig ar-f injuryotyrwy oРИ, pelt carpetio cael pelt eich gyleu iaith y gaelio iaith y gaelio iaith y gaelio iaith y gaelio iaith ei gaelio iaith, ond tyfnio a ni oedd â'r sylfaen, a'i gaelio iaith gaerll, a'i gaelio iaith gwylio iaith yn y cyfrif pluig sydd wedi ei gaelio iaith i gaelio iaith gaelio iaith a'u gwielio iaith, a'i ffurogi'r pelt geislu, ac i gan eich bod chi'n bwysig i cael ei hefyd wedi bod ni'n digwydd i mwyfach gaelio iaith i'r pelt i gaelio iaith. maeheadwww iaith iddofod, fullwrs i'i institutioniau a p לכelu a dwiwn yn deall iddofod y bab siwr i d판ol, bwygarwch o blaen golfa oedd mae'r gweithreidion sy'n byddio'r Aber blank. Dw i'n ddieriaeth fod rhai y bydd hon i maen Camh77e, ein cy Ozwaith cy엽 o BI Muchiul, i ddweud gan cyllidiau wasp representativebторfalor, i amwisteim shield- benef ychwaneg, i o non i ddweud o gael Yorkshire yn y ddweud, i f juicybeum Übern. Maehe力wr fyd atle settings i chymdeithan, campaigners, the list of those with input is as vast as the task in hand. But the wealth of knowledge and understanding of this greatness only adds to the creativity and ambitious programme set out in the report to ensure a fairer and more prosperous Scotland for all. We did the bulk of our work during the pandemic, so the impact it has had on all of our lives has informed so much of the report. Clearly, the priority that we all face right now is getting through the health impact of the pandemic. Thereafter, and hopefully before long, we will have a decision to make as a nation about who we want to set the priorities of our economic recovery. Where do we want the decisions about how we recover to be taken? It will not be good enough just to plot a path to get back to where we were at the end of 2019. We must do better. I have no doubt that there is a desire here in Scotland, but for us to achieve that will require radical change. Our report is not just about the policies that could make Scotland a fairer independent nation. It is also about how we can make decisions better. We focus on democratic renewal and involving people more in policy making, expanding the use of citizens assemblies, expanding the use of participatory budgeting and utilising more community ownership and community wealth building. We are already seeing the benefits of policy co-production in the way that Social Security Scotland has been built. We get better policy making when it is not just done to people but done by those who need and use the service the most. The second element that will help us to ensure that we do policy making better is by agreeing a set of values that will be the compass guiding us. A written constitution would obviously help that, but also agreeing the principles of how we create a wellbeing economy. That work is already under way with the First Minister taking an international lead as part of the wellbeing economy alliance. Finally, we focus on the policies that can create the wellbeing economy and the commission sets out a series of ideas that we feel would help drive down poverty, provide security to our citizens and make the economy work for our people rather than the other way round. Our report is deliberately not a traditional costed election manifesto. It is creating a vision for what Scotland could look like three or four parliamentary terms after Scotland becomes independent. It is about the work that will need to be done if we want to achieve that good society, building consensus and state building. One party created the NHS but its success is now based on cross-party consensus of it being a cherished asset. Many areas that we suggest should be looked at to build a fairer Scotland require radical reform that cannot be achieved overnight. A land value tax will require time to implement and phase in. It will take time to pilot a universal basic income and then assess whether it is the best route to drive down poverty and drive up wellbeing, or whether it would be a minimum income guarantee. Of course, not all of what we have suggested in the report requires the powers of independence to achieve. That is why I am pleased to see much of our report feature in the SNP's ambitious manifesto for this May's election, such as doubling the Scottish child payment, community wealth building and a minimum income guarantee. Edwin Mountain. I picked up on the land value tax and I should declare that, as a farmer, I own 500 acres, which I farmed. Mixed farmed incomes last year were £8,100. That is hardly enough to survive on. How would farmers cover the land value tax that is proposed if they have only got an income of £8,000? I thank Edwin Mountain for his question. Obviously, the creation of such a land value tax would be open to consultation and how it would be implemented would be open for discussion and consultation with key stakeholders such as himself and fellow landowners to ensure that it is fair and equitable. On a minimum income guarantee, as we heard yesterday from Shona Robison, the Scottish Government is already starting work on how a minimum income guarantee could work under the current devolved settlements. Obviously, it is going to be a huge challenge as we have a hybrid social security and tax system that are partially devolved. We in Scotland still rely on decisions of the UK Government being the right ones for us. Such a guarantee is about more than social security, it is about combining wages, social security and services to ensure that we have, as citizens, what we need and do not fall below a certain level. It is achievable, but there are clear challenges from the fiscal framework and interaction with detrimental decisions coming from Westminster. The looming cut to universal credit, which will end the £20 per week uplift, for instance, will wipe away any benefit for many families of the Scottish child payment. It proves to me why we need independence so that we can direct our resources to our agreed priorities and not be harming Hamstrung and help back by the austerity economics and the austerity of ambition of successive UK Governments. I have to give way to Stephen Cack. Thanks to Neil Gray for giving way. From our previous encounters in the other Parliament, I know how passionate and admire how passionate Neil Gray is about these matters. Would he accept that his comments on the uplift on universal credit and that this Parliament does have the means to address that issue if the majority in this Parliament feels that it is an issue that should be addressed? We have the means to do that, to top up reserved benefits. That is correct, isn't it, Neil Gray? I thank Stephen Kerr for his intervention. Of course, the Scottish Government is already taking action and targeted support to address those issues, but the issue at hand and at stake here is the fact that a hybrid system of social security that we have in Scotland has been undermined by decisions that have been taken up Westminster. The £20 a week Scottish child payment that we will be looking forward to could be completely undermined with the £20 a week uplift being removed by the UK Government. I think that it would be beholden on Stephen Kerr to direct his efforts at persuading his colleagues in London to ensure that that does not happen later this year. An immigration system that works for Scotland and those who choose to make here their home not unlawfully housing fellow human beings in squalor and ripping them from their community and on raids. A social security system that provides a real safety net that provides security and does not dehumanise them in assessments and impoverish them to the point of having food banks as a de facto extension of the DWP, we can and must do better. This short debate clearly won't cover all aspects of this substantial report. There is so much in there about drug reform, land reform, housing, immigration and more besides. It not only sets out a blueprint for how we set the priorities to create a fairer Scotland but gives policy ideas to achieve a good society, a compassionate and well-being society. I hope that this evening starts a healthy, positive debate on what we can achieve and takes us forward to that goal. If we know that poverty levels are dictated by the policies of our Government and the UK Government, I hope that we can all unite behind a central goal. We should be creating a fairer Scotland that eradicates poverty. The debate that we have should be about how we get there and I look forward to hearing the ideas coming through from all sides. I thank you for calling me a bit earlier because of the circumstances. I also congratulate Neil Gray on securing this important debate and I welcome him to the Scottish Parliament. I also wish to put in record that I was a member of the Social Justice and Fairness Commission. I also like to apologise that I have to leave before the close of the debate. It certainly was a privilege to become a member of the commission and I know that some discussions challenge the orthodoxy and also the tinkering at the edges that certainly is the easy thing to do. Thinking about the type of Scotland that we should all want to see should certainly bring us all together as a Parliament but I know that it won't. The report offers a conversation starter to find consensus about the kind of Scotland that we want to build with independence and how best to get there. The commission certainly believed that independence Scotland can build on the foundations that have been laid under devolution by the Scottish Government. The report stated that we contend that eradicating poverty in Scotland is the single most important ambition that the Government of an independent Scotland could seek to achieve. As Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty in Human Rights, said, "...devolved administrations have tried to mitigate the worst impacts of austerity despite experiencing significant reductions in block grant funding and constitutional limits on the ability to raise revenue." He also said that mitigation comes at a price and is not sustainable. That particular comment answers the questions from Mr Kerr to Mr Gray a few moments ago. Mitigating against UK Government welfare reform and Tory welfare policies prevents this Parliament and the Scottish Government from investing to make society better for everyone. The SNP Government has already introduced a range of progressive policies such as the baby box, a game-changing poverty reduction measures such as the Scottish child payment and the best start grants. However, there is still more to do. As Sharon Dowie commented earlier on, I want to commend her on her comments about John Scott. John certainly was someone who was well thought of and well regarded across the chamber. As Sharon Dowie said earlier in her first speech, she got involved in politics to make a difference. So did I and so did every single member of this Parliament. However, being ambitious for Scotland and helping to lift people out of poverty will not be done with the glass ceiling of devolution. It will not happen with one hand tied behind our backs. It will happen when we have full powers of independence. Brexit and the pandemic have certainly had a major impact on all our lives, and it will shape our country and our communities for decades to come. It will take decades to pay off the pandemic debt, but that is the same situation that the UK faced after World War II. However, that should not be a limit on the ambition for our people and for our country. My constituency has some of the most challenging statistics in Scotland. Those statistics are people. I want my constituency to have a better future. The debate that the chamber has heard at the surfer's turn about our justice transition ties in with the social justice report. If we want a social justice Scotland, if we want a fairer Scotland, if we want our communities to be more resilient, then read the report, consider the report, discuss the report and use it to engender more debate about Scotland and the type of Scotland that we all want to see. The status quo is finishing, and a fair independent Scotland is the prize that is coming and it will be won. Just to remind all members who are seeking to speak that they need to press their requests to speak buttons if they could all check. They have done that. I call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Rona Mackay. To Stuart McMillan, I stand as someone who is very ambitious for Scotland within the United Kingdom. I congratulate Neil Gray on securing this debate. One of the first members' business debates of this Parliament. However, the report is unoriginal. It is uncosted, which I think slips it into the territory of snake oil sales. It is the utopian fairytale, which has been drawn up by the SNP, frankly, to distract the people of Scotland from their failures in government. The report has been designed by the SNP to try and allow them to avoid accountability and to stoke up a grievance agenda. However, this Parliament already has the powers to address the most pressing issues to Estyn Scotland today. It is the SNP's dismal record and government that should be subject to debate, scrutiny and accountability. I take the following quote from the executive summary of the report. The democratic renewal that independence offers is an opportunity to reimagine our approach to local democracy. There is a strong argument for radical reform of local government, guided by the principle of empowering communities across Scotland to take the decisions that affect them. The SNP do not need independence to empower communities across Scotland. They need to give them proper funding and respect the decisions that are made by local councils. In 2013-14 and 2018-19, the SNP Government cut local government spending in Scotland by 7.5 per cent. The SNP also takes the attitude that they know better than local councillors over turning over a third of planning decisions made throughout Scotland's councils in the last Parliament. If that is not a power grab, I do not know what a power grab is. Another quote from the report reads, "...those struggling with addiction need to be heard and empowered to be at the centre of their own treatment and recovery." The Scottish Government already has the powers to allow those with addictions to be heard and empowered. Under the SNP's watch, Scotland has had a record number of drugs deaths for six consecutive years. The SNP likes to complain that it is legislation to blame for that. However, Scotland's drug deaths are three and a half times above those seen in England and Wales, who have the same legislation. The report correctly calls for co-operation. Perhaps in the spirit of co-operation, the Scottish Government can reach out to the UK and Welsh Governments to learn what they are doing to help those who suffer from addiction. Co-operation between Scotland's two Governments would also promote immigration to Scotland. With an increasingly elderly population, it is vital that Scotland is seen to be open and welcome. Sadly, the rhetoric that is associated with the nationalist movement makes Scotland feel like a hostile environment for many of our English friends. Banners such as England Get Out of Scotland—yes, of course. Thank you, Mr Kerr, for taking the intervention. I would just relate to him that his statement is incorrect in terms of the facts that net migration from the rest of the UK is positive for Scotland and has been for many years. I, of course, accept the facts, but it does not help when the nationalist movement creates a hostile environment with banners such as England Get Out of Scotland or perhaps even senior parliamentarians at Westminster, endorsing tweets that are said to English tourists to eff off and go home. I believe that the First Minister and her Government should be calling out that and condemning that kind of activity. Thank you for taking the intervention. Mr Kerr, as an English Scot, I agree with your comments about some of the terrible things that have been said, and I am quite sure that English Scots would agree, but I also have to highlight that some of the individuals that you just spoke about are not members of the SNP. I did not say that they were members of the SNP, but I would point out that Ian Blackford is definitely a member of the SNP. In fact, the SNP group leader Westminster. For social justice and fairness to emerge in Scotland, we do not need a change in the constitution. We need the Scottish Government to change how they exercise their powers, rather than seeking grievance that should seek to create an equality of opportunity for all Scots. Rather than having people's lives shaped by their postcode, the SNP should be seeking a levelling up agenda that leaves no one behind. The SNP should be focusing on bringing us together, because Scotland is more powerful when we work together. Doing all of that and more would be working in the national interest, but I fear that the SNP will continue to work in the nationalist interest. I would next call Rona Mackay to be followed by Michael Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to be speaking in my first members' debate of this new session, and I am exceptionally pleased to be speaking in such an important subject. I am just sorry that I had not heard Stephen Kerr's speech in advance, because I could use my entire time just rebutting all the nonsense that we have just heard, frankly. I congratulate my new colleague Neil Gray for his excellent opening speech and for bringing this debate to the chamber. Of course, I thank him for his exceptional work as a member of the Social Justice and Fairness Commission. In order to get somewhere on a journey, everyone needs a route map. The commission report leads the way to how the people of Scotland can live in a fairer, more equal society, one which values wellbeing, eradicates poverty and ensures no one's life behind. I certainly want this for my grandchildren, and this is the map that we need to get us there. It highlights so many key elements needed to improve life for everyone. We know that society is unequal, it seems like it always has been, but this is our chance to change it, albeit with limited powers until we are a normal independent country. Yesterday afternoon from across the chamber, we heard harrowing stories of people living in poverty in the struggles they face every day. This is Scotland 2021, and this should not be happening. We heard the Tories, and we have heard Stephen Kerr, the Tories who are responsible for most of the poverty creation in Scotland, and others say that we should use the powers that we already have. As Neil Gray said, much of it is already in our manifesto. The SNP Government has introduced the baby box, the game-changing poverty reduction measures, Scottish child payment and best start grants among many others. With independence, we could do so much more. We would not have to mitigate harmful Tory welfare policies. We could reverse Tory welfare policies such as the important two-child limit, the vile rape clause, the benefit cap, and the cruel five-week wait for universal credit. We could have a welcoming inclusive immigration policy, renewed employment rights under a fair work agenda, get rid of unpaid work trials, zero hours contracts, and fire and hire legislation. Warm affordable housing is a basic human right that is sadly non-existent for too many people. That must be addressed and could be with radical new thinking about the social rented sector. A bold drug policy based on harm reduction and recovery is happening now, and I believe a conversation about decriminalisation is long overdue. Under the UK Government, pensions are the lowest in Europe. With independence, we could lower the age of qualification and pay a fairer rate. It's the least the older citizens of Scotland should expect. The commission also proposes establishing pilots of two key models of social security, universal basic income and the minimum income guarantee. Those would be the springboard to beating the battle against poverty. I appreciate the member giving way. It's all well and good, but when you're setting out a vision or a prospectus for a future that you believe that the member believes can only achieve to an independent Scotland, you also have to tell people how this will be paid for. That might not be a very popular thing to say in this chamber tonight, but you have to be able to pay for these things. How will they be paid for, all these aggrandizments, more pensions, more benefits, more everything? I think that it's a bit of a facile comment to make. This will be costed. All the initiatives that we do will be costed. Produced as we did in 2014 in a white paper. We don't ask people to take a leap of faith in things that are uncosted. Not from a sedentary position, thank you. I can continue. There's much, much more in the social justice and fairness commission and far too much to highlight in four minutes. I thank everyone, not just the elected politicians but the many innovative members who worked on producing this report. This report is the start of a life-changing, nation-changing conversation, one that puts human rights at the heart of every decision. It provides a map I will be happy to follow and I applaud its vision for a Scotland I want to live in and one in which future generations can flourish. Thank you. I now call Michael Marra to be followed by Emma Roddick. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate that Mr Gray has brought forward. I'm happy to discuss issues of social justice wherever and whenever we can. We owe it to the people of Scotland to have these discussions as frequently as we can. We also owe them honesty in the discussions that we have about them, about the difficult choices that we have to make. It's an interesting document, having read it. I hadn't read it prior to the debate being called, it's fair to say, but I'm interested to have read it since. I have the utmost respect, in particular, for Dr Ailey Whiteford. I was privileged to work with her for Oxfam for a number of years. I know her extraordinary commitment to the poorest of the world and the service that she's given to people in many countries on these issues of poverty. I was interested in a quote, and it says that policies must be grounded in consensus across society and able to weather changes in government and economic downturns. That talks to some of the hard work of politics, actually building consensus, trying to build the consensus of a whole population and seeking unanimity, at the very least, the permission of people to make progress. I have to say that I see little evidence of this in terms of the division that we see on a day-to-day basis between the young and the young, the opposition of the yes and the ultra-knows on the other side of the conversation. We've seen that in the most recent election campaign, a divisive campaign fought between two extremes thriving off each other, and that's not going to deliver the kind of essence of what's required here. A country that is divided 50-50 will not have a consensus to build any kind of vision for the future. I think that that is the challenge, frankly, that faces the SNP and nationalists if they believe that they can achieve an independent Scotland. I think that this issue of political leadership comes to the fore. For those of us who have argued our entire lives for progressive taxation, your party have not been allies, quite clearly not been allies. You fought the last two general elections specifically committed to opposing Labour's progressive taxation reforms. You talked about Labour's attainment of the NHS. Excuse me, comments through the chair. Sorry, I'll get used to it at some point. There was Labour's attainment of the NHS. That was achieved by facing downvester interests through negotiation and persuasion to make the case for it. I want to talk about the difficulty of that in tax, in particular in terms of SNP taxation policy. I think that there's a salient point in talking about how that has to be paid for, the many great aspirations in that. The history of SNP taxation policy in recent terms, the first term, is entirely regressive and targeted the impact of that cutting services for local people, often the most poorest the disabled people who require services and we continue to see the multi-billion pounds impact of that. Second term, the Laffer curve economics advocated by John Swinney in the run-up to the independence referendum. A completely ridiculous policy claiming that lower taxes will result in higher growth in this country. Andrew Wilson's growth commission austerity on steroids and that this election back again to council tax freezes. The issue in this is about how do we pay for the issues, the kind of policies that you're putting forward and building some form of consensus for that. Please. I appreciate Michael Marra giving way and I appreciate up until last couple of paragraphs Michael Marra's constructive approach to this debate. I think that we have common cause of areas in this report and I look forward to working with him and colleagues taking the forward and finding consensus. In terms of taxation will they accept that there are a number of recommendations within reports such as land value tax and other streamlinings and progressive elements towards a fairer taxation system but that also requires the full powers of taxation that we do not currently hold. Michael Marra. Certainly I don't actually agree that there are versions of land value tax that could not be implemented now without any further powers. I think that the issues that brings me to the point of the many things that are in this report that could be delivered now. Council tax reform promised for 14 years and completely undelivered and LVT is an opportunity. I would say that there is probably a majority in this Parliament for a version of that policy. Bring it forward. Land reform, local government reform, the creation of new enhanced benefits. An example of this is we were told in 2014, that it was necessary to have independence to deliver transformative childcare. Two months later, after a no-vote, that policy was put in place. That, again, is a list of things that can't be done. Frankly, the main contradiction within that is about the growth commission, the evil twin document of this, produced by Andrew Wilson and his colleagues. I will accept it, Presiding Officer. It comes to that central issue about if you are putting on one-handed a report that says that we have to do less and we will have less money, austerity on steroids and the other that we want to spend so much more, it begs the question about how any of this can be achieved and I fear that this report will go the way of the poverties that are and many other warm word promises that won't deliver what the people of Scotland desperately need. Thank you. I would next call Emma Roddick to be followed by Pops Sweeney has pressed his button as he is seeking to make a... a very short contribution because I had to fit you in. You went on the list. Emma Roddick, please. Before starting my speech, I would like to declare that I worked on this paper. What I really love about the paper is that it's not a complaint, it's not a whinge about lack of money or an attack on anybody else, it is a positive vision, a list of possibilities and an exploration not only of what we could do as an independent Scotland but now. The first proposal in the housing section sees a recognition of the need to not only build more homes but the right homes, energy efficient, accessible and varied in the number of rooms. That comes alongside a proposal to modernise existing stock which is welcome in terms of tackling the large emission of co2 equivalent from buildings but also in tackling fuel poverty which is a concept all too familiar can raise standards in the private sector. Now, while we must support building affordable homes particularly in rural areas such as with the SNP Government's Rural Housing Fund we cannot make policy which relies on the goodwill of landlords. We need regulation alongside house building. Expanding the social sector may be a great way to bring demand and therefore prices down but I do not buy that it will mean that the landlords who have neglected their properties of their tenants to fix issues will suddenly feel the need to raise their standards. That is why the second proposal which focuses on moving away from seeing homes as a means of asset appreciation and towards being a place to live is so welcome. Right to buy did not just eat up our housing stock it also twisted the idea of what a house should be. People purchased council houses for a few thousand, the prices rocketed and many have since been sold to absentee landlords or 20 times the price that they were sold off at. Properties that were intended for affordable rent are now owned by landlords who charge the residents hundreds more in rent per month than their next-door neighbours. That is neither just nor fair. It is why it is so welcome that this paper proposes offering first refusal on X right to buy properties to the local authority at market rate. We must stop seeing residential properties only as an investment opportunity an asset that the rich can expect guaranteed returns from and the less wealthy can expect to be ripped off in. While people wait for a home for years in temporary accommodation or have to move out of their local area just for the chance to look at an affordable property we cannot justify dozens of homes lying empty for all but two months in the summer. We cannot justify absentee landlords buying multiple homes in Skye and elsewhere in the Highlands and Islands at extortionate rates, sight unseen because they know that the price will just keep going up. We cannot justify celebrating that house prices continue to rise well out of the most optimistic aspirations of our young people. Those recommendations are a great start in righting these wrongs. If this paper can set the tone for this session of Parliament then we are in for a great one. Let's continue to dream big on how to create a Scotland with social justice and fairness at its heart. I now call Paul Sweeney who will be the last speaker in the debate. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for your indulgence to include me in the debate. I just wanted to offer a couple of observations based on my recent personal experience of being on universal credit until last month and a particular pay tribute to Neil's work on this. I think I've already discussed this in our previous lives in the House of Commons and how important this issue is. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned I don't really care about how we do it and the money into people's pockets. However means we need to do to innovate in that regard, that's what this Parliament's about. I'm really keen to work constructively, as my colleague Mr Marra said. We are happy to work constructively in that endeavour. A good example would be the opportunity to look at the universal credit, which is already woefully insufficient and it actually makes the cost of being poor far harder for people. It destroys potential means that people's ability to even function as citizens is denied, which is a bigger cost to the community in terms of healthcare, housing arrears, all sorts of knock-on effects that are hugely disastrous for local communities. By my rough calculations, if we take the number of 110,000 people on universal credit in Scotland at the moment roughly scaling it up to the £20 a week uplift, that's about £114 million that would cost to deal with that issue in Scotland. It takes sovereignty of that issue and I think that would be a useful thing to consider in this Parliament because it pales into insignificance when you think of the costs, for example, the overspend on the CalMac ferries or even the rangers' malicious prosecution compensation of £100 million. Let's look at ways we can fix this problem now. I thank Paul Sweeney for giving way and I appreciate his experience of this matter of recent years and I welcome him to his face. Does he accept on top of the issues around the £20 a week uplift that Stephen Kerr and I were debating about? There are structural issues with universal credit that the Scottish Government can't address. The five-week wait is the number one issue that the trust will trust say is driving food bank use and that is an issue that has to be resolved at Westminster. Paul Sweeney. I thank Mr Gray for his point. I think he's absolutely correct but that's why we need to try and build constructive dialogue and I think that the antagonism has often been a comfort for many in terms of rhetoric. Let's look at what technical opportunities there are to constructively engage on this issue. I think that he makes a good point about the issue of the five-week wait. It certainly wasn't a pleasant experience for me. I didn't use the advance because I had sufficient savings to deal with that myself. However, I also realised that I wasn't able to get knowledge of what would be paid until a week before the payment so you're living in Limbo not knowing what you're even going to get. I didn't even realise until earlier this year I was also eligible for new-style job-seekers allowance. No-one's proactively advising you on what you're entitled to. I also had to go through a council tax reduction which is a separate bureaucratic procedure and other ways of income maximisation. Those are things we could probably deal with better in Scotland by having a sort of apply once and get everything you're entitled to sort of approach. Let's try and figure out how we can do that practically. I think that our civil servants are capable to deal with the DWP in the front line. They're hardworking and kind people who are trying to be constructive given the circumstances. They are Scottish civil servants. They just happen to work for a master that's not particularly constructive and helpful. I think that there are ways we can deal with that and help to advance the cause in Scotland. I'd like to see us realistically explore the way in which we can enhance universal credit in Scotland and actually deliver that output for citizens in Scotland. I think that there's a way of us doing it and I'd like to work constructively with this chamber across parties to deliver it. I just wanted to offer that insight that there's a ready, willing, capable approach in this Parliament that we can deliver something constructive for Scots. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. I now call on Minister Ben Macpherson to wind up the debate. Up to seven minutes, please, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For me, like so many others, I'd like to emphasise, like all most other speakers have emphasised, achieving greater social justice is one of the main drivers of my political activism and commitment. We can and must create a fairer society. I'd like to thank Neil Gray for bringing this debate today on the social justice and fairness commission report and the issues that it covers and also to everyone across the chamber for their contributions. I'd like to welcome Stephen Kerr to the Scottish Parliament. Although he has been provocative in much of what he has said so far, I do feel that it is in good faith. However, I would encourage him to acknowledge that the election has passed. We are in a different era now, and if he is serious about being constructive, then I would urge him to consider both the nature of his arguments and also some of the background to what he said. Obviously, I made the point about migration stats. Also on planning law, it is important to acknowledge that the reporter is, of course, independent. He has also said several times in his chamber about reaching out to the UK Government. I have had several ministerial posts and unfortunately the engagement has never been meaningful with the UK Government so if he can improve that on the matters in this report, and generally, I would encourage him to do that. Likewise, I would like to warmly welcome Michael Marra and Paul Sweeney to the chamber. I think that they talked extremely importantly about taxation and about the issues within the report. One of the things that has been missing in terms of trying to achieve social justice in recent years has been serious budget proposals from the Labour Party and I hope that their coming to this chamber can change that position. Paul Sweeney's points around universal credit are thoughtful and powerful but, of course, as Stuart McMillan rightly emphasised, we cannot be a Parliament of mitigation. We already spend £60 million a year on mitigating the bedroom tax and what I've never really understood about the Labour position is why you wouldn't want to bring the powers here so we can do things differently and, of course, that is also relevant in relation to progressive taxation where, with income tax policy, we control a number of aspects of it but not, for example, dividend income tax, so we don't have a complete control over the areas in question very quickly. Michael Marra? It's one thing to talk about making more progressive taxations. We're not a good start in place, not for the SNP Government, but for progressive taxes as they have done through the last 14 years. Minister? I wouldn't accept that in the circumstances and with the powers that we have we have sought to both give stimulus and have a fair taxation system and, of course, when it comes to income tax we have the fairest arrangement in the whole of the UK. I would also pay tribute to other speakers. The fairest income tax system in the whole of the UK where the lowest tax is to pay the least tax. I would also pay tribute to Emma Roddick for her work on the commission but also the points that she raises around housing and I'm sure Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison will be glad to have engagement with her on those points and others. I think that what's clear overall is that the political will is there in this Parliament to create social justice. We just don't have all the powers and that's what this report highlights. Nonetheless, we do all seem to want to create a Scotland where everyone can have their best start in life and lead their best lives even if we disagree on some of the best ways to get there. Recovery from the pandemic is, of course, our overriding focus right now but how we recover matters yes, we need to use our current powers well and wisely but we also need a clear route map that looks beyond current powers and should be and this is what the report by the Social Justice and Fairness Commission provides a substantive analysis of what is possible under the current powers of devolution and what will be possible with the full powers of independence. Time, especially now, won't allow me to cover everything I'd like to in the summing up speech so, like others, I'm going to focus my remarks on a few significant aspects of the report and the first I would like to emphasise on is, of course, Social Security. The Scottish Government shares the ambition as set out in the report for a social security system that provides income security for people who need it. We are committed to the principles of dignity, fairness and respect drawing on people's lived experience as we continue to build a system focused on the needs of individuals and that's why we have established the experience panels to help us design our social security system in Scotland and their input has been fundamental directly informing changes to service delivery. Throughout the pandemic, Scotland's social security system has continued to ensure that people are paid the money that they rely on while maintaining our focus on the safe and secure delivery of the devolved benefits. With powers over 15 per cent of social security spending in Scotland, we are already delivering 10 benefits, seven of which are brand new and unique in the UK. However, efforts to tackle poverty in Scotland must include efforts to change Westminster's damaging welfare policies. Covid-19 has highlighted once again the shortcomings of the UK approach. For example, the five-week wait that Neil Gray emphasised for first payments of universal credit and the two-child limit and the benefit cap. Those all needlessly and unjustly continue to push families deeper into poverty. As Minister for Social Security, I will continue to call upon the UK Government to make changes to ensure that people can rely on the safety net that they have paid into and, for them, the UK Government to match the ambitions that we have to tackle child poverty. However, those calls, while they have been made by ourselves and organisations, have currently gone unheeded. That is why what is needed is powers over social security to create a fairer system to come to Scotland. We need all of the power to deliver social policy as cohesively as possible. That applies, as I have said, equally to taxation policy and also to employment law. Until we secure independence or powers over employment law, we are therefore taking action in the meantime to use the powers that we do have to prioritise fairness, taking our steps forward, for example, towards a minimum income guarantee with the establishment of a steering group informed by lived experience and expertise. I could say so much more, Presiding Officer, on community empowerment, on land reform, on immigration, on drugs laws and so much more that is included in the report because the social justice and fairness commission report highlights a range of challenges for this Parliament as a whole and our country as a whole as we begin to recover from the pandemic and move forward together. The question for all of us is how do we deliver a fairer Scotland, a wellbeing society that values and cares for everyone who lives here? That is an overriding question for us all. How do we make life better for everyone, create greater social justice and ensure no one is left behind? What constitutional arrangement would enable us to deliver that vision as effectively and quickly as possible? The Government firmly believes that having all the powers of independence is the best way to achieve this vision and that is why considerations around the constitution are directly related to considerations around social justice. The report that we have debated today demonstrates that relationship and I look forward to many more debates in this parliamentary session on how together we can build a fairer Scotland. Thank you minister and that concludes the debate and I close this meeting.