 The next item of business is debate on motion 14160, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on building a social security system together, co-designing the social security charter. May I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move the motion for up to 12 minutes, please, Cabinet Secretary. Last week, I stood before the chamber and outlined the great progress that has been made since the passage of the 2016 Scotland Act, including plans to reform disability assessments, successfully making Social Security Scotland's first payments and being in a position to deliver best start grants by Christmas more than six months ahead of schedule. Today, following the publication of our interim findings, I will set out in more detail our work to develop the social security charter, yet another example of how hard we are pushing to create a better system for the people of Scotland. Any discussion of the charter should begin with the principles it must reflect—principles that establish human rights, tackling poverty, respect and dignity as the cornerstone in which our new system will be built. I believe that the spirit of co-operation that led us to those statements of ambition set out in the Social Security Scotland Act ranked among the finest achievements of this Parliament. It speaks to our capacity to look past political difference, to work together on our most fundamental shared goal to make things better for the people that we serve. There are members on all sides of the chamber who deserve credit for their role in that work. Adam Tomkins and Jeremy Balfour clarified its legal status. Alison Johnson and George Adam helped to shape the principles. Mark Griffin strengthened the consultation requirements and, thanks to Pauline McNeill, the charter requires parliamentary approval, a democratic seal that ensures that our founding ideals for this public service can never be forgotten. However, they will recognise, as I do, that the work of this Government and this Parliament is also shaped by our responsibility to carry those ideals from the statute book into the everyday delivery of services in a way that will be meaningful in improving people's experience. That is the purpose of the social security charter. The charter will reflect the principles of our new social security system. It will explain in clear, concise terms what people are entitled to and what they can expect from the new system. It will describe some of the specific actions that the system will take to ensure that those expectations are realised in practice. During the bill process, the message from stakeholders and committee members was clear that the people of Scotland should be at the heart of the charter's design, so we have worked to give faithful effect to that remit. The process that we have developed with the guidance and broad support of stakeholders builds on the strength of our existing engagement and it substantially exceeds the consultation requirements that are set out in the act. We have recruited a core group of 30 people from our experience panels to oversee the charter's development. That includes everything from decisions on the charter's structure and appearance, the language that it should contain, right through to the real substance of what the principles should mean in practice and the kind of policy commitments that would get us there. This work will be bolstered by individual interviews with people unable to travel to a central location and through a survey of all experience panel members, ensuring that our engagement goes deep and wide. That is an exemplar of a human rights approach in action. There are few, if any, parallel examples of Governments and powering citizens to jointly lead policy work of this prominence. To get that right, we also need the support and the expert advice of Civic Scotland. That is why we have established a stakeholder group composed of 27 organisations and chaired by Dr Sally Witcher to provide feedback and advice to the core group. Its role will grow as that work progresses. I have explained that the process goes well beyond what the act requires of us, but we do not rest on our laurels. Like anything new, like anything innovative, there are lessons that we must learn. The core group is carefully balanced, reflecting a broad range of needs, perspectives and characteristics. We received around 300 applications for the core group, but the initial composition of that group did not include people from a black and minority ethnic communities. We have gone further. Working with stakeholders, we have run sessions taking in the perspectives of refugees, asylum seekers, people from black and minority ethnic communities and transgender people. Further plans are in place to run targeted sessions with people who are often especially marginalised—BME women, gypsy travellers and women who have experienced particular hardship and barriers. Since we have designed a model in which a core group of citizens are empowered to share decision making, it is imperative that the perspectives of young people and those from black and minority ethnic communities are represented on it, too. That is why I am pleased to announce that, due to that work, we have added representation from BME communities, young people and the wider range of LGBT people to the core group. Having explained the process, I will now turn to the interim findings that we published last week. I had the pleasure of meeting the core group in Dundee on 23 August. They shared with me very powerful experiences of adversity, stigmatisation and suffering at the hands of the UK system. I would like to thank them for the time that they spent with me that day and telling their stories. Stories that, sadly, will be all too familiar to many of us who have heard them in our constituency offices, The Length and Breadth of Scotland. As one group member put it, for years I have had to fight them every step of the way. It is like being Harry Potter trying to find the philosopher's stone, but in this story you are the villain and not the hero. However, they are not there to dwell on the failings of the past. They are there to build a better future for their fellow citizens, and the group's thinking speaks to that optimism and that creativity. They want staff who are patient and kind, who see them not as numbers on a screen, but as individual people who understand their circumstances and what that might feel like. That reflects a wider movement in Scottish public services, and it is right that this new system should be a standard bearer for this kind of approach. The group sees that being achieved by involving people with lived experience in staff training, a powerful proposal that I intend to progress. They want a system that is on their side, not against them, filled with people who are knowledgeable about social security and related services, and people who use that knowledge not to catch them out but to simplify processes, maximise incomes and to direct them towards services that can help to tackle poverty and improve their wellbeing. To achieve this, I have spoken about the necessity of recruiting staff who are well trained, well led and who share the values embodied by the principals. A staff member who cares, who is happy and who is equipped with the necessary skills is always more likely to deliver a better service. They are also clear about their status as people accessing a public service. They want to be active partners to understand decisions, the reasons for them and how to challenge them if they disagree. They emphasise a culture of learning and improvement, where feedback is valued, mistakes are acknowledged and processes are in place to ensure that things are done better in the future. The reaffirm what most of us here already know is that the shameful regime of disability assessments requires root and branch reform. The scope of their ideas extends beyond the operational to the systemic. They speak to the need to end stigma and to the restoration of social security as a public good. A service there for all of us should we need it and that is the source of national pride because of it. That reflects the principle that social security is an investment in our people and in our country. That, of course, was the original intention of the beverage report. Many of us here today will agree that we seem to have lost something precious along the way. The group's proposed solution is for government to lead work to publicly challenge stigma and the false, divisive and exceptionally hurtful political rhetoric that causes it. I can confirm that we are committed to giving careful thought to how all of those proposals can be delivered. The picture that emerges from those findings is of the potential for a charter that is rich in ambition, a charter that truly fulfills that human rights aspect to social security held so dear in the passage of the Social Security Act. It underscores once again that how we administrate social security is not just a matter of policy detail. It is a moral issue. It speaks to the character of our country and the type of country that we want to live in, our principles and how we give effect to them matter to people's lives. Reflecting on my early weeks in that role and of all the people that I have spoken to during that time, the word that I keep coming back to, keep returning to, is trust. It is clear that one of our shared successes is that through the act, through the principles, through the charter, through the introduction of new forms of assistance and the commitment to reform assessments, the people of Scotland are beginning to put their faith in us that this new system will really be different for them. I believe that this trust is the single most precious commodity that an elected Government and indeed a Parliament can have with the people that they serve. It is hard-won, but it is so easily lost. I wish to place on record my personal commitment to honouring that trust with action, showing through the evidence of what we do that this Government means what it says. There is of course a role for Parliament in that too. It is clear that the charter is something that we all believe in and it is my sincere hope that we can continue in the spirit of collaboration to support the work of the people who know the system best and to whom it ultimately belongs, the people of Scotland. Can I close by moving the motion in my name and thanking everyone, particularly our core group of experienced panels, who have helped so much so far in delivering our interim findings and look forward to their further work in delivering a charter that this Parliament and this country can be proud of? I now call on Jeremy Balfour to speak to and move amendment 1416, 0.1. Seven minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I move the amendment in my name? Can I welcome the debate this afternoon and can I welcome the journey that the Government and Parliament has been on over the last two years in regard to social security? I suppose that the fundamental question is why have a charter? For me, the reason to have a charter is to improve the experience of those who are using the social security system. We want everybody who will come in contact with the new Scottish Agency to have a positive experience even if they do not get what they want, ultimately, out of it. That is what we as a Parliament and I would suggest that the Scottish Government be needing to strive for. What is the role of the charter? The danger is, and I think that the danger of the committee recognised early on, that it would simply be a bunch of words on a notice board that would be ignored by everybody else. Part of the journey that the committee and the Scottish Government have been on is to show that the charter has to be far more than that. It cannot simply be words, even simple words, on a board. It has to be something that people understand and can respect and act upon. It is therefore staff to understand what their responsibility is to claimants. It is therefore claimants to be able to understand what they should expect of the new agency. It is therefore third parties, including this Parliament, to hold that agency to account. However, it is important to stress that the charter does not give individual rights to claimants. What it is there is that the agency can be there to be held accountable by the Scottish Government and by this Parliament. We have to make sure that the balance between individual rights and community rights is sometimes held in tension. It is important that stakeholders, individuals and third parties and this Parliament get an early view of the charter. It would be interesting to know whether the Government has time yet when the charter will be available for open scrutiny. Again, steps have been taken towards that, but we need a full account of it. We need to know how the charter is being drawn up, who is involved in the process. I welcome the statement by the cabinet secretary this afternoon in regard to the expansion of those who are on the important experiential panel, because I know that some groups and some people have contacted me in regard to the concern that perhaps it did not represent the whole of Scottish society. However, it would be interesting to know also how the experiential panels are working in practice. Is the system co-designing the document or is the Scottish Government going with a piece of paper and saying, like it or leave it, how open are they to changes within the social charter and in regard to comments around it? We need to make sure that there is gender balance, there is ethnic minority representation again, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's remarks earlier. Perhaps most importantly, we also need to have disabled people represented on this group. That may seem very obvious, and I know that the cabinet secretary wants to jump up and say that we already have that. However, what our amendment seeks to do this afternoon is to seek to expand on those groups that Governments are consulting with, perhaps groups that are seldom held from, perhaps not the obvious suspects that we all go to on a regular basis, perhaps those who have disabilities that fall into a minority group within disability, which is again not often heard. Or can I say gently to the Government also to hear from people who have had a positive experience from DWP already? The danger is that we and MSPs are indigenous, people only come to us if they have a negative experience. There are people, I would include myself, who have had a positive experience in regard to the interaction, and we do not want to lose that voice in our engagement either. We have to make sure that both seen and unseen disability is included in any panel and in any drawing up of the social charter. However, ultimately, we must keep the goal of having the Social Security Act fully implemented up and running before this Parliament comes to an end in 2021. As one ancient philosopher said, even when the journey has to end, there is a slight danger in that we keep going over and over and over things and we do not actually get to the goal of being able to deliver the social security system that we all want. Will the cabinet secretary confirm again that every benefit that has been devolved will be delivered up and running by 2021? Will she confirm that they will be run by the new agency and that people will know how it all works? I hope also that we as a Parliament will have time to consider fully the regulations as they come forward. I welcome again, so far, the Government's openness in regard to that and looking forward to the cabinet secretary being with committee on Thursday morning. However, undoubtedly, the most complicated and the most difficult regulations are going to be around PIP, DLA and attendance allowance. I wonder in conclusion, can the cabinet secretary tell this Parliament when the draft regulations around those benefits will be released? We welcome this debate as a party. We welcome the social charter, but we will hold this Government to account that it is not simply words, but it is actions that we deliver. I welcome the comments made by the cabinet secretary but, primarily, I want to thank everyone involved in the experience panels so far. You and your almost two and a half thousand colleagues have a big task in ensuring that dignity, fairness and respect come to life in our new social security system. We will support the Government motion today and are pleased that the charter is becoming a reality. Involving Scotland's people in its design, just like last week's restating of the commitment to ban the private sector from assessments, is a critical step in delivering the law that this Parliament agreed to in the spring. The co-design will be hugely valuable to the social security system, and it is about working with people on social security, not simply dictating a system to them. We have seen the horrors that atory overhaul of disability benefits has led to that. Disabled Scots will lose £190 million through PIP. Hundreds of thousands are only gaining entitlement through court rulings instead of a fair process. Since last holiday elections, 50,000 people have already had to suffer a second PIP assessment under the revolving door of reviews. We all know that that needs to change, but it is for those who use social security to say what they want to change. When the charter is approved this November, almost 18 months since the experience panels were first launched, members will then be able to point to the tangible difference that underlines our new human rights-based system, as well as celebrating the role that the people of Scotland will have in the new system. This debate serves as a reminder of the improvements that the third sector and its members and their service users have secured in the act. Through their campaigning, they have secured rights to advocacy, to accessible information and to get hold of assessment reports. Those are hard-won improvements that make this more of their system, built with them, not for them. As the cabinet secretary said, the earlier Parliament will give final approval to the charter. That was an amendment pursued by the third sector and lodged by my colleague Pauline McNeill. For me, two changes stand out. First, it is because of the Give Me Five campaign that child benefit recipients must be consulted on the charter. Secondly, I worked with Engender, Crer and Scottish Women's Aid to ensure that Government consults with organisations who work with those at risk of poverty because of their protected characteristics. The scale of ambition behind the experience panels is commendable, and we will support the Government's motion today. As our amendment says, when done well, it should be an example that informs how public services are reformed in the future. On Friday's report, however, it identifies quite clearly what I became aware of over the summer that not a single BAME person was directly recruited to work on the core group. The cabinet secretary has mentioned that again today, that a focus group of BAME individuals has been set up, but the fact that it has just taken place has to be of a concern. We know that BAME individuals are less likely to access their entitlements and face barriers during the assessment process, so when hard-to-reach groups have been asked for their involvement, their participation at the last minute, they all lose out. They miss their initial chance to have a say, although local organisations are stretched to get people in place quickly. Government lacks the group's views from the very start, undermining its commitment to equality and the work that it has done so far. As a result, sometimes things get missed. Page 14 of Friday's report says that stakeholders added some meanings to the list described above that the core group had not mentioned, for example, around the importance of equality and non-discrimination. That is good that those have been added, but it just highlights what we can miss if we are not all-encompassing and making sure that we are covering everyone who has been disadvantaged by the current system. Before I conclude, as our amendment states, the panels are an open, on-going process in which people who are entitled to social security are encouraged to enrol and participate. The cabinet secretary spoke about the 300 people who responded to that recruitment exercise, but none of those were BAME. We have to ask ourselves why and how underrepresented they are in the experience panels. The cabinet secretary told me that a report on protected characteristics will be published in November, and I encourage her to publish the details before recess. Will all members be surveyed on the charter this autumn? I hope that the cabinet secretary would agree. Further members should be recruited before that survey goes out so that we get their views and welcome in new recruits to the panels, along with more open, publicly available means of consultation. That would be of great value to the process, and it might help to overcome some of the representation issues of reference today. However, when the time comes to consider its replacement for PIP and carers allowance, the rules, criteria and rates of benefits, once again the people of Scotland will have their chance to deliver a social security system founded on dignity, fairness and respect. I move amendment in my name. There are, of course, a great many things deeply wrong with the UK's current social security system. The real-term value of many benefits has been allowed to fall over time, no longer allowing people to meet a basic minimum standard of living, even to the extent that people cannot feed themselves. Just last week, the Scottish health survey revealed that 4 per cent of those people surveyed ran out of food in the last year. The system of benefit sanctions leaves people destitute. With the benefit cap, the UK Government says to claimants that they need a certain level of benefit but then pays them much less on an entirely arbitrary basis, sometimes £2,500 less. As a result, as the motion notes, trust and faith in the social security system has broken down. How did we get here? In part, it is because so many welfare reforms have been drawn up by a small group of policy makers working toward a narrow cost-saving agenda. It is based on crude caricatures of the social security system and its users, with no conception of what it is like, for instance, to raise a child on a small, fluctuating income. All that experience is out there to be used to make better policy, but the DWP has rarely taken much interest in it. From the on-going fast that is universal credit to the brutality of denying personal independence payment to tens of thousands of people, almost all the major problems of current welfare reforms could have been foreseen, just not by the UK Government. It was warned by multiple welfare rights organisations about the impact on rent arrears of having such a long universal credit waiting periods. Disabled people's groups said that the PIP criteria did not reflect the reality of living with certain types of disabilities and health conditions and that many people would lose out. All those warnings have, unfortunately, proved all too prescient. That is why the approach that the Scottish Government is taking set out in the motion is timely and welcome. It is important that we capture the lived experience of applying for and receiving or sometimes not receiving social security. In relation to disability benefits, there is the stress of going to a PIP assessment, sometimes huge distances from a claimant's home, the invasiveness of some of the questions that are asked at those assessments and the bewildering complexity of the process. All of those are too often the experience of people when they ask for support to help them with the extra costs arising from their disability or health conditions. Their experiences should be brought to bear on how our new, devolved social security system operates. I am pleased to say that that is already happening. The experience panels have drawn more attention to the often highly stressful and sometimes damaging experience of having to go to an assessment. One panel member said that the face-to-face assessment for PIP was honestly one of the most traumatic experiences of my adult life. The report from the About My Benefits and Me survey reported that assessments should only be carried out where necessary and that evidence provided by medical professionals should be enough. That was the basis for a Green amendment, and I am pleased to say that that was supported unanimously by Parliament that introduced a ban on face-to-face assessments if the evidence can be found through other means. Another Green amendment, based on what PIP claimants have said in the experience panels and elsewhere, ensures that the distance that the person has to travel for any assessment that does prove necessary, that distance will be taken into account. I was encouraged to hear all of that being outlined by the cabinet secretary last week in the statement on disability assessments. The proposals on conducting only absolutely necessary face-to-face assessments, audio recording for assessments to rebuild trust, giving people flexibility in choosing their assessment appointment, all of those aspects were set out. What was outlined there, if it is implemented to its fullest extent, remains to be seen. However, if it is, it could be a significant change to the disability benefits system and to people's experience of it. I am pleased that my colleague Alison Johnson has played a constructive role in putting some of those measures into law, but, ultimately, those improvements are the work of the thousands of people, individual claimants, who have spoken out about their treatment, their experience. I am glad that their voices are now being heard. I think that we also need to think through some of the implications of what the motion says about how the system will be established. As I have noted, the lived experience of people has been used well to shape the founding legislation, but that was the easy bit. None of the major benefits have yet been established, and as that work proceeds, the people and the organisations that the Scottish Government is co-designing the system with will continue to call for changes that will not be cheap or easy. They will continue to call for benefit top-ups to reverse the benefit cap and the on-going freeze on the value of payments. Those with experience of PIP will likely ask for a reversal of the staggering cuts to that benefit, and undervalued carers, especially those who care for more than one person, may well ask for that extra care to be recognised through carers allowance. The response at that point cannot simply be that those requests are unrealistic. As well as being untrue, because we paid benefits of an adequate rate before and can do again, that would not be in keeping with a truly co-designed system. Closing, Presiding Officer, I am glad that we are moving away from the problematic phrase of welfare and reclaiming the language of social security. The system should indeed be social. It is a sign and signal of our duty, compassion and respect for one another, and that is why, as the motion rightly says, we need to build it together. Greens will support the motion tonight and both the amendments. Oh, sorry, I seem to have been cut off somehow. Alex Cole-Hamilton, six minutes please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Liberal Democrat is absolutely welcome today's debate, as it does this next frontier in an agenda that has been driven by consensus by the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary referred at the top of her remarks to principles, and principles really fundamentally matter. I am also gratified that she referenced William Beverage in the same breath, and I often lean into quotes from Beverage when we discussed social security in this Parliament. Presiding Officer, Patrick Harvie is right. Social security is far better an aspiration than the welfare state, because he said that, in establishing a national minimum, the state should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than the minimum for themselves and their family. I absolutely agree with that. That quote is one of the many reasons that I am a Liberal. It is about social mobility, it is about dignity, but I think that it is fair to say, Presiding Officer, that in establishing that national minimum at a UK level, we have come significantly adrift of that. I very much welcome our opportunity here as a Parliament to create a Scottish social security system. I am gratified that it is to be underpinned by this charter, because who better to define the terms and parameters of the system than those who have lived under the failures of systems previous. A charter for me, just in its nomenclature, defines itself as being rights-based. It is about giving people ownership and understanding of what to expect and what they can rely upon in terms of their rights and what action they can take should their rights be infringed. That lived experience is already shaping this new system. As we heard in the statement last week, in the conduct of disability assessments, every single member in the chamber will know a constituent who has been subject to the assessments of the past and who has suffered as a result the indignity of those assessments of the past. I certainly welcome the flexibility that has been created in the comfort that can be extended to claimants in the recording of the assessment process so that they can lean on that should they have grounds for appeal, and indeed in the reality that some people will rightly be removed from the need from face-to-face assessments going forward altogether. We, as Lib Dems, wholeheartedly support, as we did last week, the fundamental workings of the new structures being built and, indeed, the fact that they are underpinned by the panel. It is important, the conduct of the panels, that we work with the stakeholders to identify the unintended consequences that can come from that. The flexibility conundrum is important here, and it is absolutely vital that we do all the things that the cabinet secretary outlined in her statement last week to make the assessments less intrusive, easier and built around the terms and needs of the individuals that they are seeking to serve. However, with that, there is a probability of time delays unless we significantly increase headcounts of the people who are commissioned to conduct those assessments. I am not saying that we should not be flexible, but we should be alive to those concerns. I would be grateful to the cabinet secretary if she could try to address those in her remarks at the close of today's debate. I think that this is about not over-promising and then under-delivering, because, with the greatest will in the world, there are many examples of public policies that were established around the principles that are similar to those that we seek to foster in the charter, then, sadly, let those individuals that they seek to serve down. I think that we can all agree on the tenets that we hope will come forth in the conduct of this charter. I hope very much that the cabinet secretary and her Government are reflecting on the views of those stakeholder organisations that are seeking to influence the process, that there is a great deal of expertise there, not least with the individuals that have lived experience of going through the systems that went before it, but who lean into those organisations that provide advocacy and gather information and research to make the betterment of the project that lies ahead of it. For me and for the Lib Dems, it can be distilled down into three basic areas of principle. We foster that safety net from cradle to grave that beverage first envisioned, which allows people to be both socially mobile but protected at times of crisis and of need, not driven by monetary considerations alone. I think that in times of austerity, that is often all too easy for Governments of all hues to look at the bottom line first and foremost and design a welfare state or a social security system around that. However, most importantly, Deputy Presiding Officer, this has to be about the management of expectations. People have faith and confidence in a system that does not put artificial barriers in their way to the assistance that they need and they deserve, but it seems to be fair that they have access to information that is swift, reliable and accessible and that they have confidence that, should a decision be turned against them, that they know the route that they can take to have that decision overturned and the confidence that they shall receive fair hearing to that end. If we can work with those stakeholders to foster a charter that captures those three fundamental principles, then I believe that this Parliament and this Scottish Government will have gone some way to have answered the challenge that Beverage set in his earliest vision. With that, Presiding Officer, I offer the Government support of these benches for the motions tonight, the amendments from the Opposition parties and I welcome the consensus that we continue to move forward together in. We now move to the open debate. Speeches of up to six minutes, please. Bob Doris, followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am currently convener of the Social Security Committee in the Scottish Parliament, a 16th Clear-Adamson MSP, in that role. I pay tribute to her work as convener and to the work of the committee, where there were a number of changes in recent weeks. Yesterday, the committee visited Dundee. We visited both the DWP's job centre plus and Scotland's new social security agency, while it is there. Both important meetings. However, our most important visits were meeting those with lived experience of the benefits system and volunteers who offered their support to them. Some of the stories that we heard were quite disturbing in terms of how the UK benefits system handles claims. Unfortunately, it only served to cement much of the experiences that I have heard about in my constituency casework, from those who need to interact with the UK social security system and, in particular, with universal credit. I want to highlight a few of the issues in the UK system by way of contrast with what we are seeking to do here in Scotland, because at the heart of this debate is how we can get the Scottish system right at the first time of asking. Get it right by listening to those who have lived the experience of social security at the system and where possible to have them co-producing that system. However, in relation to the UK system and the role of universal credit, I genuinely do not believe that anyone with lived experience of the system would support a system that forces claims to wait at least five weeks under universal credit to get recourse to public funds and, instead, to rely on DWP loans. That is causing real hardship, pain and indebtedness. No-one with lived experience would require a family to have to reapply for housing benefit element of universal credit to go directly to the landlord simply because they had moved house. That has caused constituents of my rent arrears to accrue and threaten tenancies. No-one with lived experience would put at risk child tax credits to working families under universal credit by potentially putting conditionality on to workers that would be encoded for possible sanctions if they cannot secure a wage rise, a different job or an increase in the hours of work. That is what may happen when Job Centre Plus moves away from what is currently being called a light touch system. I just do not believe that those things and many others would have happened had the lived experience of those who interact with the UK system been truly listened to at the time when the new UK system was being designed. Now we are left with the situation where we are trying to retrofit and fix some of those weaknesses. I hope to do that constructively with our partners in the UK Government and everyone else to do that because we have to do it. By developing Scotland's social security system with that lived experience, we are doing all we can to build the key principles of fairness, dignity and respect. Crucially, by looking at co-design of the Scottish system and partnership with those who have lived experience of the social security system, we hope to avoid the issues that have beset the UK system. In that context, I warmly welcome the progress made in developing the social security charter so far in conjunction with the experience panels. The Social Security Scotland Act 2018 quite rightly requires the first group of people to be consulted on the charter, those with physical or mental conditions that have experience of benefits that are being devolved. I very much welcome the format that that consultation is taking, taking what I would consider as a layered approach. Yes, a co-group of volunteers for in-depth work, individual sessions with people or groups who do not wish to be part of that group, we are unable to join that co-group but also a survey of the wealth of experience that we have with the 2,400 people registered with the social security experience panel. That kind of layered approach is the right way to take that forward. I also welcome the firm commitment within the social security charter and the system that sees social security entrenched within a human rights-based approach to treating claimants or clients. The system where people have a right to financial support in times of need and are not receiving a handout. I believe, if we get this right, that the terminology such as handout will be confined to the dustbin of history for good, because that is the right thing to do. The social security charter is vital therefore as it will draw together what we as a society wish our social security system to deliver for clients, for staff, for society. Due to time constraints, I would not say as much about that as I would like to, but there is a bit in the recent document, the update from the Scottish Government in relation to the preparation for the charter that talks about culture. Culture is incredibly important in relation to designing the system. When our committee visited the new social security agency in Dundee, I got some really strong reassurances. We met the chief executive of David Wallace and a number of other staff there. Even in their organisation, they are trying to embed that positive attitude. In recruitment, we currently have about 90 staff, I will go up to 750 staff. The sifting process for interviews, anyone who did make that initial cut were given detailed feedback on why they did not make that initial cut and offered support should they wish to reapply when other jobs came online. Those who tried to apply online for a job application with them but did not complete the forum, they were identified also. They were written to and said that we noticed that they showed an interest in applying for those jobs but they did not complete the forum. Was there a barrier there that we could work with them in relation to doing more in relation to that? Culture is everything. A final bit of the culture that the new social security agency is trying to do, we saw a whole series of post-it notes up in the wall in relation to the new carer supplement that they are now delivering. They were really positive. I will just give two of them. One person told an adviser, a dancer, when they found out that supplement, a second person said, whoopee, do. We will not always get it right, but right at the start of the process we are getting it right by listening to the people with lived experience of the social security system. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to be followed by Claire Adamson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There have already been some positive contributions from around the chamber today and good discussion about the feedback from the first steps of the co-design process. However, I would like to reflect not simply on the intentions of the charter but what can be done to make it useful. The Scottish Government noted last year that a charter was a popular idea. The same was true when John Major introduced his citizen charter initiative back in the 1990s. The risk with such documents is the potential to slip simply into the aspirational, bearing little relation to the services that are actually being delivered. In its position paper in September 2017, the Government pointed to one of the main proposed areas where a charter could have value is in translating the core principles from high-level statements into commitments to deliver specific measurable outcomes, establishing a strong link between the principles and the way that a system actually performs. Ministers will not find a great deal of dispute there, but we are left with a considerable number of commitments and expectations that ministers have crafted. It would be very useful to know both the detail of how they will be measured and the Scottish Government's approach. To give an example, in her statement and in the answers to questions last week, the cabinet secretary pledged action on geographical inequalities, on the outcome of assessments, on reducing assessment waiting periods, on reducing the appeals caseload, on reducing staff turnover amongst assessors and pledged to presumably significant reduction in face-to-face assessments. However, as this Parliament will expect to see these promises match with action, the action must equally be met with measurable quantitative data. To refer back to the policy paper produced by the Scottish Government last year, it said that the Scottish Government has noted the concern that it may be difficult to demonstrate progress against relatively subjective concepts such as dignity and respect. The Scottish Government is therefore thinking carefully about how it might employ techniques of a more qualitative nature such as survey data, feedback from individuals, focus groups or an on-going role for experienced panels. As I previously touched on, the Scottish Government's approach to this will be all-important. With high political expectations, I hope that the temptation to fudge the measures of their performance will be avoided by ministers. If they intend to carry the Scottish Parliament with their proposals, it must be matched with candid assessment of the execution of their new powers and where they have fallen short of expectations. To refer again to the cabinet secretary's statement last week, she mentioned the regular independent reviews that have taken place at UK level of PIP assessment programmes. Although she characterised that as simply tinkering around the edges by the DWP, I believe that both the PIP and the ESA in independent assessments have been a valuable tool for improvement. With that in mind, I would be interested to know what analysis ministers have made of those independent assessments and how the lessons from that process could be reflected in measuring objectives against the standards that are to be included in the charter. Will they subject themselves to the same level of scrutiny that the DWP has in the past? As my party spoke to me for jobs and employability, I would also like to reflect on one particular element that should be central to a number of the principles that are set out in the Social Security Act 2020. That will be the ability to transition people who are out of work into meaningful employment and to overcome the barriers that they face. A key power to influence that is the devolution of the employability services. Again, measurable data will be important, as will lessons from different providers in different parts of the country, creating a transparent process by which they can share best practice. I would also quickly say that there is perhaps some contradiction between the cabinet secretary's language last week against outsourced providers for assessments being driven by profit alone and the use of such providers to support people into work. I gently suggest that those organisations are either valued partners or they are not, and to consider the messages that are being sent by the words that we use in this chamber. The objectives of dignity and fairness in the social security system certainly extend to providing a service to individual claimants and value to the taxpayer, both points enshrined in the act. One element of fairness that I would mention, however, is the consistency of approach. The cabinet secretary has criticised the rigid inflexibility and assessment procedures. However, basing entitlement on consistent and objective criteria is critical to ensuring that any system is fair. Personalised assessment and objective assessment are not contradictory. In closing, I would also like to refer back a little to the issue about geographical inequality. As a representative of the Highlands and Islands, my region contains many of Scotland's remote, rural and island communities. There are a number of challenges for a social security system to operate as effectively in those areas, as it does elsewhere, while also making sure that it takes into account the needs of individuals in those areas. The cabinet secretary said that, no matter where people live, Scotland's social security system must deliver and must give people access to the same quality of service. I would like to see that included on the face of the social security charter and for the Scottish Government to consider how the charter will be impacted by the principles of the islands act. It will also be important that the information is available at a suitably localised level for us to see where inequalities of access or outcome exist and for action to be taken to address them. There is still a considerable body of work to be taken forward in those areas. However, I welcome the work that is taken on co-design of the charter, as well as the wider work that is being taken forward by ministers and the Scottish Parliament's Social Security Committee. I will finish by saying that I cannot overestimate the importance of getting it right in this transitional period and laying the foundations for a system of support that works for everyone. Clare Adamson, followed by Pauline McNeill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that most of us in the chamber were here this afternoon when the Reverend D MacDonald was speaking to us about vision and on a very reflective afternoon on how vision affected our debate this afternoon. It sums up where we are now with the Social Security Act and how we are taking forward some of the proposals in that. It was a visionary of the Government to approach the Social Security Bill in the way that it did. It was a visionary of the committee to have conducted the deliberations and the scrutiny of that bill in the way that it did. It was a privilege for me to convene that committee following on from the groundwork of Sandra White. I want to thank all the members of that committee for their contribution in improving and securing a bill that we are all very rightly proud of, no more so than the minister, Jeane Freeman. On the day that we passed that, it was evident from across the chamber that something different had been done in approaching this new social security system for Scotland. It was something that we should all take forward. There was not one of us that day that thought that the job was done. We knew that the majority of the work for the Social Security Act was still to come and the majority of the work was still to be done. There was much to do going ahead. The cabinet secretary mentioned trust in her speech earlier on. To my mind, the measurement of how successful this will have been or not is whether the trust of our citizens is restored in a social security system in Scotland. Much has been said about the experience panels. I think that this has been such an important part of the development of the bill. The experience panels have provided opportunities for information. They have been very successful in informing the committee, the Government and the process of what is happening. I was delighted to hear from the cabinet secretary that they are further surveying the experience panels as the charter is developed to ensure that it is indeed a genuine co-production that comes forward. It is the whole vision of the Social Security Charter itself, which is absolutely unique to what we have. As he said, and thanks to the work of Pauline McNeill, it will be scrutinised by the Parliament itself, ensuring that the principles, the rights of our citizens are respected and that we get this right in Scotland. Much has been said also about the human rights approach. I think that this is so important to what we have going forward. The cabinet secretary said that it was unparalleled to have a human rights-based approach to a bit of legislation and a social security system in the one that we have. It reflects the vision of the Government going forward. Indeed, in the programme for government, it also said that it would enshride children's rights and incorporate the principles of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child into our laws in Scotland. I think that the vision for the society that we want, for how we want Scotland to view human rights both of our adult and child populations, is very important and speaks to the vision of what we have before us. It is also about empowering our citizens. It is so important because so many times we hear stories of people who feel disengaged from society, disengaged from the whole process of what they have had to go through in the current DWP programme. I think that empowering our citizens to be active in the decisions about themselves, to be active in creating the laws around them and actually influencing something that is going to bear a part in their lives going forward has been hugely important. We have talked lots about lived experience. There is an old proverb that says that you do not really understand a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Like many members here, I think that my experience of the constituencies is very humbled to realise that I have barely walked a step in some of the shoes of the people that have come to me at the most difficult time in their lives, facing problems with whether that has been through sanctions, whether it is through PIP assessments, whether it is through the stress of having to navigate a system where they have ended up having to take loans from the DWP or from the local authority just to get by and be able to sustain and feed their families. I think that lived experience, while we may not have it ourselves, has been so vitally important for us to understand the pressures that people are under. I am truly hopeful that the principles that we all agreed, those of dignity and respect that we have spoken about, will be included in this new system, the new social security system, and that the charter will reflect that and ensure the rights of our citizens going forward. If I could just say one thing, Mr Halcro Johnston has talked a lot about the quality of information and how important that was. That is all very well, but if we do not listen to things when they go wrong, such as a system at the moment where 50 per cent of appeals are successful, to me that is a broken system. It is all very well having the statistics and the information to back things up, but we have to listen when we are being shown and told that things are not going well for our citizens. Pauline McNeill, followed by Shona Robison. Like other members, I am proud to be part of the process of co-designing Scotland's new social security system. It is a very powerful feature of our devolved settlements, and I believe that it will prove to change the lives of many people. We all played a part. Scottish Government officials, the Social Security Committee itself, formerly convened by Sandra White and Claire Adamson, played a key role. Third sector organisations, so many to mention, I will mention a few that I worked with, child poverty action groups, Sam H, Justice Scotland, The Health and Social Care Alliance, Marie Curie and Engender, just to name but a few. There are many more. I think that we are in a reasonably good place. As Bob Dorris, current convener of the Social Security Committee said yesterday, our visit to Dundee, I think, was a historic occasion because we witnessed the very beginnings of our new social security agency. I think that it is good for the city of Dundee and the city of Glasgow, but also for the local authorities roundabout those cities that it will bring hundreds of jobs in a new way of working. We believe that it is a human right to have a certain approach to social security, one that is based on dignity and respect. The charter will be a meaningful one, because it will be subject to regulations put before Parliament, with parliamentary scrutiny approved by the Scottish Parliament. Most importantly, the charter will be made publicly available so that people can see how their rights are contained in the charter, and, hopefully, in plain English, they can see how they can enforce their rights. Citizens Advice Scotland said that the purpose of the charter is to empower people to use it to challenge substandard services or seek redress—certainly one of the core principles for me. The charter defines what people are entitled to expect from Scotland's social security system, requiring ministers to ensure that the independent advice is given and that the charter takes into account for the purpose of any court hearings and amendment that Adam Tomkins, who, on the committee at the time, put through and, I think, at an important point legally. There is some unfinished business, I think that we will all agree, and just for the benefit of the record and also for the new minister, there are a couple of issues that I have been pursuing that I would like to mention, but I think that more work needs to be done. Section 53 of the act requires the duty to inform about the possible eligibility of another benefit. We are making a determination as to an individual's entitlement for assistance. If it appears that the individual might be entitled to another benefit, then that individual must be informed. I would like to see that provision clearly marked out in the charter, because I think that it is an important principle. It is not an automated benefit, but it is one that places duties on ministers to make sure that they maximise the benefits that people might be entitled to. Sam H wants a specific commitment in the charter to promote wellbeing, which I support, and I think that it is a critical principle part of our social security system. Each Scotland wants to ensure that the charter is dementia-friendly by consulting carers and families. I know that that is already under way. Each Scotland also notes that the system should not be digital by default, and I think that we heard yesterday in Dundee that that is not going to be the case. I really think that that is a very, very important point, as I have a very progressive one that the Government has already given a commitment to. It is fair to say that, with the work done by everyone previously mentioned, Scotland's social security system, at the moment, looks vastly different from the current UK system, and that is something that I am very happy about. The child poverty action group among others raised concerns about the redetermination process, consequently the appeal system. Evidence shows that a high proportion of people drop their claims and they do not appeal unfavourable decisions in the current system. A series of Government amendments, including the paperwork, would go directly to the first tier tribunal from a determination. I think that that was an important step in the right direction. What I asked ministers for and they agreed to in rejecting the amendments that I put down was that they would monitor the drop-out rate for appeals to ensure that people were not simply dropping out because of the complexity of the system or a lack of advocacy. I have consistently called for ministers to ensure that there is fresh, judiciary training for our new social security system, and I do believe that there should be some new appointments to the tribunal system to mark its importance. If we have changed the culture of our social security system, if we expect decision making to change, I think that that is the missing link in all of this. We need to make sure that we have a judiciary that has come the journey with us because they will be making some key decisions. I remain concerned and still remain concerned about the structure of the offences and investigations. My amendments were unsuccessful, but just to lay out my concerns, a failure to notify a change in circumstances or pass on vital information for a particular claim requires that a person ought to have known. I was concerned that that was so wildly drawn. The Government amended that to give a defence that, if a person did not do that reasonably, then they could rely on that. I just asked the minister just to pay particular attention going forward. It may be a few years hence from now, but we need to make sure that that provision in section 71 to 73 does not catch out to people who innocently do not provide information. In the final few seconds, I really want to say that I do believe that we have a statutory framework in place that appears to have the right balance of our robust and efficient system, but one that applies dignity and respect to those who are part of it and rely on it. It is the detail of the regulations that I think it was Jeremy Balfour who made this point—it is the role of this Parliament and the Social Security Committee to make sure that all those principles are enshrined going forward when we see the detail of those regulations. A great deal of work has gone into getting to the stage and I fully appreciate that. It is a big moment for the country, a big moment for the Parliament, thank you. Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to pay tribute to all those who have got us to this stage in the journey to build a dignified social security system here in Scotland, including the work on the charter. I feel a little bit late to the party, so it was great yesterday to have the Social Security Committee in Dundee taking evidence, particularly from those with lived experience of the existing welfare system and its failings. Like many in this chamber, I have met constituents who have been left destitute in vulnerable situations and with families on the bread line relying on food banks. Part of our visit yesterday was to two of the food banks in Dundee and they shared with us some of the very difficult circumstances and what a lifeline the service that they are providing is to many people. Just last week, I had two constituents who came to see me because of universal credit. Both have been left without a penny and are now for the first time in their lives in a situation in which they have rent arrears and all of the implications of that. Despite trying to explain their current situation to the DWP and the potential risk of eviction, they were met by a cold, blank wall of refusal. Of course, those are not isolated incidents by any manner of means. I had another constituent whose child was ill which resulted in them missing their appointment at the job centre but they could not phone to cancel as they did not have enough money to put credit on their phone. The following day, they walked to the job centre to explain their situation but without any discretion, was sanctioned. The family of two was left without money for two weeks. Members across the chamber will recognise the type of stories. Just yesterday, I met Ewan Gurr, whom many in the chamber will know and have probably had lots of dealings with. Ewan was a trussel trust manager not too long ago and established the Dundee food bank. As a witness first hand, the reality of policy decisions that have been made by the UK Government on welfare and some of the statistics that Ewan told me were quite staggering. In 2012-13, the Trussel Trust food bank received 14,318 referrals. One year later, that number rose to a shocking 71,421, an increase of 499 per cent. We have to ask ourselves how, in a developed country in the 21st century, with the fifth largest economy, we can think that that is acceptable. We heard very much from the food banks yesterday about how vital their service is, but, importantly, what they want in the new social security agency here in Scotland is a very different ethos. I am relieved that the Scottish Government is now taking control of some aspects of our social security system. I wish that it was all, but it is a star. The charter, as it develops, will help to enshrine the ethos of dignity and respect. I believe that my constituents and the rest of Scotland will have access to a compassionate person-centred system through that agency. Treating people as people, not just another number, and treating people fairly with the dignity and respect that they deserve, and a system that people cannot rely on and trust in one, that is fair. The Scottish Government should be commended for the hard work, and this Parliament should as well, because there has been a lot of cross-party co-operation. When Jeane Freeman, as the Minister for Social Security, visited my constituency of Dundee City East last year, she visited the Brooksbank Centre, which is a charitable organisation that offers money and advice to people in the city. During that visit, Jeane Freeman met a group of people who were given the opportunity to share their experiences with her directly. That, along with other similar events across Scotland, has allowed the Scottish Government to develop a bottom-up approach to the new system and to set the tone for its creation. People now feel involved in the creation of our social security system. They know that it is not just a cosmetic exercise but one that is being listened to. Organisations such as Brooksbank feel as though they have been able to directly influence how the system is shaped and how it works for our communities. Jenny Gilander, the manager at Brooksbank, who met the committee last night, says that the feeling there and other similar projects throughout Dundee is that the Scottish Government is coming into the already established partnership networks and becoming part of the sector, not part of the problem. Jenny has told me that the information that her project has been given from our new agency is concise and well-organised, and that it means that they no longer have to worry about chasing payments that people are entitled to enabling her advisers to focus on other issues in the benefit system that is caused by the complex UK system. Although not all of the new agency is operational yet and we saw some of that yesterday, the expansion of the job numbers there, having a system operated locally does mean that projects such as Brooksbank can build relationships with staff and resolve issues much sooner. That partnership work is key to the ethos and culture of the new social security system and is key to getting it right. If we get things right now, we can lead the way in the future and have a flagship social security system that is looked on as one of the best in the world. The new agency with its charter is off to a good start. Yesterday, we saw the feedback from those who have already received the carers supplement, and I would also want to end with one of the post-its on the wall, which is a Brucey bonus. That sums it up. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Ruth Maguire. By 2021, Scotland will be responsible for making more social security payments in a week than we currently do in a year. That is a massive undertaking that the former social security minister called the biggest shift of powers to Scotland in over a decade. It will be no small feat and require a huge deal of preparation. The devolution of social security is undoubtedly complex, given the intertwining nature of benefits, both UK-wide and any devolved deviations. As the charter enters at early stages of preparation, I think that there is a lot here to welcome. From the briefing papers that we have been sent as MSPs in advance of today's debate, I think that there are still some areas to consider, and I hope that the minister is open to listening to those. The debate is entitled, Building a Social Security System Together. Much has been said today about the beverage report in 1942. It was a 300-page report. The only meant to print 70,000 copies, but in the end it was such an interesting piece of work that no one had really done before. They ended up printing 600,000 copies. Such was the interest in the topic of welfare. However, one of the recommendations of that report that I found interesting is that policies around social security must be achieved by co-operation between the state and the individual. With the state securing the service and contributions, the state should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility. It should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family. It talks about co-operation between the state and the individual. I think that it was true then, and it is still true today. Building it together could not be a more apt way to approach this in Scotland. The state to those whom it seeks to help must work together with those that it does help, if that contract between one and another is truly to work. However, when our welfare system was created, it was a different world. Society has changed much since the days of beverage. Academia has consistently been there in the background to remind us that, among the statistics, women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities are represented differently when it comes to employment and welfare outcomes. Across BME groups, employment levels are lower, much lower than the international average. For example, currently 77 per cent of caucasians are employed, whereas only 55 per cent of Pakistanis or Bangladeshis are employed. If Scotland's social security charter really does need to ensure that it serves all ethnicities in Scotland, the core group that is set up by the Government includes a very welcome diverse range of stakeholders, such as those with mental and physical disabilities, who are represented as well as the LGBT community. However, there are more than 200,000 people in Scotland from a BME background, so I really hope that the adequate place is given to them as well. I welcome the creation of the experience panels, which I think are set up to gain the insights of over 2,000 people who have had experience with the system. After all, anecdotal experience from on the ground can help to shape welfare policy. Any of us who deal with welfare-related casework in our day-to-day roles will have had first-hand experience of some of those problems. By default, as Jeremy Balfour said, we often deal with problems, difficulties and, indeed, failings in the system. Experiences are not always negative. I have met excellent members of staff who have been very helpful and sympathetic with constituents in my dealings. It seems practical that we should get honest and realistic feedback from those who the service is used by. It is the most direct way to learn if the decisions that we make or that ministers make are working on the ground. We should be open to evolution, but it is also important that the system is accessible to all at a basic level. I welcome decisions that the charter should be straightforward, using common sense language, rather than hiding behind bureaucracy or jargon or buzzwords or just niceties, as those charters often are. We should also listen to stakeholders such as Age Scotland, who highlighted that not everyone is digitally literate in Scotland. We should make sure that copies of the charter are available within local communities using local authorities. The Government's position paper outlines that the charter should also provide for strong scrutiny and accountability, and that is something that I welcome. A report from the Disability and Carers Benefit Expert Advisory Group published at the end of last year gave some suggestions about how that scrutiny might look. It highlighted the importance of an external body to ensure the independence of scrutiny. Given that and the wealth of evidence in favour of that, I support the prospect of an independent body. I think that the Scottish Commission on Social Security should be afforded the independence that it needs. Can I reiterate the comments that were made at the beginning of the debate by Jeremy Balfour, that many organisations have customer charters? They sit proudly on the walls of their offices and are given out to people in nice leaflets, but the charter should be more than that. It should be an ethos. The minister opened today's debate by praising the consensual nature by which Scotland's social security system was introduced and agreed to. I think that, although we will have political differences that will set a distance between us as parties, I do hope that there is an earnest and genuine will to make a success of this new agency and the people that it seeks to provide for. Thank you, Mr Greene. I call with McGuire to be followed by Alec Rowley. Dignity, fairness and respect are important words, they are important principles. We have used them a lot and should make no apology for that. Keeping those important principles central to everything that we do is essential to avoid the mistakes of the previous system, which, despite the experience of a lucky or some might say privileged view, is a system that has caused harm, stress and worse to countless vulnerable individuals and was described by the UN as a grave and systematic violation of human rights for those with disabilities. I am very clear that, if even one person suffered the indignity described by the scores of people that the Social Security Committee heard from, by the scores of folk that come through our constituency offices, that that would simply not be good enough and that system would have to end. Dignity, fairness and respect are important. It is also important to recognise the progress that has been made in working with the experience panels and others to develop Scotland's social security charter. The historic social security bill established the first UK social security system based on the principle that social security is a human right. At the time, it was really heartening to note that unequivocal support from across the Parliament and from external stakeholders alike for the broad principles and aims that underpin the act and the creation of our Scottish Social Security Agency. By working in partnership with the people of Scotland, by listening to, by valuing and acting on the expertise and experience of people who use the benefit system, a SNP Scottish Government are demonstrating a commitment to turn those principles into reality. The charter is intended to turn the principles into more focused aims so that they are open to monitoring and reporting. Of course, Governments, no matter how good their track record needed to be held to account, a publicly accessible charter communicating in clear terms what people are entitled to expect from our Scottish social security system helps to do that. Social security is an investment in our people and in our country. Social security is a public service. With the charter explaining in clear terms what the new system will do to give practical effect to the principles and by working in partnership with the people of Scotland, we can build trust and create a binding contract between the system and the people who use it. To do that, it is crucial that commitments to co-design are realised. I echo the assertion of Inclusion Scotland in its briefing that co-design has to be about a partnership of equals with professionals and service users working together in an equal and reciprocal arrangement. For disabled people to bring their important lived experience, including the experience of the current benefit system to the discussion, we have to ensure that the right support is in place and that any barriers in place that prevent them from participating on an equal basis with others are removed. I would include in that any barriers around disparity of power. I think that we know from experience that disabled people's organisations involvement helps effective participation. I would reflect on a recent general comment from the UN Committee of the Rights of Disabled People, which stresses the importance of state parties given particular importance to disabled people's organisations. Organisations of persons with disabilities should be distinguished from organisations for persons with disabilities, which provide services and or advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities, which in practice may result in a conflict of interests in which such organisations prioritise their purposes as private entities over the rights of the person with disabilities. State parties should give particular importance to the views of persons with disabilities through their representative organisations, support the capacity and empowerment of such organisations and ensure that priorities are given to ascertaining their views in decision making processes. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments and read the further work on targeted groups to increase diversity. Another issue that was raised by Inclusion Scotland was around whether the core group is sufficiently representative of different types of impairment, particularly learning disabled people or people with other cognitive impairments, such as autism, to ensure that the charter reflects their needs. I accept and recognise that, with a small group of around 30, there will be challenges around publishing details of particular protected characteristics. However, I welcome some comments and reassurance from the cabinet secretary on that in her summing up. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I think that it is clear that the Scottish Government is going way beyond warm words when it comes to putting dignity, respect and fairness at the heart of our social security system. Having expressed provision for the charter on the face of the act, the commitment to the rights-based approach is clear. The charter gives practical effect to the important social security principles and evidence that the SNP Government will treat people with dignity and respect—principles into action to make lives better. I will finish by simply thanking all those involved in that very important work. Thank you very much, Ms McGuire. I call Alex Rowley to be followed by Alasdair Allan. Mr Rowley, please. The progress that is being made with the introduction of the new social security powers in Scotland has been commendable. I consider the inclusive approach to the design of the social security system to be groundbreaking. For those who have not experienced what it is like to try and access support through the social security system, the film I, Daniel Blake, was surely an eye-opener and is a clear demonstration of why those who use the system need to be at the heart of not only designing the new system but also being able to continue to feedback on how that system works in practice. Developing the social security charter is just the next step in that groundbreaking process, and it is therefore important that the approach of inclusiveness and engagement continues. I believe that, by taking the much welcome principles that sit behind the social security art, the social security system in Scotland and setting those out in the social security charter, we will empower the users of the system, as well as the staff who deliver on a daily basis and the organisations who support people that have a need for support. The Social Security Scotland Act 2018 gives the following formal functions to the charter, requiring ministers to ensure that independent advice is available on the charter's content as part of advice on social security issues, enabling it to be taken into account by the courts and tribunials on relevant matters, requiring ministers to report annually on what they have done to meet the expectations set out in the charter and requiring the Scottish Commission on Social Security to report on how the charter is being fulfilled and make recommendations for improvements. Citizens Advice Scotland states that it is of the utmost importance that the charter is ensuring that it is not just words. The charter must strengthen the guidance principles by embedding them into the system in a practical sense. The charter should be used for training all staff who will come into contact with those who need support from the system and, in doing so, will support staff to deliver on the agreed principles. To empower people, the charter must be clear, accessible and well advertised. People who do not receive the service that they are entitled to should be able to use the charter to challenge substandard service and seek redress. Citizens Advice Scotland is right when they say that empowering people who require support is in the best interests of the whole system. When service falls short of the necessary standard, people who know their rights can challenge that, which in turn helps to ensure that a high-quality level of service is maintained. Why is that important? I think that it is important that we always make clear that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. It is an investment in the communities of Scotland and it is an investment in the wider economy of Scotland. The principle that the social security system is to contribute to reducing poverty in Scotland is one that I am sure all Scotland supports. However, that is dependent on the ability and willingness of the Government of the day to raise the finances and commit the resources. I believe that one of the most alarming developments of modern-day Scotland is the rising levels of child poverty in Scotland. Nearly two in five children face the prospect of poverty in Scotland by the end of the next decade. That represents a 50 per cent rise in the number of child poor from today and almost doubling since 2010. 400,000 children will be in poverty by the end of the 2020s. That is a figure far higher than even the Thatcher major years when child poverty rocketed. As the Institute of Public Policy Research recently said, the scale of the financial challenge of reducing child poverty will likely need concerted action for many years, requiring a combination of increased payments for the poorest households through inclusive growth and increases in social security payments. The figures are shocking and alarming but confirmed in the Joseph Rowntree report on Scotland published today, which highlights the scale of poverty and should make us both sad and angry. Today, half the children, 56 per cent in out-of-work families, are in poverty. The figure will exceed 90 per cent by the late 2020s. As the report says, the escalating poverty crisis is driven by substantial cuts to social security benefits and tax credits and the introduction of universal credit, which will be rolled out by 2023. Will I accept that we cannot mitigate all the ills of Tory welfare policy and failed Tory austerity, I suggest that tackling the growing levels of child poverty will be essential to achieve the principles that sit behind the Scottish social security system. As members know, many constituents facing sometimes dire situations come to their MSPs for help with benefits issues. They do so and will continue to do so regardless of whether the benefit and question are devolved or not. With the devolution of a number of benefits to this place, however, at least in one limited respect, it can be said that the actual powers of Holyrood have caught up with the expectations that our constituents rightly have of a Parliament. I want to say something about how the benefits now devolved to us should operate and on that I hope there might be a more than usual degree of consensus at least on some things. We should consider, as is being considered, what principles we are starting from and what lessons we can learn from the social security system as it has operated up till now. Those principles are a good point to work from. They are principles that are bore not merely out of consultation with service users but, as others have mentioned, out of genuine co-design. Those principles are endorsed unanimously by this Parliament and set on the face of an act. Now we have a rare opportunity to try to get it right, at least for the 15 per cent or so of the social security system that is being devolved to Scotland's control. That means translating those principles into a social security charter. However, it is important to say that the charter is more than merely a general statement of good will. The Scottish Government and its agencies will not only be measured against the charter, but organisations that believe that the system is failing will be able to use the charter to make that point. The idea of social security as a rights-based system, founded in ideas of human dignity, is a radical idea. Indeed, it is arguably a radical departure from the ideas of social security that have gone before, which come from a system historically derived ultimately from ideas about things such as a deserving and an un-deserving poor. Writing a charter now provides an opportunity for something better, something that is more clearly founded on ideas of human dignity and equality. I want to mention one group with a particular importance in my part of Scotland, which is those benefiting from cold weather payments. At least five or six of our starting principles could be invoked as reasons for my raising the issue. I have raised the issue of cold weather payments on numerous occasions in the past with the UK Government. Unlike other members in the west of Scotland, I recognise that the current threshold for the payment of cold weather payments is very high, or if we are thinking of it strictly in temperature terms, it is very low. The temperature in any area has to fall below freezing for seven nights in a row before the payments are triggered. On the west coast of Scotland, that is, of course, something of a rarity. However, areas such as my own have some of the worst levels of fuel poverty in Europe. There are many explanations for that to do with housing type and so on, and much work is being done by the Scottish Government that should be said to address those problems. However, another factor is, of course, windchill. The weather that hits the west coast in the winter may not be literally freezing, but it certainly feels like it. I would again make a case for all of us to think about the questions that arise around the arguments for windchill to be taken into account when payments are calculated and to look at those seriously as we think about the principles for our new system. Presiding Officer, as many members have pointed out, we have to build a new social security system that is based on people's lived experience of the existing one. There will be an estimated £3.7 billion fall by 2021 in payments in Scotland of the benefits that are administered at the UK level. That is a huge slice out of the incomes of hundreds of thousands of Scots, which no amount of mitigation by this Parliament can possibly make up. As members will have seen from evidence provided by organisations including Engender and others, between 2010 and 2020, 86 per cent of net savings along those lines will come from women's incomes. Those provide huge issues for us to think about as we think about how the devolved benefits relate to those that still operate across the UK. That may all be a debate for another day, but we will continue as MSPs to get inquiries about both devolved and reserved benefits. In the case of Scotland, I hope that our charter will ensure that there is a system that is at least accountable and listening and founded in meaningful guiding principles, principles that I hope are shared across the chamber. Thank you very much, Dr Allan. I call Alexander Stewart, who is followed by George Adam. Mr Adam will be the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be able to take part in today's debate on Scotland's social security charter. With 30 per cent of working-age benefits being devolved to Holyrood, as well as additional powers to top up existing benefits to create new ones, that gives us a very exciting opportunity. Many speakers have talked about that this afternoon, but it is also important that there is a responsibility that comes to considering how we deal with a distinctive welfare system in Scotland, with options that look at serving and securing the best that we need for the people within Scotland. The inclusion of the social security charter within the Social Security Act is very much welcome. Not only was it set out with the Scottish ministers what is expected of them forming the social security policy, it would also be developed in consultation with the people who rely on different types of social security on a day-to-day basis. The key people who are actually needing the service need to be part of that process, and the approach of engaging with a broad range of people designing this new welfare system is the right one to take. While the core group drew upon a wide experience of panel individuals who are mixed with the seat of a range of different types of benefit and their different gender and different locations, I was a little bit surprised before the debate started today about the lack of young people and ethnic minorities, so I am delighted to see that the cabinet secretary has now brought that in case, because I do think that that is the right thing to do, that we broaden the net as wide as we can to incorporate and include as many people as we can in this whole process. It is also important to find out what the social security support mechanisms are there, and notwithstanding some of the concerns that there are, the recommendations that are here seem to be sensible, reasonable and appropriate. That is what people want to see, something that deals with them on a day-to-day basis. People want the system to treat clients fairly, the system to treat clients with respect, and they want staff to be appropriate, kind and understanding, and the system itself is clear, simple and easy to navigate. Those are the priorities that must be taken within the process, and I am glad to see that many of those are being followed. I am sure that the support mechanisms are put in place, and we will get support from notwithin this chamber, but outside the chamber, if we are prepared to take that seriously and tackle it head-on. I think today that the social security charter is doing exactly that. We have a need to bear in mind that, no matter how strong Scotland's social security charter might be, it will depend on how well it is implemented. It will depend on how far it goes and what it does to ensure that people get that respect. The conclusions that I have come forward from individuals must be taken into account to ensure that the system is proper and that the management systems are in place. However, there are some real issues about the implementation, and I need to talk about what Audit Scotland talked about when it looked at where we were. It was reported early in the year that the implementation of the Scottish welfare system would have an impact and that the Scottish Government might well have underestimated some of that impact. That needs to be solved if that problem has been identified, and I am sure that the Scottish Government will take that on board. Moreover, the new body that we are going to have will require many staff, and I know that the Scottish Government has already transferred a number of individuals to cope with that system, to ensure that the staff are in place and the project. Audit Scotland also highlighted concerns about the necessity of staff numbers that could be recruited in time to ensure that everything is devolved. Once again, that needs to be looked at to ensure that we can achieve the goals that we are setting ourselves. We want that to work effectively, and we want that to work for everybody, but Audit Scotland has a role to play in advising and coming up with some possibilities that could cause us concerns for the future. When we talk about an IT system that might have to be involved, we already know that the track record of the Scottish Government on IT has been difficult. We can just look at Police Scotland or farm payments or NHS. I leave that there. That is an area where we need to ensure that things are fit for purpose. I am sure that that will be looked at and addressed as we go forward, because that is vitally important. There is some really positive progress that is being made. I commend and congratulate for what we are doing. The people who have sat on the panels and the co-groups who have taken part in ensuring that the charter will be a success, and I have no doubt that the charter will be a success. However, it has to be the culture of that success that works for all. We must keep in mind the difficulties of setting up a new system, and we must also keep in mind that that has to work for all. We in the Scottish Conservatives are very supportive of what is taking place, but we will hold the Government to account if things do not work. I am very happy to hear Alexander Stewart's comments about co-production and how valuable that is. I wonder whether Alexander Stewart would recommend that to his colleagues in Westminster for the DWP to take the same process and make the same progress that we have made in Scotland. My colleagues in Westminster are fully aware of what they are trying to achieve, and they do that. I am aware of that situation. However, you make a valid comment, and we can all work to try to achieve it, but, as I said, they are taking that on board. I pay tribute to all who have worked on the committee so far. I pay tribute to the panels that have taken place. We all want that to work for individuals who require support. The act that we put forward in this Parliament was pioneering, and it should be. I support that, and I support everything that has been said today. In immaculate speech, apart from the fact that you used the term you, I will persist in correcting members on that. I am now going to call George Adam last week in the open day, moving to closing speeches afterwards. I like colleagues' welcome in this debate, and it comes in the back of a lot of work from all the members of the Social Security Committee. I particularly like Pauline McNeill's opening, as those of us on the committee co-producers of the social security system. Of course, my own natural humility would stop me from making that statement, but Pauline McNeill is 100 per cent right. The Social Security Act was a creation of all of us in this place and those outside it who contributed through the experience panels. The Social Security Charter goes beyond warm words. It goes beyond listening to people for the sake of it and beyond the usual Government practice of top-down ideas. This is a social security system created in conjunction with those who use it. The Social Security Charter creates a binding contract between the system and the people of Scotland. This is not some framed document that will hang in the wall of a Social Security Scotland's office and gather dust. It is a working document, a living document that builds the very foundations of our social security system. It sets out what people in Scotland can expect and are entitled to from our new system. The act requires the development of a charter that reflects eight social security principles set out in section 1 of the act. During the bill's progression, ministers committed to producing the charter, working with people with experience of social security. The charter is intended to turn the principles into more focused aims so that they are open to monitoring, reporting and scrutiny. More importantly, the Scottish Government has not just listened to but acted on the wishes of those with lived experience. The very naming of the charter was brought by the core group discussions and its clear preference was for the Scottish Social Security Charter. The format of it had to be accessible and ensure that it did what it set out to do. If there is one thing that I have learned during my time in local government and here in the Scottish Parliament, whether it is the civil service or council officers, they all like to write long reports and papers. However, it is so much more important that the charter has to be long but it also has to be short enough for people to be able to understand that it has to be able to be grasped by individuals so that they know exactly what their rights are with the document. Those are all things that the core group brought up and shows once again how valuable their input was. The principles of the charter are important and, as politicians, we love principles. Some of us have them and value them. Others, we can only hope, catch up with the rest of them someday. However, the overall finding was that all the principles separately had important aspects and meanings to the core group, but there is also a significant overlap. They came up with a list of 45 statements that explained what the principles mean in practice. Those statements can be grouped into five themes, and I think that that is an important part of the debate. Number one was clients. As the people involved, dignity and spread should not just be words, the clients should be first and foremost most important in the whole process. Number two, staff behaviour. Ensure that those who deliver those services do so in a way that is helpful to those who are claiming. And three, processes. Ensuring that they are open, transparent and not a hindrance due to people's time of need. And four, is the social security system itself and now five, the wider culture of social security in Scotland should be a positive one. For me, the most important aspects of all of this is the process of consultation and co-design that help build trust in the Scottish social security system. Trust in a benefit system is something that there has not been a lot of recently with the UK Government's so-called reforms. This has been an important part of the exercise, and it is only right that people feel that trust between the system and themselves when they go through the process. The equality and human rights commission noted that the co-production model can help to develop positive working relationships between claimants and front-line staff. That, Presiding Officer, is an important part of the debate. The act sets out eight principles for the Scottish social security. Although all valid, my particular favourites are that the Scottish social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. During their time of difficulty, during their time of need, we are there to support them. Two, the social security itself is a human right and essential to the realisations of other human rights. Respect and dignity of individuals is to be at the heart of the Scottish security system. For too long, those things have just been words and have not actually been used in other processes with the DWP. The Scottish social security system is to contribute to reducing poverty in Scotland. It is an important part of how we build a better future. Presiding Officer, this is some of the largest legislation that the Scottish Parliament has produced. It affects so many people in our country and can be used as a tool to bring people and families out of poverty. Before all that, we need to state the rules and regulations. People need to understand what their rights are. It needs to be done in a way that people can understand and appreciate. It is my belief that the Scottish social security charter does all those things. It gives hope to our fellow Scots that our Scottish Government listens to what you say and appreciates your contribution. As I have often said in this chamber, politics is about people. If we put them first, we can and will deliver the type of Scotland that we all want to live in. I am pleased that we have had a chance today to agree our support for the progress that has been made to deliver Scotland's new social security system. The charter, its co-design, parametric approval and the human rights-based approach are key to realising dignity, fairness and respect in the system, a marked change from what we have now. Crucially, it will ensure that we deliver on the law that we agreed in April. Although it should embed all the principles in a way that is understandable in plain English, the charter is a key way of realising a core principle of the social security system. The social security system is to be designed with the people of Scotland on the basis of evidence. The charter is, of course, about people and their rights. To be effective, the charter has to clearly state social security recipients' rights, set out how to complain when things go wrong and they will and who to complain to. Although my attempt to amend the act to pay due regard to the covenant on economic and social rights was not accepted by all members in the committee, the charter should also embed another core principle, that social security is itself a human right and essential to the realisation of other human rights. We have heard today about the importance of ensuring that the charter should be rooted in panel principles that I call made in the alliances briefing. Jeremy Balfour echoed my earlier comments that other individuals or organisations with an interest should be consulted as part of the scrutiny process. Pauline McNeill spoke about the parliamentary approval ahead and, like her, I would be keen for the cabinet secretary to spell out the intended timetable for that. Alasdair Allan mentioned the issue around cold weather payments in his constituency. Similarly in central Scotland, we have the position where residents in Cotebridge and Airdrie have their weather conditions taken by two separate weather stations. One of those was one in Bishopton, so we have two houses side by side together with each other, where one house received four cold weather payments last winter and one only received two. I think that that is something that the cabinet secretary could look at in a welcome Dr Allan's comments around that, and hopefully that is something that we could all work together on. In his briefing, the alliance suggested that Parliament considers extending the time to develop the charter to ensure that the process is led by free, meaningful, active and informed participation and not overly driven by time constraints. On that, I would welcome the cabinet secretary's response. Our amendment refers to the process being one that is on-going, something that echoes Sametji's call that the charter should be considered as a live document. As I have said, we on those benches would like to see a push to recruit more members to the panels, which could encourage more hard-to-reach groups to come on board and for that process to be more open. I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees, because I think that there is room to improve in doing the cabinet secretary's predecessor. Jeane Freeman told me that almost 1,000 of the 2,400 experienced panel members have failed to engage since that initial recruitment. That suggests that something is not quite fully worked as part of that programme for which £300,000 has been invested today. Anecdotal comments about the nature of the short, sharp research and the timings and methods of engagement suggest that the work could be better built around members. To underline the point that I have made today, the panel should be designed with people as opposed to for them or otherwise built around the needs of the Scottish Government. Opening up the panels further and making more up-to-date information available, perhaps through Social Security Scotland's excellent new website could make them more accessible with earlier notice and with greater detail of forthcoming work, but also providing more live details of the feedback coming out of them could increase the value and the engagement with the panels further. The recently published experience panels research plan says that we should expect reports on the funeral expenses assistance service to sign, the carers allowance supplement letters and the pit assessment process this autumn. However, on all three counts, the Government has either published its draft regulations, sent the letters or last week confirmed its position on the assessment processes, so I think that there is a question as to how the experience panels will then feed into those particular entitlements. In May and June, Gene Freeman responded to questions from Pauline McNeill and Daniel Johnson that mobility criteria was under active consideration, but the plan does not include that. The question is about offering mobility to over 65s and reinstating the 20m rule are key priorities for us, and I hope that the minister can confirm that they are very much under consideration by the panel. Earlier, I reminded the chamber the effect of Tory reforms. Disabled people losing £190 million from PIP alone. At the figures uncovered, so in 50,000 people have had to suffer a second PIP assessment under the revolving door of reviews. This summer, I have been asking for people's views on what social security likes that at roundtables and local meetings and asking disability organisations and disabled people what their priorities are. When the time comes to consider their placement for PIP and carers allowance, the rules, criteria and rates of benefits, it is vitally important that the people of Scotland will have their chance to deliver a social security system that is founded on dignity, fairness and respect. I hope that, at decision time tonight, we will have consensus on today's motions and amendments, and I echo the cabinet secretary's opening statements that this Parliament has, must and will work together to deliver a social security system that works for the people. None of us doubt the importance of getting the approach and the content of social security charter right. The proposal came from the people and we have a duty to deliver a meaningful response to the requirement in the act. Inevitably, of course, much of the conversation on the development of the charter will of course be about the language, so unusually I want to start with a quote from the Unison briefing. Unison have made clear that they do not like the term customer, but they said this. More fundamentally, whether those using the systems are claimants, users or customers, and whether they are receiving benefits, entitlements or citizen supplements, or whether they receive information via email, text or in person, the crucial factor is how much money people are receiving. No level of semantic sensitivity or personalised user friendly service will allow for the system to meet principles of dignity and respect. In creating a social security charter, we must be sensitive to the expectations that we are raising and our ability to deliver. That concern was also noted by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Both Jamie Greene and Alex Cole-Hamilton highlighted the principles on which social security was established, reminding us that beverage was clear that in delivering security, we should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility. We must leave room for encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more for their family. My colleague Jeremy Balfour talked eloquently about the role of the charter and the importance of it being more than words, of its role in clarifying expectations and holding agencies to account. He reminded us of the legal importance that the charter is not about individual rights, but the principles on which the Scottish social security system will operate. I was also grateful to Jamie Halcro Johnston for touching upon the importance of tangible outcomes with regard to the charter, as well as raising the comments on PIP and ESA independent reviews at UK level. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address some of the questions that Mr Halcro Johnston raised. It is, as Jamie Greene highlighted, vitally important that current levels of scrutiny continue to be applied to benefits once they are devolved. The charter can provide the mechanism for that, whether in relation to ensuring geographical equality or as an opportunity to provide on-going improvement to the system. Many members this afternoon have acknowledged and welcomed the co-design approach that is being taken. As Bob Doris, Shona Robison and other members of the Social Security Committee mentioned, our visit to Dundee was about listening and gaining understanding of the experiences of those who use the system. Communication in design and communication in delivery is vital. As Pauline McNeill and others have mentioned, it is important that the Scottish social security system is not digital by default, and Age Scotland's briefing reminded us that the Scottish household survey found that 67 per cent of those aged 75 and over do not use the internet. I believe that we all welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement that the membership of experience panels has been expanded to be more representative, as it is important that a broad range of voices is captured. Alexander Stewart spoke incitefully on the need for broader representation on the core group, and hearing from those people who have had positive experiences is important, not least to try to understand why it worked for them and not for others. If the charter is really to provide a guiding influence on our system, then we need to get it in place. Ideally, it would have been in place already prior to the delivery of benefits to ensure consistency across the board, particularly as, in the Scottish Government's own words, the agency's complaints and appeals procedures will also be strongly reflective on the values and standards set out in the charter. This document will form a key tool for those seeking redress, so it is important that we get it in place as soon as possible. On a final note, when reading through Friday's report, I was struck by one comment in particular from a member of the core group. It was the suggestion that the charter be placed conspicuously right in the eye line of Social Security Scotland staff that are dealing directly with the public. I believe that if we truly wish this charter to succeed, we must be proud of it. As Alexander Stewart said, this is key. The respect that we build through being proud of it is what will take it forward. It is a symbol of collaboration between service users and staff and Government. A common touch point that they can all refer to and a guideline on what to expect once they cross the agency's threshold. I think that the suggestion of an eye line charter is a good start and a contribution that should be borne in mind as this charter takes place. Thank you very much, Ms Palatine. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville to close the Scottish Government. Cabinet Secretary, to decision time or thereabouts, please. I welcome today's debates and the contributions that we have had. It befits the importance of the charter that we have been trying to and have succeeded to achieve a great deal of consensus today. I thank the members who contributed and spoke very supportively of the work that the Scottish Government has been doing, but, more important, the work of the experience panels and our stakeholders in bringing it to life. I repeat that this work is fundamental to the wider necessity that we have as we develop our social security system about building trust with the people of Scotland. We need to demonstrate through our actions that we will honour the trust by delivering on our commitment to do things better. In my opening remarks, I spoke about my genuine desire to carry on the collaborative approach that was clearly established by my predecessor through the progress of the bill. I am pleased that that has continued today. Of course, we will not agree on everything, but it has been made clear today that we agree about the nature of this new public service and about the role of the charter in it. With that in mind, I am pleased to support Mark Griffin's amendment to the motion. I very much agree that this is a process that should be an exemplar of co-production and that we should continue to work to expand the diversity of those participating in co-design. Mark Griffin talked a great deal about the importance of co-design and, quite rightly, it is their system, as he said, not something that has been done to them. I take very seriously the comments that he, Jamie Greene and others have made about the issue that no members from Black minority ethnic communities were on the original core group. We have to ask ourselves why people from certain communities did not come forward to be part of that. That is a process that I am open to. We need to learn lessons from that innovative process that we are doing in co-design, because I want to do that better in the future. Interestingly enough, we are also having a great deal of interest from other Administrations and Governments about how we are carrying out our co-design work on this, and I think that it speaks to the innovative nature of what we are trying to do here. We are very much open to learning lessons and learning them quickly. Ruth Maguire and Jeremy Balfour raised issues about the representative nature of the core group. Ruth Maguire pointed out that there are difficulties about talking about the protected characteristics of a group of 30 people, but I hope that I can reassure her that we include people with a disability, including mental, physical and learning, men and women, a range of ages, people with different sexual orientations, people who are married or in civil partnerships, different religious beliefs, experience of all relevant benefits, people with fluctuating conditions, people with hearing impairments, people with visual impairments, carers of both adults and disabled children, rural and urban dwellers and people with more than one of those characteristics. We are working closely with stakeholders to ensure that the views of people from certain health groups or underrepresented groups are included in the work that we do in the charter. I am also very pleased to say that we will be supporting Jeremy Balfour's amendment tonight as well, considering how we might include the views of organisations and individuals within the work that we are doing. Very much from the beginning of the principles and of the charter, there has been a product of wide consultation and engagement. I am committed to doing my part through the co-design process to have focused discussions with stakeholders. We already have a stakeholder group of 27 organisations, and many are also meeting with officials. The officials door and my door will always be open to those with an interest in our system and a wish to contribute to that. Jeremy Balfour and others spoke about why I have a charter and that it has to be more than a bunch of words. I absolutely agree with him on that. George Adam talked about this being a working document, a living document and I completely concur with that. The interim report that was published at the end of last week has a great deal of work that has gone behind it. It is an iterative process. We are early in that process, but I can assure Jeremy Balfour and others that it is a very open process. There is much capacity building that has gone on with the core group to ensure that it absolutely is not officials sitting and saying what do you think about our ideas but very much led from the core group themselves. The charter, we expect to be able to lay before Parliament before the end of its year. It is not for me to judge how Parliament will settle a timetable from that, but I am open to the committee and to Opposition parties for suggestions about how we can take that process forward. Jeremy Balfour also discussed and asked me about the delivery of other benefits, and we will take responsibility for all the benefits by the end of the parliamentary term. We will be moving forward with policy, for example, on PIP, and that is on going through our experience panels and the expert advisory group. The regulations will come in due course after that. Patrick Harvie raised a very important point that I think we should always reflect on is, but how did we get here that we have a system that is so absolutely mistrusted by both the people who use it and, indeed, anyone who hears anything about it? That is exactly why he correctly points out that our new system must be developed on the lived experience of those. That will be at the heart of everything that we do. It will be first, it will be last, and it will be always what we will consider as we develop the social security system. Ile Cole-Hamilton also asked the Government to look very carefully at the experience of stakeholders and their expertise, and I would absolutely agree with him on that. As I have already mentioned, we have a stakeholder group that is working to advise the core group and discussions with officials are happening. Bob Doris, Shona Robison and others spoke very eloquently about the consequences of the current system. My constituency, mailbag and surgeries also bring that home, as I am sure it does to all members. I am particularly mindful of the visit that I made to Inclusion Scotland immediately before I gave my statement last week. We can directly tell people about what impact our policy decisions will have on their everyday life. It is always humbling for us to remember that the decisions that we take in this chamber will make a real difference to people and I am determined to ensure that there is a positive difference for people who have been exceptionally scarred from their experience of the current system. That is why it is important that we recognise what we are doing here. We are designing a new system. We are not tinkering around the edges of the current system. That is why the culture in the new agency is so important. I am delighted to hear from a number of members about their experience when they went up to visit the agency headquarters in Dundee yesterday. It is an experience that I had greatly enjoyed as well because you can tell from the chief executive, from the senior management to all the client advisers, that they genuinely get that they are doing something different and momentous here in Scotland and that they are part of something historic and very proud of that. I hope and expect that that will be reflected in everything that they do as they deal with people on a one-to-one basis. Clare Anderson talked again about the need for vision and the type of society that we want to have. That will be embedded, I know, in the culture that we will have. Paul McNeill mentioned a number of parts of her unfinished business, probably too many for me to go through in the time that I have, but I am more than happy to meet Ms McNeill and discuss some or all of those with her. I reassure her that I will look very carefully at what she said around the appeals process, for example, and the investigation, offences and investigations. She raised some suggestions about what would go into the charter. It is too early for me to say what should go into the charter at this point, and I will allow the core group to comment on that before I do. In conclusion, I was heartened by the fact that many of the members endorsed the findings from the core group that we have had so far. As I say, our intention is to submit the first charter for parliamentary approval by the end of the year, but in many ways that is the beginning, rather than the end of the process. If approval is granted, we then move on to implementation and ensuring that that charter is meaningfully delivered. As Mark Griffin, Patrick Harvie, Clare Adamson, and many others mentioned today, the importance of the charter and what we are doing in social security is to ensure that the people's voices will now be heard. I would add to that as well that their voices will now be heard, and then this Government and this Parliament will act upon them to ensure that we have a social security system that we can surely be proud of. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on building a social security system together. Before we move on to the next item of business, members may recall that the commission on parliamentary reform proposed that time be set aside during meetings with the Parliament for significant announcements from committees on urgent inquiries or to set out the findings of recently published reports. As agreed by the parliamentary bureau, we are going to be trialling this up to Christmas. In that context, I am pleased to call on Bruce Crawford, convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, to make an announcement on common UK frameworks. As the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, I welcome this new opportunity for parliamentary committees to highlight the work that they are undertaking. The commission on parliamentary reform are to be commended for making such a useful recommendation. On the first occasion of this new procedure being used, I would like to bring members' attention to the important inquiry that the committee is undertaking into common frameworks. In October last year, the UK and devolved Governments agreed that it would be beneficial to establish post-Brexit common approaches across the UK in policy areas such as justice, the environment, health, as well as agriculture and fisheries. Those areas were common policy approaches currently being delivered by virtue of the United Kingdom being a member state of the EU. The principles that underpin those agreements have been agreed by the Governments, including to enable the function of the UK internal market while acknowledging policy divergence, to ensure that the UK can negotiate and implement new trade agreements and international treaties, and to safeguard the security of the UK. Those common frameworks should matter to us all here at Holyrood, as the impact on the policy approaches that we scrutinise and will be asked to vote on in future. I know that colleagues and other committees have also been looking at this significant issue. It is vitally important that this Parliament, as well as Civic Scotland, NGOs and other wider stakeholders, etc., have a role in helping to shape and influence the development and agreement of those common frameworks. In June this year, the finance committee began our inquiry seeking written views. We have since complemented that work with a fact-finding visit to Brussels, where we learnt that meaningful engagement undertaking early and often was vital to ensure success in finding agreement. We will also hold a round-table discussion in committee on 21 October, as well as hosting a conference together with other partners at the Royal Society of Edinburgh on 2 November. Key sectoral representatives have been invited from across the UK as well as from UK and devolved parliaments and Governments. Those frameworks are being developed right now, so the Finance and Constitution Committee will look to publish its findings as early as possible. That is in order to ensure that the committee and parliament are involved in helping to shape the direction and development of those frameworks at an early stage as possible. I hope that members will find the committee's on-going work and the final report that we will produce useful in regard to their own involvement in the development of common frameworks. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Crawford. We turn now to decision time. This evening, the first question is that motion 14142, in the name of Ruth Davidson, on a motion of control and to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 14160.1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, which seeks to amend motion 14160, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on building a social security system together co-design the social security charter, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 14160.2, in the name of Mark Griffin, which seeks to amend motion 14160, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 14160, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, as amended, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business, or in a few moments, members' business in the name of Oliver Mundell, on the cycle to Syracuse to mark the 30th anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster. We'll just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.