 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 17352, in the name of Mary Fee, on SAMH's report on universal credit and mental health. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate? Please press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Mary Fee to open the debate. Ms Fee, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Our social security system should be available to all in times of need. It should guarantee a level of economic safety and assistance to those who cannot work, those who find themselves out of work or those struggling to make ends meet. Instead, under a cruel and unfeeling Tory Government, it offers neither safety nor assistance. The SAMH report on universal credit and mental health is a significant insight to help us to understand what is happening to the very people the social security system was designed to protect. I thank all my MSP colleagues for signing the motion, allowing us to have this debate this evening. The issues raised in the report are not party political. They are the concerns and fears of many people with poor mental health. My sincere thanks go to SAMH and those behind the case studies that are discussed in their report. With their valuable input, the human impact of universal credit implementation is made very clear. The motion on the SAMH report gives a brief summary. One tells us clearly that universal credit is creating new and additional barriers for people with poor mental health. Those barriers include digital by default, the work capability assessment, the payment period and the sanction regime. All barriers leave people with more stress, with more anxiety and more pressure on their mental health. Rightly, we want people who are able to work to do so. However, any system that pushes people further from employment is not a service that is fit for purpose. There are a number of recommendations to change the system. The single recommendation that is aimed at the Scottish Government is one that I hope that the minister will respond to later. SAMH tells us that it welcomed the principles behind universal credit to simplify the complex UK social security system. Unfortunately, for many people, the aims of the changes have been undermined through its structure and its delivery. The first recommendation calls for the scrapping of the policy of digital by default. The Scottish household survey found that only two thirds of households with incomes of less than 15,000 per year have internet access. Citizens Advice Scotland found that 68 per cent of people seeking to claim a disability benefit require assistance to make a claim online. Research by the DWP found that 24 per cent of people with long-term conditions could not register a claim online, that 53 per cent needed support to set up a claim, and that 38 per cent of claimants need on-going support. That is a burden for many, particularly those with disabilities and mental health problems. As telephone applications for universal credit are limited and claimants must evidence that they are digitally excluded. Of course, for some libraries, they are an option. However, with many libraries closing or restricting hours in recent years, coupled with the mental health of claimants, applying online is an extremely difficult barrier to overcome. Sam H highlights that the work capability assessment does not work for people with mental health problems. The assessors cannot adequately judge the mental health of claimants, because they lack a full understanding of the wide range of mental health conditions and how they can impact on job searching and the ability to work. While waiting for assessment, claimants may be required to undertake work-related activities and job searching. Sam H reports that that can be as much as 35 hours of job searching per week. If they do not do that, they can be threatened with sanctions. That is quite simply unjust and unfair on people with complex mental health problems, especially if those mental health problems are coupled with physical problems. Delays to assessments and lengthy waits can cause further distress and further anxiety. In June 2018, the median wait time for applying for universal credit and a final decision was 15 weeks. The report paints a very clear picture that the process of applying for universal credit is flawed. The process of managing the claim provides even more barriers for people with mental health problems. The first payment comes after five weeks and is believed to be a deliberate choice by the DWP. I fully support the Sam H recommendation that the five-week waiting period is unjustified and should be abolished. Citizens Advice Scotland found that in areas in which universal credit has been fully rolled out, there has been a 15 per cent rise in renter years and an 87 per cent increase in crisis grant awards and rises of 40 per cent and 70 per cent of advice for food banks in two areas. People with mental health problems should not have to face increasing poverty and debt. The report tells us that 86 per cent of people with mental health problems believe that their financial situation influences heavily on their mental health. The social security system should not be designed to put people into debt and into poverty. Even with advanced payments, financial problems are worsened because they are loans. It is sickening that those in the most desperate need are pushed further into financial hardship and there is absolutely no morality in that. I could spend the rest of the evening going through the many informative recommendations and conclusions of the Sam H report and how people with mental health problems are being let down by a system that should be supporting them. In the time left, I want to discuss the section of the report on Scottish flexibilities. The recommendation from this report is one that I hope the Scottish Government can make progress on and I hope to hear more from the minister on this. With aspects of the delivery of universal credit devolved, such as the frequency of payment, the ability to pay housing element of universal credit to a landlord and the ability to split payments between members of a household. Sam H welcomed those choices, going on to comment that the choices will assist people in managing their money to avoid further financial hardship. However, the report calls on the DWP and the Scottish Government to work together to urgently correct issues over the delivery of the Scottish choices to provide assurances to claimants and to landlords. People with mental health problems need assurances that those choices will in no way impact on their mental health. The Sam H report tells us that the administration of Scottish choices has caused problems for social landlords because the payments to landlords are made in arrears and do not match the monthly schedule for payments to claimants. I hope that no person with mental health problems is caused unnecessary stress and anxiety because of those administrative problems. Finally, I thank Sam H and the individuals involved in the case studies for their informative and valuable report. Due to the volume of information contained in the report, I have not been able to reflect on information directly from the case studies. However, if they are listening to the debate tonight, my message to them is that I hear them and I will be in their corner and all those who find themselves in the social security system. We need a system that respects people throughout their claim and into work, one that provides security and assistance, especially for people with mental health problems and physical disabilities. Thank you very much. I call Elaine Smith, who will be followed by Bill Kidd. Thank you for calling me so early on in the debate, as I may have to leave before the final speeches. I apologise to the chamber and to Mary Fee for that. I can also thank Mary Fee for bringing the issue to the chamber today, particularly as I know that most of us will have assisted constituents who are suffering under universal credit and want to see this unfair system and the way that it is working just now being challenged. Thanks are also due to the Scottish Association for Mental Health for the work that they have done in highlighting the effect of universal credit and the processes involved in claiming it on the mental health of claimants. The Citizens Advice Bureau should have a mention for the work that they have done. That reveals yet another aspect of welfare reform. It has been poorly planned, it has been badly implemented and it penalises the most vulnerable in society. As the motion notes, the universal credit system has created new barriers and it has added pressures for people with mental health problems. It is not that long since we began to consider—it is shockingly not that long since we began to consider mental health to be of the same importance as physical health, so it is unacceptable that our social security system is out actively contributing to mental health problems. Being assessed for an entitlement causes anxiety for any claimants, but the impact on those with mental health problems is particularly harsh and one of the most harmful aspects of the application process is the work capability assessment. Sam H's report notes that the median time from application to final decision following a work capability assessment is 15 weeks, but there are cases where that has been significantly longer. It is easy to see the distress and anxiety that that kind of timescale is going to cause for some of the most vulnerable claimants. Another issue that Mary Fee mentioned is the online application process, which can cause further stress and anxiety, particularly for those with no easy access to the internet. Mary Fee outlined the figures on that. The report itself shows that the DWP has found that 24 per cent of people with long-term conditions were not able to register for universal credit online. A society can be judged by how it treats its vulnerable citizens, and the UK should be judged harshly for implementing a reform system that piles anxiety on to those with existing health issues. There is no doubt about that. Last week, Professor Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, released his final report about his visit to the UK. He concluded that much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos. He also highlighted personal stories that he heard that matched the growing body of research, such as Sam H's report about the negative impact of universal credit on mental health. One of Sam H's recommendations is that the DWP publish sanction statistics disaggregated by disability and medical condition. However, the report quotes the Sam H service user also saying that the fear of being sanctioned is enough to ruin your life without actually being sanctioned. Of course, we need those figures, but we must also bear that in mind that fear itself can take a toll on people's health. There is no evidence that benefits sanctions for people with mental health issues incentivise employment. I am not sure that they incentivise them for anyone, but there is certainly no evidence for people with mental ill health. However, there is compelling evidence that what they do is take a toll on mental and physical health, because we need to re-emphasise that a mental health problem does not only manifest itself as a mental health problem, it affects physical health to a point made by my colleague Mary Fee. Another final point that I want to highlight is the inadequate collection of data with regard to eligible claimants. If we do not know who is entitled to receive universal credit, how can we then best ensure that everyone eligible does receive it? That was recently highlighted by the Resolution Foundation. It would be interesting to hear from the minister, although I may not be here personally to hear it, but it would be interesting to know how the Scottish Government intends to increase uptake among particularly vulnerable groups, including those with mental health difficulties. As the motion states, social security should exist as a safety net for the people of Scotland. It should not make them poorer or more disadvantaged, and it certainly should not make claimants' health suffer due to the stress and anxiety that the system causes. The SAMH report, with the examples in it, reveals yet another aspect of universal credit, which is not fit for purpose, penalises the vulnerable and discourages application that needs reform. I thank Mary Fee for bringing this serious concern to the chamber. I welcome the report from SAMH. It details the ways in which universal credit does not accommodate the needs of people with mental health problems. Beyond this, the report accounts how the numerous changes to welfare are exacerbating pressures on a vulnerable group of people, in some cases worsening the mental health problems that they face. Today, we can also debate in the context of Professor Philip Olson, the UN rapporteur, having published his final report on poverty and the impact of universal credit in the UK, the initial findings of which are referenced by SAMH. Over past weeks, we have all seen the headlines and articles following the damning report on the extent of poverty. We have also seen the UK Government's response of shrugged shoulders and Amber Rudd's point-blank denial of the report findings. The official DWP response was to imply that the report was unrepresentative and said that if the rapporteur had spent more time in the UK, one of the wealthiest and happiest countries in the world, that it is likely that Olson would have reached a different conclusion. The trouble with this denial is that it reveals a disconnection with the reality of poverty. Rudd's response to the United Nations findings bethries an unbelievably disconnected thought process that somehow those living in comparative wealth negates the levels of destitution or extreme poverty in the UK. How else could her representative suggest that a longer stay in the UK and exposure to different groups would change UN conclusions drawing in reaction to extreme poverty? The poverty still exists. My SNP colleagues and I, indeed, the majority of elected representatives in this Parliament, see that the UN report findings are not false. I believe that UN and SAMH reports have lain bear the daily struggles and injustices that are experienced by the poorest in society. I also believe that the poorest are not there by their own fault or poor money management, but that we live in a country where there are huge amounts of inherited wealth and also inherited poverty, making it harder for people to move out of that poverty that they have been born into. Over the past six years, we have seen universal credit come to life, if we can call it that, under the Tories. This follows years of austerity and the benefits freeze. The implementation of universal credit has been accompanied by a rise in the number of food banks across the UK. That includes, in my constituency, four months after the roll-out of universal credit in Drumchapol, we saw another food bank open. SAMH has shown in their report that the delays in digitalisation, as was mentioned by Mary Fee and by Elaine Smith, of universal credit have caused significant stress to recipients who are already struggling with mental health issues. We live in a prosperous, innovative and culturally rich nation. The most dramatic inequality in society today is the extremity of wealth inequality. It is our responsibility to those who face the hardship of poverty and the often-related mental health issues to recognise our ability as elected representatives to tackle that poverty head on. I am proud to represent a party and a Parliament that has used the powers available to prioritise tackling child poverty. In fact, Professor Olson described the new social security system as an ambitious scheme that is guided by the principles of dignity and social security as a human right. Scotland has worked hard to nurture the lowest levels of poverty in the UK but, unlike some voices in Westminster, I will not say that profound poverty does not still exist because it does. By tackling the injustice that is poverty, we can create a situation where people are treated as they should always be, with value and with dignity, and that should be our goal at all times. I thank you very much, I call Michelle Ballantyne, to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Ms Johnstone will be the last speaker in the open debate. Dealing with life when you are suffering from poor mental health is a challenge, even when things are going well and you have all the support that you need. I know from my nursing and psychiatric experience how mental health impacts on an individual's ability to deal with stressful situations. Navigating the maze of benefits will never be anything but demanding. For nine years, I headed up the drug and alcohol unit and many of my most vulnerable clients struggled with benefits and the lack of support that used to be the hallmark of job centres. It was left to voluntary agencies to get them both financial assistance and opportunities to enter the job market. Alongside others, Sam H was one of the agencies that provided excellent support in the borders. Sadly, however, they have had to close their doors in Galashill. The arrival of universal credit has seen major changes to the manner in which benefits are delivered, but in the way that clients are supported in accessing help. Sam H's report explores some of the challenges and recognises the barriers that people with mental health issues may face. It is an effective overview of those challenges and makes some good recommendations. Nonetheless, it is essential to recognise that the supporting evidence for the report predates many of the changes that are being trialled or have already been implemented during 2018 and 2019. A lot of work has also gone into ensuring that job centres are welcoming with carefully designed layouts that minimise the stress that individuals experience. All departmental staff working with claimants now complete extensive training that prepares them for their role. Specific training is provided for working with different vulnerable groups, including claimants with mental health conditions. An enhanced mental health training package has already been delivered to 19,755 staff with plans already developed for delivery to a further 34,000 staff across a number of directorates. Following a review of the delivery of training in 2018-19 and working with stakeholders, including work psychologists, further enhancements have been made to learning and development material that has been tested as part of the test and learn phase prior to national roll-out from June 2019. The DWP has also announced earlier this year that claimants with mental health problems would be fast tracked to support from the job centre. Medical experts will be stationed in job centres to give on-the-spot assessments and will have power to refer people for treatment. The new approach is being trialled in a joint venture by the NHS and the DWP in Buckinshire and Milton Keynes. If successful, it will be rolled out across the UK. Nearer to home, the DWP is trialling a virtual reality job centre in Glasgow to help those with autism or heightened sensory awareness to feel comfortable accessing a job centre. Citizens advice is now providing help to claim, which will support vulnerable claimants to ensure that they can navigate their entitlements and successfully apply, while all claimants, including those with mental health conditions, receive continuous tailored support through their personal work coach. I hope that colleagues across the chamber will welcome those developments, and I hope that Sam H will be watching them closely and report on their success in their next report. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that any services that we provide are accessible and usable by all claimants. Those with mental health need extra support and extra services. I, for one, am glad that people are taking notice of that and are working to make sure that they get what they need. Our social security system should do what it says on the tin. It should be there for all of us when we need it to provide support and security, but too often it does the opposite. It can foster insecurity, anxiety and, as the title of the report that we are debating today acknowledges, confusion. This is bad enough for anyone, but it is particularly a concern for people experiencing mental health conditions. Universal credit increases the scope of benefit sanctions without any strong evidence that such sanctions work. As Elaine Smith noted, there is clear evidence that they can do much harm, especially for people with mental health conditions. A five-year research project, a collaboration between six universities examining sanctions, found that the application of welfare conditionality exacerbates many disabled people's existing illnesses and impairments, and its detrimental impact on those with mental health issues is a particular concern. For mental health issues to be taken into account in the claimant commitment, they need to be disclosed. The SAMH report tells us that the need for disclosure is a significant source of distress for people with mental health conditions who may not have the confidence to discuss their mental health on the first meeting with a work coach. When mental health conditions are disclosed, it is not clear that work coaches are able to provide the necessary support. The DWP's own research found that work coaches fell overwhelmed by the number of claimants with health conditions and lacked the time and training to confidently identify vulnerable claimants. It is also worth noting that, in contrast to the old system, conditionality can be imposed before health assessments are conducted. It is therefore possible that someone might be subject to conditionality and therefore sanctions while waiting for an assessment that will later exempt them from conditionality. It is essentially assumed guilty until proven innocent. I was particularly proud to stand on a manifesto commitment to ensure that devolved employment programmes are entirely free from sanctions and even prouder to see this implemented by the Scottish Government. The report that we are discussing also makes clear that the work capabilities assessments that are part of universal credit do not work for people with mental health conditions. As the SAMH report says, the assessments do not capture the impact of mental health and other fluctuating conditions, and assessors are not always aware of how mental health conditions impact on ability to work. The WCA can make mental health conditions even more severe. A study from Harriet Watt and Sterling University, with 30 Scots claimants, found that the WCA experience for many caused a deterioration in people's mental health, which individuals did not recover from. In the worst cases, the WCA experience led to thoughts of suicide. That is made even worse by the fact that the WCA, as the DWP admits, is one of the major reasons for late payments that disproportionately impact people with mental health conditions and leaves people months on end without certainty as when they will get their full amount and what it will be. That itself has an impact on mental health. That would concern anyone. Colleagues will have had experience, as have I, of helping constituents who are worried about the WCA assessment. In many cases, it takes representations from MSPs, MPs and welfare rights experts for pre-existing evidence to be considered properly and assessments that are a risk to health to be cancelled. The report relates to UK universal credit, but there are clearly lessons to be learned for the new Scottish system, as a large number of people will be receiving a Scottish devolved payment in respect of a mental health condition. We have made a good start as a result of a green amendment. The face-to-face assessments that cause so much stress will be banned unless it is the only way that evidence can be found or unless the person requests one, but we need to do more. I hope to see all Social Security Scotland staff interacting with applicants who are receiving the training that they need so that they understand how their work can impact on people with mental health conditions. The assessment criteria for disability assistance must recognise that the introduction of PIP has meant that more than 50 per cent of those receiving DLA for the two most common mental health conditions have either been denied PIP or given a reduced award. I thank Mary Fee for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I hope that it urges both the Scottish Government and the UK Government to put respect for mental health at the heart of the reserved and devolved social security systems. I also thank Mary Fee for bringing this important matter to debate today in the chamber. She said during her opening remarks that social security should be available to all in times of need, but that the current system neither provides safety or assistance. I couldn't agree more with that, Presiding Officer. It is sad but so very true that the current system does not do that. The Scottish Association for Mental Health reports into the impact of universal credit on people with mental health problems makes for very stark reading. It clearly shows that universal credit is causing hardship and emotional distress for people with mental health problems, and rightly makes several recommendations for change. That report adds to the growing evidence and to similar reports from other organisations about the impact of universal credit that it is having on people who are forced to rely on it. I would like to tackle some of the issues that the report raises with universal credit, though, as we know, the list is far longer than I have time for this evening. The minimum five-week wait for the first payment is simply not acceptable, especially when there is no guarantee of the correct payment at the end of that five-week wait. Indeed, Mary Fee rightly pointed out how long people have to wait in reality. It is much longer than that minimum five-week wait for many. Many people are therefore left with little option but to take up the DWP's offer of an advanced payment, leaving them in debt right from the very start of their claim, as they are required to pay that back at a rate of up to 40 per cent of their standard allowance each month. That has had a damaging impact both on the levels of debt that an individual is under and, of course, understandably on their mental health as well. The punitive sanctions regime that is underpin universal credit has been mentioned by many speakers tonight and is causing profound anxiety and stress for many people. There is mounting evidence, and Alison Johnstone reported and discussed the recent five-year study on that, but there is mounting evidence that the current approach to sanctions and conditionality is not only ineffective, but it is having an exceptionally damaging effect on people's health and wellbeing, as well as pushing them further into poverty. Other examples have, of course, come up during the debate that was mentioned by Elaine Smith and Mary Fee, of course, on the work capability assessments. They quite rightly pointed out the concerns around that and the digital by default. There can be nobody in the chamber who hasn't had heartbreaking constituency cases of individuals who come to their surgeries that have no access to a computer, no access to an email, no access to a mobile and, therefore, no chance to apply, never mind to keep their journal up to date themselves. I am particularly struck—I am sure that others will be—by the individuals who we have attempted to assist during this process, but it is simply unacceptable that people are put in such a distressing position in the first place. Samitch also recommends that nobody is transferred over to universal credit through the processes of either natural or managed migration, and the Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to stop that from happening while the system is so clearly unable to cope and is unfit for purpose. It is surely unacceptable that anyone should be forced to claim universal credit when it simply cannot provide them with the support that they require. We have raised those points and more with the UK Government countless times over the last few years. We know that universal credit is not fit for purpose, and yet still people are forced to rely on that broken system. The report rightly recommended that the Scottish Government work with the DWP to overcome the administrative issues with the delivery of Scottish choices. I recognise that the DWP's existing payment scheduling process for direct payments to social landlords used for the UC Scottish choices can make it difficult for landlords to accurately manage their income. Although the policy on direct payments to landlords is devolved, the systems do sit solely with the DWP, but they can make changes to the system itself. We have repeatedly called for the DWP to move on that issue. I am pleased to say that the DWP has now confirmed that it will develop a replacement method of payment by the end of 2019. I hope that that will alleviate the concerns of social landlords and their tenants and that that will ensure that, under Scottish choices, landlords will be paid on the same day as their tenant. I have spoken about the Samwich report, adding to the growing evidence that universal credit is not working. Last week, that mountain of evidence grew further as the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Professor Philip Alston, published his final and damning report following his visit to the UK last year. It is exceptionally hard-hitting and makes for a very sobering read. Its conclusions have been mentioned by Elaine Smith, Bill Kidd and others, and rightly so. Professor Alston was particularly scathing off universal credit, criticising many of the same problems that the Samwich report has raised. I know that Michelle Ballantyne was trying to reassure the chamber that a lot of work has been taken place that perhaps the Samwich report did not take account of. The United Nations rapporteur's report would certainly be aware of all that, and it would be fair to say that he is far from convinced on that argument. The Scottish approach to the 11 benefits that we will take responsibility for on April 2020 could not be more different to that approach that we have seen with universal credit. We are building a system with people. We are listening to their experiences of the problems with the UK system to ensure that we deliver a service that meets the needs of the people of Scotland. We see social security as a human right and an investment in the people of Scotland. Our system will be an inclusive one and an accessible one, and we will remove the barriers for people not to put them in the way. There were a number of particular points that other members picked up during the debate. Elaine Smith, for example, spoke about the requirement for the Scottish Government to improve the take-up of benefits. Of course, she will be aware that we are obligated to do so through the social security act, and we will be developing the take-up strategy that is due for publication this autumn. It is not just because it is in the legislation, but it is the right thing to do to ensure that those who are eligible are encouraged and supported to take up their eligibility. I also want to pick up one other point that Michelle Ballantyne raised about a good idea, some good practice that the DWP is bringing up, and that is the virtual job centre. That might indeed work for some of the people who are using it. I say with the greatest respect to Michelle Ballantyne that you have to have a real job centre to go to after that and the closure that has been undertaken in Glasgow and in other areas of job centres that, again, are making it more increasingly difficult for people to be able to access what they are eligible for is putting, again, extreme hardship and distress on many virtual job centres—just don't cut it, I'm afraid, Presiding Officer. Alison Johnstone also mentioned the aspect of training staff for Social Security Scotland, and I would absolutely reassure her that that is something that myself and, of course, the agency is taking very seriously, not just about mental health but on all issues, to ensure that everyone, not just client advisers but everyone who works for Social Security Scotland has an understanding of the barriers that people may face and some of the challenges that people will face, again, in even approaching or thinking about approaching the agency and it's going forward. I will, of course, keep the committee of which Alison Johnstone is a member fully updated on our work on this issue. In closing, Presiding Officer, I'd like to conclude by quoting the report itself, which said that the structural issues with universal credit are direct obstacles to people with mental health problems accessing essential support and financial security. I couldn't agree more and I fully support the motion today and I urge the UK Government to consider the report very carefully, along with the countless others and their findings, and finally to make the changes that are so desperately required to universal credit.