 Welcome to the third meeting of the Welfare Reform Committee for 2015. I could ask everyone to please make sure that the mobile phones and other electronic devices are silent or switched to airplane mode at least. We go to agenda item 1. The first item of business today is a decision on whether to take item 3 in private. Item 3 is a consideration of the evidence that we are about to receive from the right honourable David Mundell MP. Members agreed. That brings us to agenda item 2, which is a discussion with the parliamentary undersecretary state for Scotland. Before us, we have David Mundell MP, who is that parliamentary undersecretary. We also have Richard Cornish, the devolution director of the DWP, and Pete Serrow, strategy director of working age benefits at the DWP. Welcome to you all. This is the second time that we are able to welcome David Mundell before us. He previously appeared on 26 June 2014 to discuss the issues of food banks and sanctions, and today we will discuss the welfare proposals contained in the Smith commission and the draft clauses, and then the meeting that Mr Mundell has undertaken with our previous food bank witnesses. We have about one and a half hour for both topics. In my role as convener, I will try and judge how best we can meet that target. I would like to invite David Mundell to make some opening comments in relation to our first subject matter. I will pass it over to you, Secretary of State. Thank you very much, convener, and I am pleased to be in the Scottish Parliament this morning. You have already introduced my colleagues Richard Cornish, who is the devolution director in the Department of Work and Pensions, and Pete Searle, who is the strategy director for working age benefits. He will support me this morning, and on some of the more technical issues we will probably be able to give you some more detailed responses. I will confine my initial remarks to the Smith commission and then make some further remarks on the second topic later in the meeting. Obviously, quite a lot has happened since I last appeared before the committee on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was unavailable in June. We have had the referendum, the Smith commission, the publication of the clauses, and we have even had an old firm game. It would be timely to discuss the Smith commission proposals, and I want to start with that. On 22 January, the UK Government published the draft clauses to deliver the agreement reached by Scotland's five main political parties on the future of devolution within the UK, set out in the Smith commission agreement. A major milestone reached in just 37 working days from the publication of the Smith commission, but the work has only just begun. The task now is to get on with finalising the clauses and to have a full draft bill ready for introduction at the start of the new session after the next general election. In parallel with that, we need to continue work started to take forward the non-legislative changes set out in Smith. We have committed to do this while engaging with stakeholders who want to contribute to the draft clauses and next steps on the non-legislative side. The Prime Minister and the First Minister have made clear that such engagement is critical ahead of the introduction of any legislation. As the Parliament to whom these powers will be devolved and this committee for whom the welfare clauses will be of particular interest, I'm sure you will want to play a full part in that process. As I set out in my letter to you last week, following the inaugural meeting between the Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland, a joint ministerial welfare group has been established. I think that you've already taken evidence from Alec Neill, who will co-chair that group with me. The group will consider practical implementation and transitional issues around DWP programmes and will represent a forum for dialogue and resolution of welfare reform related issues. In working together with the Scottish Government in this way, my objective is to achieve a smooth transition of new responsibilities identified by the Smith commission by reaching a better understanding around our respective policy positions following publication of the draft clauses. We hope that the first meeting of the joint ministerial group will be next week, and I would hope that that group will engage proactively with this committee. Okay, thank you very much minister. Can I open up by, in terms of the technical aspects that we move forward? I think that it's important that we remember that we're talking about draft proposals at the present time. How quickly do you envisage that we will start to see some crystallisation around where some changes or technical clarification might be required around those proposals? There has been some concern that if the spirit of the Smith commission has been kept, some of the technical considerations might not be as tight as some people would like them, so when can we start to see how your thinking will be shaped on that? In relation to the Smith commission proposals, the Prime Minister agreed that the single priority coming out of the commission process in relation to the legislative process was the enabling of 16-17-year-olds to vote in next year's Scottish Parliament elections. I know that's a separate matter from this committee. The time window that was available to allow that to happen is currently being used, and that is the tightest time window to get the necessary legislation through, and you may have seen that that order was before the Westminster Parliament last night. By the time we reach our dissolution on 30 March, the necessary legislation to allow that to happen will have taken place. It is absolutely clear that it is not possible to put forward any of the other proposals in that way, in that timescale. There simply isn't the time or resource window to allow that to happen. Clearly, there have been a number of suggestions from the Scottish Government and others that certain aspects of the Smith commission recommendations would be fast-tracked. Clearly, that can be debated. The Government's view remains that it would be better to proceed with a single piece of legislation to be brought forward in the Queen's speech, which would set out in terms of the legislative requirements. However, there are lots of other things that are not legislative requirements that can start right now, have started right now, and with direct engagement between DWP officials and Scottish Government officials. In fact, Richard has been involved over the last few days in a number of those discussions, and perhaps you might just want to elaborate on that at this point, Richard. We are already discussing with the Scottish Government on a number of topics. We have held sessions with officials on personal independence payments, on employment programmes and, shortly, on universal credit. With the aim of helping Scottish Government officials to understand a lot of the detail involved in those areas, we are also planning across the UK Government to hold a number of events across Scotland to engage with Civic Scotland on the draft clauses between now and the general election as well so that we can get further comments on the draft clauses. As you said, we have had discussions with the Cabinet Secretary, Alex Neil, about how we can shape the direction of implementation of the new powers. We have already started to see suggestions that, because of a consensus on things such as the work programme, we know that that has now been committed to for another period of time. However, there is a consensus that people would like to be able to start to shape that here in Scotland as quickly as possible. If we get suggestions like that and where there is apparent agreement that this type of power could come more swiftly to the Scottish Parliament, is that in your thinking could we have a section 30 order to allow the devolution of the work programme to happen prior to the bigger piece of legislation that would have to come to deliver the Smith agreement? The work programme is on the agenda for the first meeting of the joint group, but part of that discussion will be not just about the transfer of responsibilities for the work programme, but we do need to have an understanding, I think, all of us in both Parliament and both Governments, what the transfer is to. At this moment, I am not clear, certainly DWP officials are not clear, as to what the proposed alternative to the work programme would be to transition to. That needs to also be part of the discussion, not just when it's going to happen, but what is it actually going to transition to so that we can look how that can be best achieved. You are not closing your mind to the possibility of something coming sooner than the legislation that we are talking about in general? It's not possible to bring forward a section 30 order ahead of the UK general election, that there isn't enough time left within the parliamentary system, but my mind isn't closed to that as a possibility in terms of post-election delivery of the Smith commission proposals. I will open up to colleagues. Good morning, minister. The Secretary of State for Scotland told BBC Sunday Politics Scotland that a duty to consult is in no way shape or form a veto. I think that I have had a consultation on whether the two Governments take different views at the end of the day, then the Scottish Government is still entitled to go ahead with what they want to do. Do you agree with that statement in terms of dealing with new benefits? I do agree with that statement and I think that we have evidence of that being the case over the past few months when the transfer was made of the ability to set the cap for discretionary housing payments. A decision was made within the Scottish Parliament to allocate funds towards discretionary housing payments. It was identified that I felt there were other ways that it could have been brought about, but the Scottish Government identified raising the benefit cap as being the best way to achieve that. We had a discussion. I agreed with the then Deputy First Minister that that would go forward, even though that was not the policy of the UK Government. We took that forward. The committee has been part of that process. In a very quick timescale, the Scottish Government now has responsibility for setting the cap, which will be different from England and with a different policy objective of the UK Government. It has been done. We did not say that we cannot do that because that is not our policy. We respected the decisions that had been made. That will be the approach. I think that the approach is the one that is set out in the Smith commission of the two Governments needing to work more closely together in areas where they have joint responsibility. Given the decision of the Smith commission that universal credit would remain reserved, there has to be a role for the Secretary of State for DWP in the process with the Scottish Government. Can you give us some clarity on how long a consultation between the two Governments could go on for? Over my period in the Scotland office, I found that matters can be resolved in hours and sometimes they take considerably longer. I am making it clear that there is goodwill on our part in terms of bringing those objectives about. What I am heartened by firstly was my meeting last week with Mr Neill and our own officials and there was a collective view of let's make this work. Can you confirm to the committee that it would not be a matter of many years for one of those consultations to be dragged over? It would certainly, if it has anything to do with me, Mr Stewart, which I cannot guarantee, it will be you. Can you confirm that one of those consultations does not go on indefinitely, which is a veto in itself? Nobody wants to see that happening. Everybody understands the politics of Scotland, the respect that the UK Government has demonstrated for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government that it would not engage in that subversive delay because it would simply not be feasible in terms of the political reality. I am sure that you and others would be very much making that point. I am sure that you would be very much making that point. What I think is good and important is in terms of the relationship with the DWP Scottish Government officials is understanding what some of the systems behind the computer systems, the process systems, what are realistic timescales for making changes. There would be no intention to veto proposals brought forward by the Scottish Government either upfront or in some behind-the-scenes way. It would have been better if the language in the draft clauses had been put in a different way rather than the way that it has been. The draft clauses are out for discussion and consideration. There is an opportunity for the committee, for individuals within the Parliament, for the Scottish Government, and we are in a very close dialogue with John Swinney who is leading, obviously, for the Scottish Government on these matters in relation to the clauses. If there is particular feedback in relation to the clauses, that can be given. You can categorically say that the implication in the language in the clauses is of veto that there is no veto. I would not have taken that implication of veto. I take the clear position of working together, but there is no veto. Thank you. Thank you very much, convener. Smith commission devolved a number of disability benefits, but the command paper makes it clear that the UK Government still plans to roll out PIP in Scotland. Obviously, PIP has been criticised by a great deal of disability groups who contributed to the Smith commission consultation. Do you think that that decision tends to contradict the desire to prepare for devolution in good faith? No, I do not think that it does. PIP is on the agenda of the meeting next week of the joint ministerial group. Again, at that meeting we will be looking to understand what it is that the Scottish Government wants PIP transitioned to. That is a very important part of the preparations in relation to this process and we have made it clear that we will work with them in that regard. It is not as simple as just switching it off. There are no new disability living allowance claimants. There are some people currently on disability living allowance. Some of those people are receiving less than they should because they have not had a recent assessment. Some people are receiving more because they have not had a recent assessment. The process cannot simply stop but as soon as we know what it is that the Scottish Government wants to transition to in relation to PIP there are some critics but there are some groups who are also supportive of it. That is how we can work with the Scottish Government to deliver their aspirations. As Richard said earlier in his comments we have had very good discussions with Scottish Government officials about the mechanics currently of PIP but when we know what it is and what the Scottish Government wants to transition to that will put us all in a better position to make that transition happen as effectively as possible. Thank you convener. Good morning minister. Apologies for my sore throat and weak voice this morning. Of course we welcome the devolution of the powers within the Smith commission but what was also anticipated on publication Branice Goldie welcomed a list of areas of welfare in this area including the ability to shop existing benefits and to create new ones. However, the command paper says that the Scottish Government will not have the power to take permanent entitlement to any new payments beyond the scope of the devolved benefits described earlier. Why has that what was described as an exciting choice in the Scottish Government? We are in a process of discussing the clauses and whether they reflect the spirit and the word of the Smith commission. If for example there are examples of benefits that you see falling within that area then I am quite happy to take that away and look at that as part of this process. Would you suggest that there would be an amendment to that clause to open up that choice to the Scottish Government because at this point we might not anticipate a benefit that will be required in the future? I think it would be helpful for the debate and discussion in this area. If we did have some substantive suggestions of benefits that might be taken forward so that there could be a better understanding of what was sought and whether amendment of the clauses is set out is appropriate. Good morning Mr Mundell. The impression that I get of the joint ministerial working group both from the cabinet secretary, Mr Neil, and from yourself is that I am happy to say positive vibes coming out about this. Given the scope of what is transferred as proposed with the Smith commission in consequence of the draft clauses I am quite interested in what you see the character of the joint ministerial working group being. It is not an immediate and very important job which is how do you deliver this transfer of power as anticipated by the draft clauses. It seems to me that there may be a future job for it in terms of the need for both the Scottish Government and the UK Government of whatever hue or complexion to continue to speak to one another because of course universal credit a core benefit remains reserved. Something about the state pension remains reserved and the Scottish Government might have mine to do something supplementary in Scotland that does not apply to the rest of the UK. Do you see the joint ministerial working group becoming almost a quasi standing committee just to help this continuing dialogue between the two Governments? I think that that dialogue is very important. As I said to Mr Neil, I cannot speak for any future Government to post the election but I am committed to that process as the current coalition parties. I think that it is a very helpful opportunity to air issues to look at things that may not have been anticipated to take forward a transitional arrangements and be an ability just to speak directly and openly. Without disrespect to my colleagues present, DWP is an enormous department necessarily with doing a large number of complex things and I think it is very important that we just have a very direct line of communication if there is an issue that has arisen for Scottish ministers they can speak directly to me or my counterparts on that group and we can try and take things forward because everything that happens is not conspiracy. Sometimes honest mistakes are made or things are not considered in the widest context. I think it is very important that we have that conduit. I think that it will continue. One of the things that we did agree at the first meeting was obviously that what is of prime importance are benefit recipients and some other powers which have been transferred to Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government for example stamp duty if the Scottish Government hadn't set up a system to collect stamp duty effectively they are the losers out of that. If you don't set up a system that allows the person to be paid their benefit you are actually prejudicing a vulnerable individual. It is a different sort of transition we have got to be clear that new systems are in place as we make those transitions but I expect it to be a very effective way of dealing with these issues. Another wee question. Clare Adamson was investigating the clauses in relation to new powers. I think that there is an area for exploration here if I may say so. We understand that if a benefit is devolved then the Scottish Government will have the flexibility perhaps to create a new benefit or top up. I am just wondering how that works because if you take existing devolved areas of responsibility let's take justice for example or education I mean if somebody is coming out of prison and justice is devolved and someone is coming out of prison and maybe they secure a part time job and the Scottish Government thinks it wants to try and help that individual to pursue training or whatever it may be is that something which is the Scottish Government under existing powers or would any attempt to do that be ultra-virates of the draft clauses? I think that there is a debate always potentially around what is a payment and what falls within a payment within a devolved area and what falls within the social security system as a reserved. The point that I made in response to Ms Adamson's issues that she raised is I think by setting out examples like that I think that gives clarity if that was what the Smith commission were looking to achieve and for us to go back and look and see whether that is reflected within the clauses as they stand. Just to expand a little on that if I may. In the example that I gave Minister I could achieve a similar scenario with somebody perhaps who a young person going into work for the first time who may not be in benefit but may have an identified need for further help with training or access to training. Again I am not clear if the Scottish Government would have power to help someone like that. We can set up bursaries for example for students but I think that there is a legitimate debate to be had about what exactly does the Scottish Government have in terms of responsibility and power under its existing devolved settlement and there may be needs to be some clarification of that. I am certainly willing to take that back and I think if the committee or you individually wanted to make that contribution to the discussion of the clauses I think that that would be very welcome. I don't have anyone else to suggest. Christina, do you want to? I'll pick, convener. It's your opportunity to ask questions. Good morning Minister and thanks for coming along to the committee. I think my colleagues here will agree with me and possibly yourself that a number of the cases coming into mailbag over the past few months have been on benefit sanctions and the impact of benefit sanctions. Do you want to go on to the subject of sanctions? I thought you meant do you want to go on to something else in relation to the Smith commission? We're still focusing on Smith. The minister will make a separate set of comments about sanctions and food banks when we come to that point. I'll wait for them then. Margaret, do you want to ask something on Smith? Yes, and I apologize for my lateness. I can't apologize for ScotRail but anyway. Just on around the job, the work program as mandatory work activity, work experience and work trials are less in the year, these will not be devolved. The addition of reference to section 17B of the Job Seekers Act 1995 needs to be clarified around that because the command paper says conditionality and sanctions will remain reserved including the ability to make mandatory referrals to the Scottish Government programmes and the Scottish Government may also choose to offer support to those who are eligible to take part in any scheme of their own making. Can you perhaps clarify exactly what that means? I'm happy to take away the specific point in relation to the exact section but the intention was that the conditionality and sanctions would remain at a UK level so that there was a fairness across the UK in terms of a recipient of universal credit that they would be applicable to the same conditions wherever they were within the UK. I'll come back on the specific section you meant but that's the wider point in relation to conditionality and sanctions on the specific section. I have nothing further to add. Can I ask a sort of follow-up question, minister? I think I've been happy to hear that you are willing to continue discussing the scope of some aspects of the command paper but I think for clarification it would be good to know is there anything that you would not be prepared to discuss? Is there anything that you would say whatever is this going to be on the table in our discussions? We've reached agreement, the five political parties that took part reached agreement on proposals within the Smith commission process and that was the agreement which everybody signed up to. The Government's position is to implement that. Of course we're open to discussion on whether the clauses reflect the commission both in terms of word and spirit. That's absolutely open for discussion. I'm not wanting however to get into a discussion about matters that are not within the Smith commission. Those are issues for the UK general election that will be in about 90 days time if there are those coming forward with proposals that are other than set out in the Smith commission. That will be the forum for the debate. We'll have a general election and then we'll move forward with whatever the will of the Scottish people in that election and their counterparts across the rest of the UK. Kevin, and then I'll come back to Margaret. Thank you, convener. You said that in terms of the five political parties that they were listening to in terms of Smith. How about Civic Scotland themselves and the third sector in particular who have particular concerns about the roll-out of personal independence payments, as my colleague Joe McAlpine said? Will you listen to them in terms of changing those draft clauses to bring about legislation that not only the Scottish Parliament may want to see in the hands of this body but that Civic Scotland wants to see in the hand of this body rather than that of the Westminster Parliament? We very much want to engage with Civic Scotland and I welcome the establishment of the leader's group and we're in discussions with Margaret Lynch about that and how that group could interact with the joint ministerial group. There has been extensive engagement with stakeholders to date. Obviously, as part of the Smith process a very ambitious timetable was set but all those who wanted to make a contribution got to do so and now it's about taking forward what is set out in the commission report but yes, I do give a commitment to engage with Civic Scotland as I said, I think that the leader's group is a very good step forward. What I can't give an undertaking clearly to do is to be in agreement with every element of Civic Scotland. Clearly, there are some matters in which we won't be in agreement with. I understand there are always going to be things that folks disagree on that's the way of the world but what we have seen even in the areas which are to be devolved for example, like the work programme where the third sector have got some very clear views and what they would like to see there we have seen our inability even when it is devolved our inability to shape that because the contract has already been awarded for the next number of years in terms of personal independence payments as Joan McAlpine pointed out you say that the roll-out will continue even though we can shape something different here which I think could be better for folks here in Scotland so in terms of this continued roll-out of various programmes as are set at this moment in time by the coalition, Government and Westminster do you not think that it would be wise to put a halt to some of these things to allow the devolution of these powers so that we can shape these things ourselves to ensure that they are best for the people of Scotland I want you to be able to shape these things for the people of Scotland but I'd like to see what that shape is I mean, you know we've got, in order to transition from where we are now to where you want to go and I respect it under the new arrangements that will be your decision and I very, very much welcome hearing you say that you want to see much more local devolution within Scotland because I think in relation to a number of these programmes that's a very, very important element that things are delivered in a spoke way to meet the particular needs of particular parts of Scotland but it is about setting out what that shape is of what you want to transition to to allow that process of transition to take place it's not a case of just simply switching it off today without there being anything to replace it Are you denying us the opportunity to shape some of these services at an early stage by entering into contracts now which we will have to adhere to and the best example of that is the work programme where you've recently signed a contract which in all honesty would have been quite easy for you to say, right, we'll sign that contract for England and Wales but we'll caveat it for Scotland because the Scottish Parliament when this matter is devolved will be in the direction from the one that we are doing Indeed, it may and that's what we're going to be discussing at the joint ministerial working group next but the contract has been signed next week what we're saying is let's see what it is you want to transition to and we'll work with you to try and achieve that but you have already signed a contract in the work programme for a number of years and you're trying to deal with that when it's devolved That wouldn't be my interpretation of that, Mr Stewart Let's see the Scottish Government bring forward proposals for what they want to do in relation to the work programme Indeed, Mr Murphy has indicated he has some proposals Let's see what those proposals are and let's see how we can best best transition to them and that's what we're going to be working to in our joint ministerial working group I've said in my earlier remarks our approach to this is very much not you can't do this, you can't do that it is what is it do you want to do and how can we best achieve a transition to that You're saying that in terms of that contract which has been signed by the UK Government there is some caveat in that contract which will allow us when that power is transferred to get out of that contract without penalty I'm saying, bring forward the proposals that you want in relation to the work programme in Scotland and we will work to try and achieve that I notice that you're not answering the question because I think that what we have at this moment is something that the UK Government is signed up to to be very difficult for us to get out of no matter how we want to shape the programme would I be right in thinking that? From the range of questions that you've asked me today and previously that's always a sort of mindset that you appear to adopt in these discussions I've adopted a positive mindset we want the Scottish Government to be able to set out what and shape as you say, their own work programme we want to do everything that we can to allow that to happen but the key and fundamental part of that is the Scottish Government coming forward with what their proposals for the work programme is and then how we can transition to that within the contract that you've already signed? I'm not getting into a discussion about Government contracts in public what I'm saying I don't think that I could be clearer in respect of what I'm saying is we want to understand what it is that you want to achieve and how we can best work towards making that happen and I don't see that in terms of always identifying every obstacle that might possibly be pulled out of the air it's about looking at the possibilities but the absolute fundamental is what is the shape of the new work programme in Scotland and therefore how can we move from where we are now to that but in the meantime when there isn't something on the table the existing work programme will continue? Would it not be easier to have a moratorium in the signing of contracts such as this until these powers are devolved so that we can shape these services ourselves? I think that the joint ministerial working group has a basis to discuss what does happen in the interim but I look forward to seeing Scottish Government proposals and working to achieve their implementation as we have in relation to a whole range of other issues, not least discretionary housing payment which I spoke about earlier and Margaret will wrap up this section after Margaret will be brief and it's around expenditure and how that's going to be adjusted so for public services in year one there will be a block grant adjustment for everything in DEL and in subsequent years Scotland would receive a population share of any change in spending at UK level through the Barnett formula and just wonder what difference you see in the Barnett formula for that and also on the welfare in year one there will be a block grant adjustment and then the UK and Scottish Government will have to work together to agree how this adjustment would be indexed in the future and you know just even the conversations around this table this morning that won't be easy and my concern is around the time that that could take to come up with this new index and also my real concern is for the people who are dependent on welfare benefits and what that will mean to them and perhaps you could maybe expand on that. As an overall point we're in agreement with the Scottish Government that as we move forward with this whole process the absolute objective is that there should be no detriment to individual claimants during the process of transition and we will set that as an absolute. Obviously the Barnett formula is to continue on the basis of the commitments certainly of the Prime Minister leader of the opposition of the Liberal Democrats so we will continue to operate with the Barnett formula obviously the Barnett formula which then delivers a block grant that block grant will be adjusted in terms of the income raised by the tax powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. There is to be a financial framework which is to sit alongside the new Scotland act and that's a subject now of discussions between John Swinney and the Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury and at some point as the legislation begins to go through the parliamentary process that framework will be set out but again it will be very much something that has been agreed between the respective Governments. Is there a timescale for that? The timescale would be within the next few months I mean obviously we do have the UK general election the Whitehall will go into part on the midnight on the 30th of March and there is some part that reflects into the Scottish Government we will have a general election the outcome of that will then determine who is the Government there will be a degree of hiatus but I would anticipate that it will be done relatively shortly because it will require to meet the timescale of the bill going through Parliament John Swinney, one short supplementary before we move on I've had a short supplementary but I haven't had a question session Thank you very much Mr Mundell you mentioned Margaret Lynch the chief executive of Citizens Advice Scotland earlier and how you wanted to reach agreement with the leaders group Ms Lynch has been very clear that she was deeply disappointed that the migration from disability living allowance to personal independence payments would continue I know that we have touched on this earlier but if you are so keen to reach agreement with groups like Citizens Advice Scotland why will you not consider halting the migration? I think I said in my answer to Mr Stewart that we wanted to engage with groups throughout Scotland but that did not necessarily mean that ultimately we would reach agreement with them Margaret Lynch and Citizens Advice Scotland have some very interesting things to say particularly about shaping a new benefits system in Scotland but the fundamental point remains that we need to understand what it is that the Scottish Government wants to move to to allow us to achieve the most effective transition in relation to personal independence payments and I do not think that it would be right that existing recipients of DLA who are receiving too little do not get a reassessment or that people who perhaps are receiving too much do not get a reassessment for a very long time there are no new DLA recipients that have not been for well over a year so everybody new to the system has gone into personal independence payments but the quicker that we can understand what the Scottish Government wants to transition to the quicker we can achieve a transition but we cannot just switch off midpoint we have to understand what it is that we are transitioning to Is it not the case that the roll out the continued migration will save 20 per cent from the bill is that not the real reason why you are not continuing with the migration to save money It's not simply to save money it's to achieve a practical objective of transitioning what the Scottish Government wants as an alternative and this is the opportunity for the Scottish Government to come forward with whatever the alternatives might be and that's going to be on the agenda next week at our ministerial working group and the undertaking that I gave is the same as in relation to personal independence payment tell us what you want to do and we'll work to achieve that as expeditiously as we possibly can If that was the case we would inherit the budget that we have at the moment we wouldn't get that 20 per cent cut if you could reach agreement at that meeting The Smith commission proceeded on the basis of the funding proposals in place at the time of the Smith commission That's what happened The Scottish Government is working on, I would imagine as we see the financial framework develop they would have a clear understanding of what funding would be available to them The First Minister has made it very clear that she wants that she doesn't want that 20 per cent cut Can you give us a reassurance that we're not going to get that 20 per cent cut in these benefits? What I'm saying is we want to transition to what the Scottish Government want to achieve as expeditiously as we can I think that that should be the focus So a cut at 20 per cent cut or no 20 per cent cut? I think that that is characterising the debate in the way that wants to try and portray bad faith on behalf of the UK Government That doesn't exist The Scottish Government is well aware of the funding projections in relation to these benefits and what it has available to work with So rather than trying to get drawn into that emotive language the source would be to come forward with what your alternative is That's what we need and at this moment we don't have that Okay Thanks very much Minister I think that's exhausted that element of our discussion this morning Do you want to have a couple of minutes to have a break or would you prefer just to move on to your next comments? I wouldn't mind another cup of coffee if that was possible I think that I'll suspend the debate for a few minutes to allow people to just brush themselves before the next session Okay I'll open up the meeting by inviting the minister to give us some opening comments to take us into the second part of our discussion this morning Again over to you Minister Thank you convener, as I think we said earlier when I last appeared at the committee I undertook to engage with organisations who had given evidence to your committee in respect of food bank usage One clear message for all the discussions that I had with food bank providers and other organisations involved in this field was I wish to see an end to a politicking on this issue and I wish to see reasoned debate to see cross-party, cross-border government approaches to tackle the issues that are leading people to use food banks and I certainly agree with that approach and I think that I set that out when I last saw you My view hasn't changed from the previous session I believe that the reasons for the use of food banks are both varied and complex I also remain of the view that the most effective anti-poverty measure is a successful economy and that is a sentiment that your colleague Jackie Baillie expressed recently That said I want to touch on three areas which are most often discussed around the subject sanctions, delays in benefit and low incomes None of which I would describe as welfare reform although that is clearly the topic that is sometimes bandied around with those who have particular agendas Sanctions aren't new they were brought forward by the last Labour Government and of course Labour didn't oppose the changes that coalition Government made On my last appearance SNP members confirmed that they too supported conditionality on jobseekers benefit and that there should be some requirement to produce evidence that work was being sought and that was also set out in the Scottish Government's welfare commission report that there had to be hard edges We need clearly to ensure that we have a fair and reasonable system in place which is understood by complainants and consistently applied by DWP staff Obviously sanctions have been the subject of the Oakley review and that is currently the subject of a department of work and pensions committee inquiry in Westminster and I am sure that Dayman Begg who chairs that committee would welcome a submission from this committee if you chose to make one On my previous experience I stated that there were no targets for sanctions and indeed in my experience job centre staff have no wish to sanction individuals they want to help people into work and one thing I do want to say and put on the record is that job centre staff are much maligned and identified with sanctions when in fact there are people who are trying to help people into work and they shouldn't be the focus of any of these comments I also asked the committee as I did all those who gave evidence that I met and every council in Scotland to pass on details of people who had been unjustly sanctioned I'm not saying that there aren't such people but we've not received many examples of course there's a review and appeal process in place but any case you or any other elected representative have of someone being unjustly sanctioned I will undertake to have that investigated because that is not what we are looking to achieve One issue though I do take on board is in relation to housing benefit and sanctions and the misperception that when someone is sanctioned they lose housing benefit this is not the case housing benefit is passported to jobseekers allowance and therefore when the jobseekers allowance stops the housing benefit stops but by contacting the local authority and advising of a change of circumstances housing benefit in most cases should continue now it's quite clear that there is a lack of awareness of this and we need to do more to ensure that those people who are subject to sanctions understand that and that the flow of information between the DWP and local authorities in that regard is also improved we take on board what was raised in the Oakley report in relation to making it clear that there is availability of short-term benefit advance and DWP staff have been further briefed in relation to that to make sure that it is understood that that's available hardship payments for those people who are in the most difficult circumstances but I would welcome a decision with the committee as to where they see the balance in relation to conditionality applying if there is agreement that there should be conditionality we have to understand how the balance is struck and your views in that regard I would be interested to hear on delays in benefit 93% of benefits have been processed in 16 days in relation to jobseekers allowance and employment support allowance and that is a 7% improvement on 2010 benefits have always been paid in arrears and there hasn't been any significant proposal that I'm aware of to change that but again the use of the short-term benefit advance or hardship payments can have an impact on that process which of course is a two-way process with the applicant I was struck in my meeting with the BMA for example the concept of trying to bring together benefit support with NHS provision in relation to those with mental health issues and I think that there was some really good work out there which I think could certainly in that that area lead to an improvement and finally in relation to the issue of low income everyone round the table is signed up in support of the living wage I think that we need to do more to encourage it I was very heartened when I spoke to South Lanarkshire council about an initiative they are pursuing to bring employers together to then try and spread the word to other employers of the benefit of paying the living wage and of course my colleague here in the Scottish Parliament Ruth Davidson has called upon the Scottish government to incentivise the paying of the living wage through the small business bonus which is similar to a scheme which operates in some parts or some boroughs in London which is proving to be successful because more widely the government has sought to raise the personal allowance to take as many people out of a tax as possible so those are my thoughts following those discussions I want to thank everyone who met with me I listed them in my letter to you the discussions frank and useful but I do come back to the point that I made at the start of my remarks that all of the organisations I spoke to found that the politicking of this issue was getting in the way of trying to resolve it Thank you very much minister just a couple of points to start with in relation to your comments Daman Beggs the committee work we have already made a submission to that we sent our report and we have invited Ann Begg to actually come to us and meet with us here in committee so we are having an on-going dialogue with her and her committee in relation to that on-going work he also commented on the discussions you had with organisations following our last meeting and the you felt there had been a lack of examples given to you although we had discussed that being something we wanted to pursue with you again just to clarify the clerks of our committee and your own officials have been in dialogue since that period and we have a number of examples to send you and they will be on their way we just haven't managed to get the communications between ourselves and your officials in order I think we've been disappointed that we haven't quite gone forward in the constructive manner that I think we've left our discussions the last time you're before us but we won't dwell on that we'll just engage positively and you'll be in receipt of those collated responses in due course Personally, I agree with you about taking the politics out I hear that clear message as well when I talk to organisations, churches third sector bodies charities who are all engaged in this area and they have one clear message you're absolutely right that they don't want politicking involved in this discussion so while there may well be varied and complex explanations as to why we've had such an exponential increase in the use of food banks to take the politics out of it will you join the consensus will your government concede finally that there is a causal link between your sanctions regime and the welfare reforms that you've introduced which has increased the use of food banks If you agree that then we are all on the same page because all of the evidence we have suggests that there is that causal link the only people who will not recognise that and those who will not concede that are you and your government What I'm asking you this morning convener to come forward with is what your views are in relation to how a sanctions regime which you support in terms of of their being sanctions as I understand the Scottish Government supports conditionality to come forward with views and suggestions as to how and why that regime isn't as you would want it to be I will answer you absolutely directly Minister because it was in our report it was a conclusion to our report that sanctions should be a last resort pure and simple people should not find out that they have been sanctioned for something they know nothing about on the day that they expect to receive their benefits and they don't arrive we have examples of that I can give you personal examples of that the reality of the situation is that people are sanctioned and then discover that they've been sanctioned they haven't been spoken to they haven't been worked with they haven't been given an opportunity in their situation they discover that they are sanctioned because of a decision of the Department of Work and Pensions as a first action not a last resort so can we get agreement that sanctions regime conditionality can only occur at the end of a process in which the recipient of the benefit has continually shown evidence of refusal to work within that system as a first action Let's get all those examples onto the table then that's the approach that I want to pursue because there's no point in me simply saying that doesn't happen if you have examples that it has happened it shouldn't happen that way when I speak to DWP advisors they're not looking to achieve that outcome that isn't what it's about so but if that is happening then we have to we have to see the examples of that happening and making sure it doesn't nobody there is no position in relation to the DWP where sanctions is the first resort that is not the position if that has happened it shouldn't have happened and we need to do something about it so surely if the DWP analyses how it's operating the sanctions regime they would know and would be able to categorically quantify the work that has been done and their benefits recipient before a sanction was imposed that would be there could it be within the statistics and the analysis of the Department of Work and Pensions we will provide examples we will give you examples of that everyone sitting around this table will have examples of that but surely the Department of Work and Pensions will know and will have proof that they have only issued a sanction by being able to verify the work that has been done with a benefits recipient before that sanction was imposed and you would know that and the officials of the DWP would know it and the ministers of the DWP would know it they would know that but there is a process in relation to sanctions that goes to an independent adviser to give a decision that there is a review process and an appeal process in relation to those in relation to those sanction processes but you know and they that review and appeal does identify a where the sanction was inappropriately applied but the majority of cases that go through that process are upheld Exactly so the question that I have for you minister when a decision is made to sanction someone that decision is made at the outset there is then an investigation at which an appeal is made and a decision is made that that sanction is subsequently not upheld in the interim period, in the meantime the recipient does not receive their benefit, they have to prove their innocence they are guilty until they can prove their innocence they do not receive their benefit and have to resort to using a food bank in the meantime is that not the case? I don't accept that analysis because firstly it seems to be predicated on the suggestion that almost as soon as they come through the door they would be sanctioned that is not the case, sanctions are a last resort and if you I know you are shaking your head but provide us with some details of people who have no employment history with the DWP who are immediately sanctioned we will take that away because that should not that should not happen With all due respect minister we have sent you and your officials our report that report contains those examples that report contains the evidence of third sector bodies of churches of recipients you cannot deny what is in black and white what is in the evidence of the people that this committee and other organisations have looked at oxfam are wrong, the churches are wrong the trussel trust is wrong why is everyone wrong but your government is right? I am not saying that everyone else is wrong I am asking you quite reasonably to come forward with the specific examples of people who have been subject to the scenario you set out I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to do the groups when I've met with oxfam and the trussel trust and these other organisations they don't think that that's an unreasonable thing to do because we need to investigate what has happened in these individual DWP offices that have allowed those circumstances to come about if somebody comes to me as a member of parliament with these circumstances I immediately would take them up with the DWP and find out why that had happened and look to make sure in relation to that particular office that that didn't happen again because the scenarios which are being set out and I'm not saying that they haven't happened in relation to individuals but we need to have we need to have information about the specifics because otherwise it's not possible to take the necessary action within the individual offices it is possible at a high level and in terms of training to set it out but sanctions are it is made clear to staff when I've met with DWP staff as I said in my initial remarks they're not there waiting to sanction someone they're there trying to get someone into work now as the Oakley report has identified there are sometimes there has been miscommunication and there have been opportunities identified to improve that and there certainly has been not clear enough information in relation to short-term benefit advance and into hardship payments that has been taken on board in relation to the Oakley report I've myself from the discussions that I've had see clearly that there is an issue in relation to housing benefit many people have come to the conclusion that housing benefit is automatically lost if someone is sanctioned that's not the case and we should be making sure that that is not happening I'll ask you one last question Do you accept that there has been a huge increase in the use of food banks and do you agree that there has been an increase in the level of sanctions imposed by the DWP? I think you're inviting me to suggest inviting me in another way to give you a response to the question that you asked earlier we're not in best of faith we're just not going to agree on that what we are going to agree is that we need to do something about it and that's best achieved by everyone working together to bring that about and this committee has a contribution to make to that and I respect the work that you have done but you wouldn't expect me to agree everything that you have concluded I don't suspect I'll open up to Christina to follow by Kevin Thanks very much and thanks for allowing me to come back on this Minister, you mentioned a lot of talk there about sanctions Do you think that sanctions work? Your own welfare commission that the Scottish Government set up ahead of the referendum thinks that there has to be conditionality so the Labour Party my party, my coalition colleagues think that there has to be conditionality that you can't simply take no action if people don't look for work when on job seeking benefits Okay I believe that's at the end of a process which is awesome We've had a discussion about that I believe that sanctions encourage people into work I think that you can't have a process of people receiving job seeking benefits without there being some condition on that in relation to them looking for work but what I do think is the best way out of out of poverty is work and is a successful economy and that is clearly the objective of the UK Government and I even acknowledge that it's the objective of the Scottish Government and I, for example, very much welcome myself that there are 1900 more people in work in my own constituency than there were in 2010 I think that that is something to be very positive about so it is the objective of work and growing our economy that has to be the objective sanctions are part of the benefit system but they are not the relation to work is different from the economic one I'm glad you do that distinction of the 1900 people that you said are now in work since 2010 in your constituency how many of them do you think got into work via the use of sanctions well I think that's I just think that is a false analysis I'm not saying that we're sanctioning people into work what I'm saying is that if you are in receipt of a benefit being funded by taxpayers often people who are not on that high an income you should look for work that's what I'm saying and that if you don't look for work there should be some conditionality on that okay Oxford University published research and I know that you gave an undertaking the last time you were here to do some research on the correlation between sanctions and food banks and that did you do that research? there's been a whole host of research that has been set out by the Government is it DWP in your department? I have concluded since I last appeared before this committee that any research produced by ourselves would not necessarily command everybody's acceptance and therefore it's very important that we have independent evidence that we can all subscribe to so there have been a number of Government publications you will have seen them there's also been the excellent report feeding Britain which was pulled together by an all party group of MPs so there has been a lot of work done okay but no DWP research from what I can find and I've researched many many of the publications that you've spoken about the University of Oxford published evidence in research a few weeks ago and they said they were unable to detect any impact on employment recovery and of 100 people sanctioned it's probable that 46 sanctions are adverse and of those only 3.5 of these were associated with finding work so the sanctions work I've set out for you that sanctions are not aimed at employment they're aimed at ensuring that people who are in receipt of of working benefits look for work now I think there's a perfectly good argument to have and I'm sure if we want to go into the UK general election and the SNP want to adopt a position that regardless of whether you look for work or not you should still receive unemployment benefit that's a position that you should adopt and the public can make their say what I'm making clear is the route out of poverty and the route to work is a successful economy that's the government's objective and that is what we have gone a long way to achieve although there is a lot more to do if you have and as I invited with the convener you have specific suggestions as to how the sanctions regime could be improved how it could be transparent more consistently applied very happy to hear but I don't see the purpose of a semantic discussion around whether sanctions get people into work OK then let's look at some of the facts and a lot of the research that I've read on this subject almost a quarter of referrals for sanctions are given to people with disabilities exasperating health conditions of those a number of young men between the ages of 1824 really if you look at South Lanarkshire's own evidence the young men facing sanctions and destitution and hardship track the suicide rate 21 per cent of those sanctions claimants have had their utilities disconnected the DWP conducts no research on that so you know these are facts and I've got some examples of people who have been sanctioned a man with heart problems had a heart attack during a work capability assessment he was sanctioned for not completing the assessment a man who'd got in a job and was scheduled to begin in a fortnight was sanctioned because he wouldn't look for a job when the fortnight was waiting to start his new job an army veteran Stephen Taylor 60 years of age whose jobseeker allowance stopped after he sold poppies in memory of fallen soldiers these are all just absolutely terrifying examples of how sanctions are utilised and how they have an impact on human beings and if you look at some of the work that the RNIB have done I believe that they are taking the UK Government to task on this on some of the sanctioned failures where they rejected giving people information in Braille which then put them at risk of being sanctioned so given all of that evidence we'll find you many of this stuff with good backed up evidence why does the DWP not do its own analysis on the impact on people if you have details of those individuals then give us give us those give us those details of the individuals I'm very we'll take it down we'll get the person's address number after the meeting we'll take them away and find out what happened if anybody had come to me as a member of parliament that had been sanctioned for selling poppies I would have made very sure that I would have had something absolutely done about it there and then that is not yes but you have to provide us with the details we'll have a look at them and see why some of those things have happened which seem on the face of it out of kilter with what the objective should be but I don't know that you're saying or maybe you are saying that no young men between 16 and 24 should be sanctioned there are difficulties with working with that age group to ensure that we give them the best support we possibly can to get them into work because that is the objective but I'm not clear from what you're saying that your view is that regardless of whatever approach they took in relation to their benefit payment there should be no conditions appeals we mentioned there's appeal procedure can you tell us where the UK Government sits right now in the DWP on the proposal in a secret paper released last year that suggested that people be charged to appeal DWP has no plans to charge people for appeal I'm not familiar with that secret paper but we've no plans to introduce that I'll send you the information on that it's very easy to find we have no plans I'll send you that information just a final point are you aware minister of a PCS survey that was done among staff working in DWP that suggested that 61% of them said they had been pressured into referring claimants for sanctions when they believed it was inappropriate to do so that's not my experience of speaking to DWP staff across Scotland and I've spoken to the PCS survey wrong then that's a very easy question in the context of what I said at the start of politicking let's just corral everybody somebody's right somebody's wrong these are complicated issues which are not very complicated by sound bites exactly human beings are not dealt with by sound bites and that is the problem with the approach that some people have to this issue that a number of sound bites getting headlines in the papers that's the objective not actually dealing with the underlying issue but dealing with people out of poverty and moving people into work that's what I'm trying to achieve that's what our government is trying to achieve I want to work with you and anybody else to do that we can only work together if you listen I think my track record is one of listening it doesn't necessarily mean agreeing it doesn't necessarily mean doing exactly what you want I may be criticised for many things but listening I don't think is one of them I'll move on to Kevin to be all by clear we need to start watching the court thank you convener in evidence to the committee Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow said there is now a deliberate policy to drive up the level of sanctions to previously unheard of levels through managerial pressure on job centre staff in practice staff now have very little scope for discretion and are frequently driven to impose sanctions on any excuse Dr Webster is a research fellow of urban studies at the University of Glasgow would you like to comment on what Dr Webster had to say to this committee? The number of sanctions has stayed roughly the same in the last year in the previous year it was 78,670 and in the current year it's 78,709 What was it five years ago Minister? I'll get you that I'll get you that a figure we can produce that but I think the context in which you read out that quote would indicate that there was a current pressure on the number of people on sanctions there is no target for the number of people on sanctions it is in nobody's interest for people to be put on sanctions it is the objective to try and get people into work but ultimately we have to decide whether we want to have a system that says if you are receiving a benefit while out of work should there be any conditions on that Bill Scott of Inclusion Scotland said in evidence about sanctions and targets therefore there is a bit of sophistry within DWP when it says that no targets exist no league tables exist and so on in fact that is what is happening in practice I have messages on my mobile phone and commercial services union members who have been taken into disciplinary meetings to be told that they are being disciplined because they have not imposed enough sanctions other PCS members have been told that they will not be getting their annual uplift and pay, their increment because they have not sanctioned sufficient people in the last year would you like to comment on that minister? I don't recognise that statement You don't recognise that statement? No, but if you again bring forward individuals no, not generic individuals for whom that's happened I'm very happy to meet them on a confidential basis and ensure that there was no detriment to them but I am not familiar I've visited most of the job centres within certainly within central Scotland I've spoken to staff in a very open and frank way and nobody conveys back that message now I know you will probably conclude that's because they're concerned about management or otherwise but if there are people who have that experience then I want to hear from them Minister, all of the information that I've just read out is contained in the report that this committee put a great deal of work into earlier on this year which was actually sent to you and to your officials and also to others What I would ask you is that in terms of the evidence that we have received from the likes of Mr Scott and from Dr Webster will you carry out an investigation into what is actually happening on the ground I actually know folk myself from the DWP on the front line who feel that they are being pressurised into sanctioning more people Will you agree to carry out an investigation into these practices? I'll certainly be willing to meet with you and those individuals and we can do that on a very confidential basis obviously I've previously met directly with people who've given evidence to this committee but I have taken direct evidence myself from meeting people within DWP offices speaking openly and frankly with them and that is not the picture that is reflected to me Do you think that some DWP officials on the front line are scared of what they think and feel at some of these meetings that you have attended? I hope they're not I hope they're not too but I recognise that many of them are I've offered one of my previous responses to meet with you and the people that you've identified who I would feel your presence would ensure safe discussion and I'm very happy to do that but I don't have any evidence myself that that is happening Unfortunately a lot of these folk don't feel safe at this moment in time and I don't think that my presence or anybody else's presence would make them feel any safer as to be said Can I ask you again minister will you agree on the investigation into what has been stated by many many witnesses to this committee that there is a target policy in place by the DWP There is no target policy in place I am absolutely clear on that Okay let's move on because we're not going to get a realistic answer there I will be You made great play today about the situation with housing benefit and sanctions Can I ask you minister why is it that it is only now that the Government and the DWP are actually signposting folks who have been sanctioned to let them know that they can still get housing benefit and why is it minister that when that sanction is put in place that those folks have to go and reapply for that housing benefit and could it not be simpler to just do away with the stopping of housing benefit when a sanction comes into play There are complicated processes with the passporting of benefits but one of the real positives about universal credit is that when universal credit is in place that with the package of benefits housing benefit wouldn't there wouldn't be any disruption to housing benefit if someone was sanctioned so I think that is an example of if you bring together a joined up approach then you can mitigate the difficulties but these you know we can't sit here and pretend that these aren't complex systems computer systems delivery systems we're looking very much to get local authorities and the DWP to work much closer more closely together that's very much to be welcomed that that's happening and this is part of that Can I ask you then in terms of guidance that has been given to the DWP and local authorities on this matter what guidance has been put out by the Government in that regard to ensure that folk are told that they have to reapply for their housing benefit when they have been sanctioned? We're in a direct dialogue with local authorities which as I've reported back to this committee We put out guidance to our staff who are involved in dealing with people who are sanctioned to make sure they tell people that they need to reapply and contact the local authority to make sure their housing benefit isn't stopped so that's something we have done I think many people already knew that before but it's something we have done in the light of evidence we've got over the last few months there was a problem in that area So when did that guidance get Mr Serrow? I could get you the date of that but I haven't got the date to hand Okay and to local authorities guidance to them on this issue what has the DWP done in that regard? I think it's much simpler to have a system where if someone gets Jobseekers Allowance and is entitled to housing benefit it's automatically passported and therefore it's very difficult to not have a system that's not switched off if someone's Jobseekers Allowance stops So the key thing is to get that communication between DWP officials and the local authority and the individual in the local authority at that point at which the sanction kicks in it's not something the local authority can do unilaterally because it needs to know what's happening at the DWP end Yes, I understand all of that but what guidance has been given to local authorities and why is it that this only seems to be being communicated now to DWP staff and by the sounds of it I'm not entirely convinced that it has been communicated to local authorities why is it only now after these regimes have been in place for a long time why is it only now that this is happening It's happened recently because we've become aware of the evidence around it being a problem recently I think of the great majority of cases it actually hasn't been a problem but in some cases it has as I say the key thing is for the DWP staff who are dealing with the customer the claimants at the point their sanction to make sure they're aware of the need to contact the local authority the local authority itself without that connection with the claimant with DWP they can't act unilaterally because there is a passport between the two benefits I think it's extremely important that this committee is privy to the dates of that guidance going out and what has gone out to DWP officials in the front line and also what has or has not gone out to local authorities because I find it a little bit bizarre that today we're having a huge play of this when many of us have recognised that this has been a problem for some time I find that very interesting Mr Stewart that you you know we come to the committee we listen to concerns that are expressed by the people that we speak to we do something about it and we're criticised for that too I mean you can't have it both ways you can't criticise us for not listening and then you can't criticise us for listening and doing something about issues that are highlighted to us I mean I think that's just my problem with all of this minister is that the government tends to close the stable door after the horse is bolted well I think you find that that might apply if you're making that generalisation to all governments I think we'll move on and go too clear to be followed by Annabelle thank you, convener you mentioned that you thought the uses of food banks were varied and complex but without doubt from my own experience as a parliamentarian the increase in food bank absolutely shows that poverty and hardship have increased however the variety of complexity and varied that might be can I draw your attention to an article in The Guardian last week regarding social policy study of academics from the LSE Manchester and York universities entitled poorest worst hit by reforms and this significant piece of work shows that in their analysis poorer population groups have been the most affected by direct tax and benefit changes and in fact the savings made from changes to benefits have been offset by expenditure further up the income distribution meaning that in combination those changes have made no contribution to reducing the deficit or paying down the deficit minister in the face of that evidence would you agree that austerity has failed and regrettably and disgustingly the poorest in society of the ones who have most proportionally been hit by that process I don't accept that but what I do recognise is that in the next 90 days debate that and the people in Scotland and the United Kingdom will be able to make their judgment on the record of this Government and the proposals being put forward by other political parties it will be for the people to make their judgment not academics, not the Guardian not third parties it will be for the people in the ballot box to determine whether they believe that the Government's action in relation to our economy was the right course of action or whether they subscribed to a view of more tax, more spend and more boring Minister I really find this quite disturbing that in the face of all the evidence from this committee's work from independent academic research that you're failing to realise that the poorest, most vulnerable people's society are disproportionately affected by the policies of your Government Can I just give you another example if the freezing maternity pay goes ahead and the health and pregnancy grant worth £190 to vulnerable people is removed pregnant women, young families will be £360 worse off again because of the policies of your Government Do you not feel that that is disproportionate that women and young families are bearing the brunt of this change? I don't accept that women and young families are bearing the brunt of changes because there have been other things that have been done to support the income of the most vulnerable but what I do think is that these are political arguments for debate when we get to the general election and it's not academics it's the people who will decide who's right and who's wrong on these issues when they give their verdict Disappointed to hear that given that your opening premise was about tweaking to the food bank people is that we should keep politics out of this and we should actually be looking at how we can tackle what is obviously to everyone, to the dogs in the street an increase in poverty and hardship in this country I think it's hardly surprising that we've had an increase in poverty and hardship we have had the biggest recession in 100 years that was inevitably going to cause enormous ramifications instead of putting our head in the sand in relation to that the UK government has faced up to it taken very difficult decisions and I don't for one minute suggest that some of the decisions that have been taken have been difficult for individuals who have been affected but have been willing to take the difficult decisions to get the economy back on to the right track because we believe and I believe that it is evidenced that a successful economy is the best way to take people into work and out of poverty I go back to the opening quote from the newspaper these changes have made no contribution to reducing the deficit and paying the debt it's filled I don't accept that and there will be plenty of opportunity for that to be debated in the next 90 days and for the public to give their verdict rather than the Guardian I think we need to move on I can't remain colleagues that are actually here to discuss the reports on food banks and the sanctions Annabelle Thank you, convener because I think all round this table in the committee there would be unanimity about one thing we'd love to be in a discussion where we're not discussing people requiring to rely on welfare support we'd love to be in a situation where sanctions are not applied because the numbers requiring welfare have dramatically reduced but it seems to me that we are in a situation where there is some hope that the economy in Scotland is growing my understanding is that since 2010 employment in Scotland is up by 175,000 unemployment is down by 61,000 and perhaps most encouraging of all workplace households are down by 93,000 so what I think unanimously round this table we'd like to see there is maybe some real prospect of achieving but given where we are as various committee members have identified we have welfare claimants they have to work with the system and they have to deal with the system I was struck by something you said earlier which was this had we any sensible or constructive suggestions about how in the practical term we might manage sanctions better as far as I can gather is political unanimity about the principle of having to have sanctions and conditionality object to that it seems to me the issue under discussion is how in a humane and compassionate manner you then manage the exercise of that policy and I simply wondered in your engagement with these many groups of people to whom you referred minister did any suggestions come forward either from them or indeed from your meetings with DWP about anything that might be done to improve the awareness of claimants sanctions were a danger that they could be looming certainly when I met with the city of Glasgow council they for example gave some examples of work that they do with younger people in terms of not just in terms of supporting them with skills to be able to move into work but also in terms of just a clearer understanding and approach to the benefit system I think that's being pursued by a number of other local authorities and I think it is about local authorities about the DWP the Scottish Government and indeed the DWP to the extent all coming coming together with a collective purpose which is to move people into work that is a collective purpose the impression can be created that the whole purpose of the DWP in Scotland is to sanction as many people as possible people go to work with the idea how many people can be sanctioned today it absolutely is not the case the DWP people I meet regularly their purpose is to get as many people as they can into work that is the best way to improve their lives councils and other agencies can work together along with the voluntary agencies and groups one thing that does happen at food banks or where meals are provided is that it is a very good point to allow an intervention to understand what the whole range of issues might be facing we do not want them to get to the food bank when pre-intervention but we have got to have a better way of understanding the myriad of issues and crises that people are facing and that is clear in the trust report even in Ms McKelvie's questions that people who are often sanctioned have a range of other issues that are behind that people who are waiting benefit payments or indeed people who may be short of income and we need to put in place with all the agencies the support that cuts across that thank you Joan to be followed by Margaret thank you convener Mr Mundell you asked for examples and I wanted to mention a few from your own constituency over a year ago that you opened the food bank in peoples and when you did so you said that you were proud to open the food bank why did you say that you were proud to open the food bank I was asked to do so because I I commend the efforts of the people that came together the trussel trust the volunteers and peoples that came together but I don't want to see people being ill it's one of these things that's just so going back to my comments it's just so glib politics to say oh he was proud to open a food bank he must think that food banks are a good idea I don't but I do commend the volunteers the trussel trust the people that work to help others I accept that one of those volunteers who understand coordinates the peoples food bank is the reverent Jim Benton Evans at the time it was opened he said that hunger was already a problem it's going to get worse after April 1 after the government's changes to housing benefits the rug is going to get pulled under from a lot of very vulnerable people he was quite clearly linking his food bank to the policies of your government a regular discussion with Jim all people and agencies in my constituency I respect the views that they set out I listen to them but I think as I've said earlier I don't always agree with what everybody else says I don't think that we've seen for example changes coming into place in relation to housing benefit I've had that effect Sound as if from the evidence today that you don't agree with what anyone else says I that is not a the case at all I'm listening we take action where we identify actions that are required for example we listened to housing benefit payments in rural areas and there was an increase as you know a significant increase before the change to the Scottish government in the level of housing discretionary housing benefit paid both to Scottish Borders and Dumfriesen Galloway council to take into account the rurality in both those councils in terms of listening to another person here from Sue Irvine who runs Dumfriesen Galloway citizens advice service and she says our experience of referring people for emergency food is the main around sanctions and low wages sanctions are clearly related to welfare reform and clearly related to emergency food is Sue Irvine of Dumfriesen Galloway citizens advice wrong when she says that? I think we've by opening remarks that the three issues most commonly raised in relation to food banks where sanctions delays in benefit payments and in low incomes so I don't accept that those three issues are welfare reform I think that term is banded is banded about a little bit too much but I set that out in my remarks you've got a table in your spice briefing we're having a discussion about those three issues So you're actually saying that you believe that sanctions are related to the rise of food banks? No, I'm not saying that what I'm saying is that the three issues that are most often highlighted in respect of the use of food banks are the ones that I've set out what I've said as well however, I believe that it is much more complicated than that and I think that is evidenced by the Trussell Trust report and other documentation that show that there are a lot of complicated issues that can be behind those three headlines Just to go into some of those complexities one of the other organisations that distributes food in your constituency is First Base and they distribute food parcels about 500 upwards across Dumfries and Galloway one of the areas that they distribute to is Kirkwonall and Kerlholm in your constituency in Upper Nith Stale and Mark Franklin, who runs First Base has written quite extensively about his work in these former mining villages of Mid and Upper Nith Stale he explains that there are about 300 unemployed men and women in the village and many of them don't have access to broadband however, they're expected to go online and leave digital evidence of 17 job searches each and every week now in those villages there are only 15 publicly available computers for 300 people who are on unemployment benefit or who are unemployed and expected to make those searches by the Department of Work and Pensions and he then asks is it any wonder that they're failing, is it any wonder that they're failing to make the contacts and they're being sanctioned there's a very clear example he says it in his work in Mid and Upper Nith Stale he's seen an increase in sanctions because of these demands by the Department of Work and Pensions for reasons we won't go into in this committee it won't surprise you to know that I take the frankincers with a pinch of salt however, it is a serious a a issue in terms of the isolation of Upper Nith Stale that's why we've worked with the DWP to ensure that, for example, claimants can go to Cumnock rather than to Dumfries for which there are much a more difficult transport links that's why the DWP come to the Upper Nith Stale communities on a regular basis to meet with the applicants to give them all the help and support that they can into work and that there's a lot being done and to demonstrate non-partisan ship the convener, I pay tribute to the Labour councillor for the Cercornal and Kellohome area, John Syme because he is a tireless worker to get people in the community into work to get them all the help and support they can but if there are any concrete examples of people who've been sanctioned for not having access to broadband then let's know let's deal with that because that's not acceptable to me I'm surprised to be at that comment about Mr Franklin, he has been working in a voluntary capacity distributing food banks for a number of years and helping veterans so whatever his political views might be I'm sure that you would pay credit to his charity work I think Mark has done a lot of very good work particularly with drug users but we could having been a very, very prominent yes campaigner I don't think that we could necessarily take everything that he says as totally objective and I don't think that he himself would hold himself out in that regard I would take issue with that many people who work in food banks come from all sorts of different backgrounds and the people who have contributed evidence to this committee weren't all yes campaigners or even yes voters but they are absolutely adamant that there is a link between food banks and sanctions I accept that I've just caveated Mr Franklin's contribution but that doesn't mean that I disrespect the contributions that others have made and I respect his contribution and a whole range of areas of civic life in Dumfries and Galloway but I don't necessarily accept that everything that he says is wholly objective I think that many people will be very, very disappointed to hear you say that as a result of my observation of First Base's work in Dumfries and Galloway and the clear link between the people that I saw collecting food parcels and who were sanctioned I wrote to your colleague Esther McVey in the Department of Work and Pensions and she refuted every single one of the points that I made one of the points that she made is that there is no robust evidence that welfare reforms are linked to the increased use of food bank Do you agree with her, yes or no? I think I made very clear that the conveners asked the same question we're not going to agree on that we're not going to agree on that that's going to be a matter that's going to be a matter that's going to be a matter of political of political debate Do you agree with Esther McVey that there's no link between welfare reforms and food banks? If you're using if you're using the expression welfare reforms then no, I don't accept that. I've set out the issues that I think have been clearly discussed in the context of food bank usage but we're just not going to agree we have to take these debates and discussions to the electorate and they'll determine what the outcome is but when we get to that point you and your colleagues will have to set out what your policies are do you support conditionality or not? Yes, it's been a very interesting debate this morning although there hasn't been a lot of answers to that If you're not prepared to take the evidence that has been given in reports from academics or from the likes of Oxfam perhaps you take the evidence from your colleagues in the House of Commons in their report on feeding Britain where they have said that benefit-related problems was the single biggest reason given for food bank referrals by almost every food bank that presented evidence to them so what has happened since then and also on the housing benefit issue when you were saying you have been making changes because falling on from that report which was reported on 8 December feeding Britain and Smith said that he was looking at how sanctioned claimants that lose jobseekers allowance need not lose housing benefit as well and that was in December so what has happened in the meanwhile we are asking for clear evidence that some action has been taken because it's been happening people have been losing their housing benefit jobseekers allowance so I think it's only fair that you can give us some evidence that you have taken some clear action to change what's happening here and also you have said that you have met with Oxfam and others British Medical Association Barnandros what discussion did you have with them regarding their report where they are saying that half to two thirds of food bank users who took part in the report ending up that there was 28 to 34% were waiting for benefit claims which had not been decided on and 19 to 28% had been sanctioned so surely they gave you some evidence when you met with them on these issues they did give me evidence and we've spoken about the issues that have been highlighted we've had a very full discussion about sanctions we've had a discussion about benefit delay and we've had we've touched on issues that relate more widely to low income and I as you would expect from what I've said previously made it clear to Oxfam and all the people that I met that we will look at any individual case of anybody who has been unjustly or unfairly sanctioned that offer remains on the table and we'll see that we can get our communication flow Surely you've had examples We've had some examples but not a large number and now that's not as I said in my opening remarks I'm not saying that that means that there aren't such people but let's have the detailed examples let's work let's work through that because I think it has been established around this table that everybody accepts that there's a need for sanctions and it's just how that sanctions is applied we want to have a transparent and a fair and a consistent approach that's understood by claimants and by DWP staff that's our objective we've set out, as Pete Sells indicated clarity because having listened that there wasn't sufficient clarity in relation to short-term benefit advances in terms of hardship payments and in terms of the housing benefit process because you don't lose housing benefit by being sanctioned and everybody just has to be absolutely clear about that and make sure that that isn't happening to individuals so your actions have been taken we're still listening we're still communicating at the end of the day as I've said, we do act to accept there are some areas in which we're not going to we're not going to reach agreement and those are areas which are then subject to political debate at election time when you're politicising it by saying that because it's clear from all the evidence that we've heard today and the previous evidence that there is a direct correlation between the welfare reforms and the use in food banks can I perhaps go on to a different aspect of it I'm looking at the Trussell trust table here on why do people use food banks this winter and it's interesting to notice the figures on the benefit delays and just a huge difference in these figures for in-tain 47% and in Dingwall 41% Badenoch and Strathsby 44% in other places like Aberdeen 16% and then Glasgow South East it's 15% but in Wigtonshire 74% using food banks this winter is because of benefit delays could you perhaps tell me why there's such a difference in these percentages and why people that seem to be in more remote areas are having to go to food banks and obviously it's more difficult for them to reach food banks as well I don't have those figures in front of me but I think I'm very happy to look at those particular areas and what the benefit processing times are in relation to those particular areas but I don't I think one has to recognise that how people come to ascribe referrals to benefit delays is not the most rigorous process necessarily it's the assessment of the individual who's making the referral for good reasons I'm sure but it will vary quite greatly between different individuals how they ascribe a particular reason for referral so it could be that different areas would have different stats more because of the nature of the people making the referrals rather than the underlying you're waiting on your benefit I don't see what's hard about that but as the minister said up front there's a complex range of things going on around food banks and going on in people's lives that lead to referral to food bank it's rarely just one thing actually it's a range of different things so referral processes had the individual who's making the assessment making the referral put down one reason when in fact I suspect there's often a lot more than one reason behind something the minister also talked about benefit processing times as I said up front I'm very happy to look at what the stats are in relation to those particular areas but to be honest benefit processing is done centrally so I wouldn't expect it to vary particularly at that local level I mean I'm sure you'll get a copy of this table I've got it already and it does make interesting reading and it does look like it's the more remote areas are taking longer to process benefits for what reason I don't know particularly if it's centralised Perhaps in the rural areas there's an opportunity to do even more awareness about the short term benefit advance which people, if they've made a new game you know it's paid in arrears as we touched on earlier and perhaps some people in those areas in particular locations we can work together locally in the community to make sure that people have a greater awareness of the ability to request a short term benefit advance if they don't have that money Will you come back to the committee with the reasons for please don't... An absolute commitment I mean there should not be undue delay just because somebody is living in a rural area that's not acceptable it can't be tolerated That point I just have to thank you minister for staying with us you stayed beyond what we had agreed and I appreciate you doing that I think we interrogated the subject quite intensively and I do appreciate the fact that we had agreed in advance how long we would be but you've allowed us to go beyond that so I do appreciate you giving us additional time to what we had already discussed there are a few things obviously that have come out this morning that will have to fall up in terms of communication between ourselves and your officials and yourself but we will discuss that when we go into private session on behalf of the committee thank you for coming in front of us and answering the questions that unfortunately we remain unable to put to your colleagues Mr Duncan Smith, Mr McVay and the Lord Freud so please convey to them our invitation to sit in your seat at some point and answer the questions directly that they're answerable for we'd certainly make them welcome make coffee here for them as well and with that I'd like to thank you if you've for coming in front of us I thank you, we clearly there are areas where we're not going to be in agreement but I welcome the opportunity to dialogue I think dialogue between this committee and the joint ministerial working group is a good way forward if there is any obviously we have a short period now until the election process begins but I welcome a proactive approach from you in relation to that process and I undertake to from a UK Government point of view keep you advised of our engagement with you with that we go into the private session as we had agreed earlier and I'll close the meeting to the public