 Welcome to this, the 11th meeting of the Welfare Reform Committee for 2014. Could I ask everyone to please make sure that the mobile phones and electronic devices are switched off? We only have one item of business today and it's not normal for us to meet in a Thursday morning, but we're doing it because we have this one evidence session on welfare reform. I would like to welcome to our committee this morning David Mundell MP, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Scotland and the UK Government, and Ian Wall's head of working age benefits at the DWP. I understand that the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Scotland would like to make a brief introductory statement, so I'll hand over to you, Minister, and welcome to the committee. I know you're not a stranger to this building or these rooms, so you're more than welcome back and look forward to having a discussion with you this morning. Thank you, convener, and I'm pleased to be here and have the opportunity to give evidence because it fits in well, I think, with a number of activities which I've been undertaking over the past few weeks and months. Obviously, I've previously met informally with the committee. Someone's phone is going off because I can hear it myself. There's someone's phone is interfering. Sorry about that. It's consistent with a series of activities that I've undertaken recently, such as meeting with all of Scotland's local authorities twice in recent months to particularly discuss discretionary housing payment and the spare room subsidy. Obviously, I've had informal discussions with this committee and we've met with the COSLA, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and other stakeholders. I think the discussion today is quite timely because yesterday the Deputy First Minister and I signed off a letter to go to all local authorities in Scotland confirming that they could move forward with making discretionary housing payments. Beyond the allocated current limit and a so-called letter of comfort. I'm sure that you'll have questions about that and that process. I'm very happy to discuss that and any other issues that you want to raise. I would like to start by asking about the section 63 order. Obviously, this committee has been very keen to have that in front of Parliament as quickly as possible so that we can get everything on a statutory footing. You have given this letter of comfort to local authorities, but can you give us some idea of the official timescale for the regulations to be in place? We've worked very well together. I think that the transfer of powers in relation to the setting of the discretionary housing payment limit is a demonstration that the Scottish Government and UK Government can work together. Obviously, we can't hide the fact that welfare issues are a very political issue. It's a very politicised period in Scotland and it hasn't always been straightforward to have the dialogue that might have been appropriate on some of these issues. Once the decision had been made in the sense that I made the offer to the Scottish Government to transfer the powers to set the discretionary housing payment limit and the Deputy First Minister accepted that, very shortly thereafter, we met and we've been in regular communication since then. We've both tasked our officials to meet a demanding parliamentary timescale, which would see the order go to the November meeting of the privy council. It's quite complicated in the current environment because, obviously, the Scottish Parliament has a different sitting arrangement this year. We have a cycle, which means that the House of Lords, for example, isn't sitting in September, although the Commons is. Officials have worked to cut down all the timescales to a minimum to ensure that we can get that order to the privy council in November. I'm confident that we can, but the Deputy First Minister and I agreed yesterday that he would speak again in August, while the Parliament is sitting, just to ensure that we were on track. Thank you very much for that, Minister. It's very helpful to know that there's such a positive attitude to getting this issue resolved, but the reality is that this committee has taken evidence now for the best part of two years on all of the aspects of the welfare reform act. We've concluded reports on the bedroom tax within the occupancy charge, as you would prefer it. It sanctions the work capability assessment. We've commissioned our own research, which shows that £1.6 billion is going to be taken out of the Scottish economy. That's a round figure in Scotland-wide terms, but that's impacting at a local level to the tune of £800 per adult in some local communities. Those are horrendous figures for people who are already on the bread line to lose. Whatever the motivation or the ideology that is driving the welfare reform act, will you concede that there are problems, that this act is not achieving the outcomes that you are looking for? That's the conclusions that our reports have arrived at. Do you concede that there are problems with this act? I'm obviously not going to make that concession. From the start, in my initial remarks, my dealings with local authorities across Scotland and others, I accept that there are political differences on the issue of welfare reform and that we're not necessarily going to agree on certain aspects of policy. Those policies have been debated at length, as you know, in the Westminster Parliament. They've been debated in this Parliament, and your committee has engaged in the activities that you've set out. In relation to a number of issues, there are specific issues. I think that we've demonstrated, for example, that we've listened on issues that have been raised by this committee. In some of the informal discussions, for example, the issue of digital access to benefit claims was raised. The Government then took the view that there would not be a requirement for everybody to digitally access the system, those people who didn't have access to broadband didn't have the services. We had the issue raised of direct payments to the most vulnerable people in society and concerns about if those payments were made, people would not then pay their landlords and having run into difficulties for landlords and difficulties for tenants. We then announced that the most vulnerable will not be part of the direct payments system, the sort of people who do have drug and alcohol issues, for example. We looked at the issue of rurality, which was raised specifically with this committee by a number of housing associations and local authorities. We brought forward measures under the direct housing payments system to deal with that issue, accepting that in large rural areas people couldn't move as easily as in other areas. We put in place a bid funding mechanism for additional DHP, which a number of councils applied to. I think that those were positive responses to issues that were raised. I am not disputing that there are legitimate issues to be raised and that it is appropriate to have a dialogue about them, but we are not going to agree on the fundamental policy positions. When this committee was established, I asked everyone for their perspectives on welfare reform and it was a unanimous view in this committee that welfare barley needed to be reformed, but there was also a view that it didn't need to be reformed barley. We have seen tens of thousands of people being forced to go to food banks, tens of thousands of children dependent on handouts to be fed. That is a direct result according to the evidence that we have received in the reports that we have concluded that this is a result of your welfare changes. Will you concede that there is a direct link between your reform act and the increase in the usage of food banks? As I understand it, your report on food bank issue wasn't a unanimous report and all members of the committee didn't agree that conclusion. I don't accept the assertions that are made. I think that the use of food banks is a complicated issue and we do need to have more research to understand what is underpinning that use, but I don't subscribe to a simplistic view that it is entirely due to welfare reform. It was entirely due. I said that there was a link between the increase and the welfare reform act. It was entirely due to the act, but there is a direct link between the increase and the act. That has been proven in evidence that we have received from academics and those involved in the delivery of these services. I know the evidence that you have received, but it is a much more complicated issue. We need to fully understand why it is the case. Some of the increase in relation to the use of food banks may be down to the more reporting of that use. Some is down to the greater availability and visibility of food banks. I think that you would welcome the fact that one of the things that this Government has done is to ensure that the availability of food banks is advertised in job centres and elsewhere. As your report itself concludes, there is an increase in the use of food banks in other affluent western countries. There was a tenfold increase in the use of food banks under the previous Government at a time at which people would associate relative economic growth. I think that there are some complicated issues there. There is no doubt that there are some people who have gone to food banks because there have been the subject, for example, of sanctions or a delay in receiving benefits. On the latter, there is some good news because the turnaround in the payment of benefits has increased quite significantly to about 92 per cent of benefits being paid within the timescale that we would aspire to. I will open up to other members of the committee and I will go to Linda to be followed by Jamie. I have just got two questions. I am aware of the time constraints. Minister, you will be aware that we have had great difficulty in this committee convincing the appropriate Westminster Ministers and Cabinet Secretaries to come and speak to us. Although it is always nice to see you here and very glad to welcome you, we were expecting the Secretary of State. I completely understand the important business that he is attending to this morning in London, but it is so important that I would not have thought that it was just arranged yesterday and that therefore we have had such short notice that he was not able to come along. Can you tell me what was another case of Cabinet Secretary not wishing to come along to this committee? The Secretary of State is engaged in activities around the commemoration of the First World War and Armed Forces Day, which is taking place in Stirling on Saturday. Unfortunately, those requirements have conflicted with this committee. However, as you know, I have been heavily involved directly with this issue and directly in the engagement with the Scottish Government. I am very happy to be here to answer your concerns. As I said, it is very nice to have you here, but I would still contend that less than a day's notice is not really acceptable respect for either our convener or our committee. Leading on from what you just said, Minister, I am glad that you have been very much involved because I am aware. I think that I am right in saying that Secretary of State is not a member of the Cabinet Subcommittee for Social Justice. How often does he meet the members of that subcommittee? When was the last time that he did meet them? Could I ask you directly what reforms the Secretary of State for Scotland and yourself have had influence over in development? The most significant proposal is the offer that I made to the Scottish Parliament to take on the responsibility for setting the cap for discretionary housing payment. That is a significant development within the devolved settlement. I think that that is one that shows that we can work together within the devolved settlement to meet the specific needs and requirements of Scotland. Of course, I would contend and I have previously done so that there were significant powers within the Scotland act that the Scottish Government could have deployed in relation to alleviating issues that it believed had arisen, but it chose not to do so. I believe that taking forward the devolution of the cap on discretionary housing payments meant that the issues that local authorities raised would have been resolved rather than them having to sit out an on-going discussion between the two Governments. That was the right thing to do, the right way to proceed and the way that we are implementing it currently shows that we can work together. The Secretary of State and I were very heavily involved in ensuring that there was a recognition of rurality in terms of the discretionary housing payment and I specifically took back from issues raised by the committee. I think that Mr Stewart, in fact, in relation to the digital issue, which affects the whole range of welfare policies to make it clear that people would not be required in relation to that access. The issues that have been fed back to me from stakeholders in Scotland have taken forward to influence policy. Can I suggest to you that these are consequences of the development of policy? I am really interested in what level of engagement the Scotland office has had with the policy development of welfare reform in that they have a responsibility. To some degree, to protect the people in Scotland from consequences of any welfare reform that is set at Westminster. We have been closely involved. I am in regular contact and meet regularly with both Ian Duncan-Smith and Lord Freud. I have accompanied Lord Freud to a number of events that we have held with stakeholders here in Scotland to get a distinct Scottish perspective. Of course, as you are aware, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee at Westminster has had a very significant involvement in this issue, although your colleague Dr Whiteford chooses not to attend those meetings. Perhaps, convener, the minister could accompany Lord Freud along to this committee at some time in the future. The invitation is still extended to the mall. A senior DWP official told the committee that job centres often receive thank you cards from sanctioned claimants. How many thank you cards have you received from sanctioned claimants as a minister in a Government responsible for the policy? Are you aware of any of your constituents sending job centres thank you cards? What I would say in relation to sanctions and individuals who have been sanctioned. This is an offer that I have made to all 32 local authorities in Scotland. I have made to all MPs in Scotland and I have certainly made to all members of this committee and the Scottish Parliament. If you are aware of individuals who you think have been unfairly sanctioned, then bring them to our attention. Bring the details of the claims to our attention and we will look at those sanctions. The interesting thing, convener, I am not flippant about this issue, but having made that offer, we have not previously talked to all local authorities. We have not been overwhelmed with claims. I think that there is a degree of mythology out there because we have not found the person who has been sanctioned because they were at a job interview or because the lift broke down. I want to ensure that we have a sanction system that is fair and is reasonable. I do not know, and I apologise for this, that I may not be totally on top of SNP policy. I do not think that any of the parties present is arguing that there should not be some form of sanction regime in relation to welfare payments. What we have got to make sure is that it is fair, reasonable and proportionate. That is what we are trying to achieve. We have instigated the Oakley review and I am sure that as part of your deliberations you will be very interested to see what the outcome is. How we can improve communications, because I accept that there are some people who have signed up to certain commitments that they have not fully understood what they have signed up to or what the implications of sanctions might be. We have got to improve communications, we have got to have a greater degree of consistency and we have got to have the ability to review quite quickly. I am not aware that anyone is suggesting that you can have an effective regime without there being some form of sanction. You may be right that the ministers post back may be busy, but it does not sound like an answer. It has been busy with thank you cards by omission of an affirmative to the question. Ministers are quite correct that this committee has published a report in which we accept the need for conditionality in a welfare system, but the point that we have made is that the specific sanctions regime that has been put in place is not proportionate, is not fair. One of the things that we have found is that there is a direct link between that element of the welfare system and the rest of the welfare reforms that the government put in place and the increased use of food banks. I know that that is an area that the conveners explored with you, but I want to explore it as well. Oxford and Scotland told us that there is a link between welfare reform and the surge in the use of food banks. Are they wrong? As I have said in my previous answer, the use of food banks is a complicated issue. 17 per cent of people from the Trussell Trust's figures say that they have attended food banks partly due to sanctions. Clearly, there are people who have been subject to sanctions who are attending food banks. The DWP also has a hardship fund that supports people who are subject to sanctions. However, we have to go back to the principle point. Do we accept that there is some form of sanctions regime or not? As the vice-scotland told us, the national evidence and our on-the-ground co-face evidence point towards welfare reform is the cause of the increase in demand for food banks. Are they wrong? We are going to come back to the fundamental point. You are going to ask the same question and I am going to give you the same answer. I believe that the use of food banks is a complicated issue in which there are many factors in which we need more research and in which it cannot be simplistically said that it is entirely due to welfare reform. I am simply not going to accept that. I hope that that is a commitment that the UK Government will instigate some research. I hope that you will be speaking to Oxam Scotland, sitting by Scotland, and SCVO, who said that welfare reforms and cuts have definitely contributed to the rise in the number of food banks. Are they wrong? SCVO has said a number of things in recent months with which I do not agree. I agree with the point that you make that we need to have more research and understanding as to what is going on in relation to food banks. As I said in earlier comments, there are a number of wealthy developed countries that are also seeing the use of food banks. We need to understand why that is. I hope that the research and commission will take on board our considerable report on food banks. One final question, if I may convene. A sectorist state said of the welfare system in BBC Good Morning Scotland 24 April that this is a fantastic system. We know that over 22,000 children use Trussell Trust food banks alone in 2013-14. I know that you can tell that is not all down to welfare reform, but Oxam Scotland is sitting by Scotland and SCVO, the BMA, who I did not cite. Otherwise, people in Calton and Glasgow will be £880 worse off as a little benefit cuts. It will be £460 per working age adult in Scotland. Sheffield Harlem University has told us that it would have actually been higher if this Parliament and the Scottish Government hadn't mitigated some of the effects of welfare reform. Say that the children estimate that one in three children in Scotland could be living in poverty by 2020 due to welfare cuts. Does this speak of a fantastic system to you? I don't accept a number of those figures and I can come back to you in detail as to why not. I do think that it is important to place the Sheffield Harlem report in context. Obviously, the most recent one is relatively new and I would be again quite happy to provide a detailed response to it, but it seems to me that the one premise in it which is lacking is that it doesn't take into account the fact that people might actually move into work. It proceeds on a very pessimistic outlook that everybody currently on benefit would remain on benefit. That's clearly not the case. Unemployment in Scotland, which I'm sure the committee welcomes, is 48,000 lower than it was in 2012. We've got a record number of women in work and the number of JSA claimants has decreased. I think that the context of the Sheffield Harlem report on an initial look doesn't actually factor in that people might and would be moving into work. Ultimately, my position—the UK Government position—is that work is the way out of poverty for all but those most vulnerable who are not in a position to work. I think that we'd all accept that, but Professor Fothergill dealt with that point. It wasn't so much that his report was pessimistic. It was rather his opinion, based on his expertise, that the UK Government is rather optimistic. It's a look that the welfare reforms will in of themselves bring people into work, but I'll leave it there conveniently. Alex, to be followed by Kevin. Thank you very much, convener. Perhaps the reason for some of the problems that we're experiencing and discussing here is that we are involved in a transition at the moment to the flagship universal credit. A delegation from the committee were able to visit the DWP in Glasgow and talk to them about the experience so far of implementing universal credit, and not only the senior people who were involved in the process but also some of those who were working on the front line and actually dealing directly with people. However, in spite of the fact that the message that we got was very positive, it would appear a serious issue around timescale for implementation, and we've seen targets for the implementation of universal credit move back successively. Is it possible for the minister to give us some indication of what the current expectation is in timescale for introduction and whether we're likely to see any further delays? I think it's obvious that it's just very important that a major change, like the introduction of universal credit, is right as it proceeds. It's such a significant change, and therefore the approach has changed in terms of the incremental nature and timetable that was originally set out. However, the aspiration remains to move towards full implementation in 2016-17, but not to set individual staging posts along the way for exactly the reason that you mentioned. If you're driven by a timetable, you're not necessarily driven by getting it right rather than meeting timescales that you've set for yourself. We've heard when we visited Glasgow that areas such as, for example, the number of people who were being put back on to housing benefit being paid directly to landlords was smaller as a proportion than initial expectations. We also heard that the number who were able to engage online was higher than initial expectations. Is there a prospect as we go through the pilots and the initial introductions that we may actually see the operation come back on to schedule and perhaps be speeded up? I think I would stick to the timescale that we've set out initially. Clearly, what the pilots are about are about learning as we go, understanding specific issues. I think it's well recognised that universal credit has worked in the initial pilots pretty well with relatively straightforward claimants. It's as you move forward to people who have a number of benefits and that you have to build that forward. I wouldn't want to set unrealistic timescale or thought that it could be brought forward. I remain convinced that universal credit is the right way forward. When it's fully introduced, 300,000 people in Scotland will be in receipt of additional benefit. They won't be, as is sometimes characterised, subject to benefit cuts. 300,000 people in Scotland will have additional benefit and will be in the position to move so much more easily and seamlessly between part-time work and the benefit system. I certainly agree with the minister's position on that, and that's one of the reasons why I'm very keen to see universal credit fully implemented at the earliest possible opportunity. Leaving universal credit and looking at other benefits that will be introduced, the personal independence payment, we've received evidence that those who are waiting to be assessed for personal independence payments are having a particularly long period of time. Is there any explanation? I should qualify that a bit more. We've had Salas, the organisation that is tasked with doing assessments for PIP on behalf of ATOS before us on a couple of occasions. I think they don't do the whole of Scotland, but they do a significant part of Scotland. They are finding that they could perhaps do more than they're being asked to. Is there a way that the assessment process for PIP could be accelerated? I might ask Ian in a moment to comment on that particular suggestion. There was a question in the House of Lords yesterday by Lord McEvoy to Lord Freud on personal independence payments. The committee may want to have a look at what was said in those exchanges, but the delays are unacceptable. I'm not going to in any way suggest that they are unacceptable. We've got to do better. This is a major change. The previous Government contemplated a change in the disability living allowance, but it was very difficult to take forward, and they didn't do it. It is a significant change. As I understand it—Ian may be able to say more—the issue is around the contractors having delivered, according to the contract, the requisite number of a medical and qualified personnel to carry out the assessments. Just because it's proved difficult doesn't mean that we should press ahead with doing what is the right thing. In relation to disability living allowance, as you'll be aware, people perhaps had one assessment and were effectively left on that benefit for a long period of time, even if they were ever reassessed. To move to personal independence payments is the right thing to do, but it is a very significant change and challenge, and we've got to do better. Just to say a couple of things. On the reasons why there's been some delays, the main one that the Minister has mentioned about the fact of having enough assessors in place and fully qualified, because obviously they've got to be trained up to do it, there's also been some of the assessments have perhaps taken slightly longer than was assumed. Obviously they've got to take as long as they take, but on the whole they've taken slightly longer, and also more of the cases have been done in person as opposed to on the papers. There's been a variety of reasons why essentially the output has been a bit less than expected. In terms of getting additional work through, the government's priority at the moment is to make sure that the length of time it's taken for people who are waiting is reduced, so we've dialed back some of the natural reassessment cases to focus on the new claims to get the processing times down. Now, as soon as either ATOS or CAPTA are the two people we can track with, we're confident that they're on top of the case that they have and can take on more. Of course we'll want them to do so, but we want you to be very careful about making sure that we don't turn the tap on a bit more until they are dealing with the current cases as quickly as we would want to. Just to finish my comments, I think the situation we discovered was that the subcontractor who's responsible for doing these assessments across most of Scotland or most of Central Scotland, I believe, seemed to have or seemed to believe that they have capacity that's currently being unused on the basis that they are offering appointments and they're not being filled, they're not being filled in a timely way. We most certainly will take that back. As a committee be aware, the payment is backdated to the point of application and people who are on disability living allowance continue to receive it during the process, but I'm not going to pretend that the situation is acceptable, it's not, and we must do better. My colleague Jamie Hepburn pointed out that 22,387 children used trus or trus food banks in 2013-14, which is an increase of 1,103 per cent from the previous year. Can I ask the minister if the UK Government has made any estimate of the impact of the introduction of spending cap on child poverty? Can you clarify what you mean by spending cap? Obviously, the welfare spending cap that your Government has put in place, has there been any analysis done on the impact of that on child poverty? Today, the UK Government is going to announce its child poverty strategy. It may already have done so. Obviously, that dovetails in with the Scottish Government strategy, which the Deputy First Minister announced. Obviously, you wouldn't expect that I agree with a number of the comments that she made around that. Respectively, convener, I think that it might be a useful thing to do for the committee to look at that UK strategy in relation to Scotland. I would undertake that one of my ministerial colleagues will come to discuss that strategy with yourselves. That is being rolled out today. I don't think that it would necessarily be helpful. I can read it out or read out the headline parts of it or all the rest of it. I don't think that that would necessarily be helpful, but I think that what would be helpful is for the committee to look at the UK Government's strategy in relation to child poverty and to constructively analyse it in the context of the Scottish Government child poverty. That wasn't really the question that I asked. I asked if those caps were informed by research, if there was any analysis by Government, any estimate by Government. A simple yes or no would probably suffice here. Was there any analysis done before you decided to implement this policy? The cap is informed by affordability of welfare. By affordability? In which case can I move on in that particular point? Because this cap and other welfare reforms, CPAC have estimated that child poverty in Scotland could increase by up to 100,000 by 2020, save the children have now estimated that as a result of the welfare cap this could be even higher and by 2020 that one in three children could be living in poverty. They have also said that the commitment of Westminster parties to eradicate child poverty by 2020 are no longer credible. Are those policies not credible, minister? I don't agree with those statements that you have set out. The UK Government is publishing today a child poverty strategy in respect of its responsibilities. Obviously, the Scottish Government has a number of responsibilities in that regard. I think that that is how you should assess what the figures are going to be in relation to child poverty in 2020. We are looking to get to a position of zero child poverty in 2020. We want to work with the Scottish Government to achieve that. I think that the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, all of us should be very proud of the fact that in relative and real terms child poverty is at its lowest level since the mid 1990s. I think that that is something that we should be positive about. Of course, we can do more. We have set out in our strategy being launched today how we think that within the UK Government responsibilities we could do more. I am absolutely clear that it is one area in which the Scottish Government and the UK Government have to work more closely together and in which we do not get bogged down in politicking. It is too important for that. It seems that there has been no analysis done by the UK Government in terms of the responses from the minister. It seems that the analysis that has been carried out by CPAG and Save the Children is being disregarded by the minister here today as well. Can I ask, in terms of the further welfare cuts, the cuts to the social security budget envisaged by George Osborne, which may be as high as £12 billion, will you analyse what those further cuts will do in terms of child poverty here in Scotland? I repeat, because I am certainly not dismissing what other organisations are saying, but I think that you are not listening with respect to what I am saying. I am saying that the UK Government has set out its strategy for further reductions in child poverty. At the core of our philosophy is not about the payment of benefit. We do not believe that the payment of benefits is the best way out of poverty. We believe that work and ensuring that children are part of a working family is the best way out of poverty. That is what our approach is aimed at achieving. Therefore, it is not about how much we need to spend on welfare to reduce child poverty. It is about what we need to do to make sure that there are as many children as possible in Scotland in a working household. Of course, there will be some households where people will never be able to work. That is why the other part of our approach is to target resources on to the most vulnerable. I understand that you are coming from a different perspective, but I ask you, when it is published today, to read our UK child poverty strategy. I undertake that I or a ministerial colleague will come back and submit to your scrutiny of that strategy. Our approach of taking that issue forward is clearly different from your own. I think that we all agree that it is best if folk do get back to work, but your austerity measures are not helping in terms of job creation. In terms of that further £12 billion of cuts to welfare, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How involved are you and the Secretary of State in the discussions about where the axe falls in terms of that £12 billion? As I said in relation to Linda Fabiani's question, the Secretary of State and I are actively involved in relation to welfare issues and policies in relation to Scotland. I demonstrated that in my previous answer. The Conservative part of the UK Government is committed to further welfare reform. People in Scotland, should there be a no vote in the referendum, will have the opportunity at next year's UK general election to express their views in that regard. I go to Annabelle to be followed by Ken. Minister, you mentioned a minute ago that you felt that children should be part of a working family and I don't think that anybody would disagree with that as an objective. Obviously, the overriding objective presumably would be that children are part of a family that actually has the means to put food on the table. Of course I do. The suggestion that anybody would be happy with the number of people using food banks is not correct. It is very important, as I said in previous answers, that we get more data to understand why that is the case. There is a situation inevitably and I am sure that that might even happen in an independent Scotland where people are in crisis and do need immediate help and support. I think that we should commend those charitable bodies and others who seek to support them in those moments of crisis, but I don't want to see people going to food banks. Of course, in an independent Scotland we will not preside over the dismantling of the welfare system and the safety net that provides. I do mention the truly appalling statistic. Of all the alarming things that the committee has looked at and all the alarming developments that we have looked at, the most shocking has to be the fact that in the last year 22,387 children had to rely on food banks in order to eat. Does that appalling statistic ever cause the minister to lose any sleep at all at night, further to the impact of his Government's policies? My approach in those matters is that I want to help and support people. I do not see vulnerable people as being an opportunity to politic or make a political point scoring. Nobody wants to see children in families attending food banks, but we do need to understand why that is happening. I want to get some more detailed statistics that everybody can subscribe to and rely on. I could give you the statistic, for example, that 65 per cent of people who have attended Trussell Trust, a food bank, have only done so on one occasion, which rather diminishes the sometimes approach that suggests that people are relying on a weekly basis for a food bank. Maybe some people are, but not the vast majority of people who attend the Trussell Trust food banks. Let's get an approach to this issue of attendance of food banks that is about resolving the issues about understanding the crisis that people are facing and the specific reasons why they are there, so that we can move forward. I think that the best approach for that to be achieved is for us to be working together and not placing this issue at the centre of every political discussion. That issue has to be at the centre because it is truly appalling and the idea that, because a child attends a food bank only once, somehow that is acceptable. That is not acceptable, Minister, not in the kind of country that I want to live in. That is simply not acceptable. I did not say that. I do not think that we are going to make any headway. You do not lose any sleep over it. I am not going to be misrepresented. I did not say that. Only by your own logic. I know that time is short and I have one issue to raise briefly, which is the issue of the way that people with long-term conditions, including mental health problems, are dealt with under the benefits system and the work capability assessment in particular, but not exclusively. Does the minister feel comfortable about the way that such people are dealt with under the benefits system? I certainly think that we do have to continue to improve the way in which we support people with mental health. I think that there is widespread agreement. That is an issue that is regularly raised within the Westminster Parliament by Scottish MPs. It has been part of the approach in relation to trying to take forward the working capability assessments. The key to those assessments remains the fact that we have to get all the information available at one time to ensure that there is an assessment. I absolutely take on board that not just in relation to benefit issues but in relation to every aspect of the way in which government functions in our society, we have to do better for people with mental health. It was a question that one of our witnesses came to bravely to give evidence to our committee a while back. They were asked what they would like to ask the UK Secretary of State. He has refused to come to our committee. I would like to put to you a comment that Leslie McMercy made about her husband, who had a number of mental health and physical problems but was found fit to work. She said in her alia, I am a history graduate and I thought that when we set up the welfare state it was to be there for people such as my husband who worked hard and did his best so that in times of need something would be there for him but it is not there. That would be my question for Ian Duncan-Smith. There should be something there for those hardworking men and women who have contributed to society. They are being left with nothing. What would you say in response to that minister? I would be very happy to look into Mr Merch's particular case. As a constituency MP, I deal with a large number of constituents who have encountered issues in relation to assessments. I look to support them and assist them through the process. I am very happy to look at those specific circumstances. If we have a system that is not delivering, that is most certainly not our aspiration. There are no words, but thank you, convener. Thank you, minister. We are coming along just to return to the issue of food banks. You said that you are concerned about the rise of food banks. Are you concerned that they might become institutionalised in our country? I certainly make absolutely clear no intention that they should become institutionalised. I think that we should applaud people on a voluntary basis and help people who are in crisis. That is a long-standing thing in Scotland. There are a lot of food banks that have emerged from existing arrangements, perhaps operated by churches or other voluntary groups. We need to have a much greater understanding about what is going on in relation to the use of food banks, but I do not want to see them become part of the welfare state. I am glad to hear that. One of the disturbing evidence that we heard was from Mr Neil Cooley, who is the work services director at the DWP. He said that the rise in food banks was due to supply-led growth. He said that it was because of poor people maximising their economic choices. Do you agree with that analysis? One thing that is clear is that the Government has chosen to make the availability of food banks more known in job centres and through other channels. More people are aware that there is more local media on food banks in localities. I think that it is to be accepted that there is a greater awareness of the availability of food banks. We have to get to a point where we have agreed research and evidence, which is not going to be the subject of political rowing. We need to understand why there is a degree of use of food banks. I think that it is at the point that we can make a practical response to the issue. I think that most of the members of the committee would agree with that, but we did take a lot of evidence. You said earlier that the committee was not unanimous, but Mr Johnson aside, who is the one Conservative member of the committee, was unanimous. The witnesses were overwhelmingly clear in their evidence. We are talking about Oxfam, Salvation Army, Citizens Advice Scotland and so on, overwhelmingly clear that there is a link. It is not a simplistic link, but there is a link between the welfare reforms and the rise in food banks. Do you not accept that there is a link? What I will do in light of your comments and some of the other comments is that I am quite happy to meet myself with the witnesses and have an exchange with them. I do not dismiss what these organisations say. What I do, as you alluded to, is a simplistic analysis that says that welfare reform equals food banks. I do not accept that. The committee did not say that either. The committee suggested that it was a complex link. The committee also heard evidence from Dr Philip Sosenko, in which he pointed out that, if you look at the rise and the growth of food banks, there is an elbow in the rise. That elbow coincides with the increase in the tougher sanctions regimes introduced in October 2012, followed by the welfare reforms of April 13 of reforms to disability allowance of limiting the rise in benefits to 1 per cent rather than inflation. He is making a very clear statistical link. What would you make of evidence such as that? This is not anecdotal evidence. This is firm statistical evidence. The DWP does not accept that statistical link. I go back to the point that it is important that we have more evidence in relation to this situation. As your report alluded to, it is not just in Scotland. It is happening. We need to have a better understanding in that regard. On sanctions, which we have not covered as much as I thought we might have covered in your report, we could also be helpful to send you up. We can respond to some of the points that were in the report, if that is helpful. The point that I was trying to make is that we have collected a lot of evidence and the evidence is quite clear. It is not that we are blinded by our own political prejudice. This is evidence that has been presented to the Scottish Parliament, both anecdotal and statistical, solidly based scientific research, empirical evidence that makes this link. Your suggestion needs to look for further data. Are you currently producing a report? Are you looking for further data to establish the reasons behind the rise in food banks? We are considering how that can be best achieved. It is important for the reasons that we have discussed that if work is done, it is done in a way that commands widespread support. It is not the subject of politicking to and fro, because I read quite a lot of cut-and-paste press releases, which just say the same thing in relation to welfare reform. I want an analysis of the use of food banks that everybody can subscribe to as to what the range of complex reasons for the rise in the use of food banks so that we can take forward the situation. Can you clarify that? The official DWA position is not there for, as Mr Cwlin described, because he was suggesting that it is because of supply-led growth. What you are suggesting is that that is not quite true. That is just part of the picture and there is a bigger picture. Mr Cwlin gave his evidence. I have set out my... Is it the DWP's position that this is because of supply-led growth? The DWP position, as is my position, is that this is a complex issue. Thank you very much to all the committee members for sticking as best we could today. We are just slightly over, minister. Thank you very much for your evidence, just for information. Our report on sanctions has been sent to Mr McVey, minister, and we are awaiting a response to the points that we raised in that report. Our own report on food banks has been sent to Ian Duncan-Smith. Again, we await a response from him to our report. We have invited both of them to come and speak to us about our reports, but they keep running away from us. So, when the next time you meet them, maybe you could tell them that we are here and we would welcome their attendance. I will close by saying that I would look forward to having you back possibly in a year's time when things move on. In a year's time, I hope that we have a Labour Government and that it will not be yourself, minister, who is sitting at that end of the table. The policy issues are a matter to be debated in an election. Thank you very much, minister, for your time. I appreciate you coming before us. Thank you. I need to close the meeting now.