ard Baz weapon of businesses y st melody by Jane Freeman on the new social security agency. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. A Collin Jane Freeman you have a stand for minister for the一個 being Happiness Save people and Three Enjoy pension…… Minister, ten minutes please. Transци tellement, Southern Ireland has just made another one at the moment. The initiative was created out of consideration with the appropriate forecast for Cl về cylligeidau tif混wyslwyr yn gilyddai'r newid yn ei wneud â'i sy 87s. Rydw i'r gwneud gyda i'r gwahau a chwyl pan fyddai'r newid o'r wneud yn ei wneud a maen nhw'n amgylch ar ddweud i ddweud y cycellwn deiligau a wneud i ddweud i'i cwrs wneud yn y lle. Rydw i'r cwrs wneud i'r gwahau a'r newid i ddweud i'r newid i'r newid a'r newid o'r gwahau i dweud jeimniol yn ei fwylltig. Following the decision last March to establish a new executive agency, we have undertaken a second stage options appraisal to examine how the agency could deliver a rights-based social security service in a way that both best aligns with our core principles of dignity, fairness and respect and achieves value for money. In doing so, we have again underlined our commitment to co-production and transparency by involving partners from the third sector local government and academia and using the responses to the social security consultation to determine and assess the appraisal criteria. A formidable and detailed analytical task which has led to a thorough and balanced options appraisal report which itself demonstrates the integrity and robustness of the process and the evidence base that we have worked from. Presiding Officer, our preferred model for delivery has two key strands. Ten of the 11 devolved benefits will be delivered directly by the new social security agency itself through an efficient centralised function. But critically, our social security agency will also provide locally accessible, face-to-face pre-claims advice and support, co-located where possible in places that people already visit. Discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund will continue to be delivered by local authorities. The option that we have chosen will best deliver on our key objectives, consistency of provision across Scotland, a person-centred rights-based approach, a strong local human face to improve accessibility and support, and the safe and secure transition to the 1.4 million who rely on the service. Presiding Officer, that local presence will be one of the key differences between our social security agency and the existing UK system. Our approach will provide both the consistency of service across Scotland irrespective of where an individual lives and a more responsive service. We welcome the 11 benefits being devolved, but too much remains reserved and will continue to be delivered in a UK system that has all of the deficiencies and faults, our consultation and responses, so eloquently detailed. We want to see all of welfare devolved so that the agency that we are creating will have built into it the ability to expand to accommodate new powers in the future. Our next steps will be to decide on that central location. Again, we will take a systematic, evidence-based approach, taking into account a variety of socioeconomic factors and using the same multi-criteria framework used for the wider options appraisal. In identifying co-location opportunities for the local presence that is central to our model, we will begin discussions with local partners. There is no doubt that the jobs that are created in the new agency will bring a major economic benefit to Scotland. Once fully operational, we estimate that at least 1,500 people will work in Scotland's social security agency. By providing a local presence across Scotland, those jobs will not be confined to one central location. As you would expect, we require the options appraisal to closely examine the estimated running costs of the new system. I am pleased to report that our chosen delivery model not only meets our principles, it also represents best value for money. Although figures will be refined as we move forward, when fully delivering all the benefits, we estimate that the annual running costs of the agency will be around £150 million. Before concluding, I want to say a little about the assessment model that we will use for the disability and ill health-related benefits. In the past 11 months, I have learned a great deal about how the current UK system goes about assessments. Over and over again, I have heard the personal experiences of so very many who have found that to be one of the most difficult, distressing and demeaning aspects of their whole experience. I am in no doubt that the current UK assessment model must be substantially changed. I am clear that the approach that we will take will give due recognition to self-assessment and to clear third-party, professionally founded, supporting evidence. With relevant information secured at first decision point in the overwhelming majority of cases, we can speed up decisions, getting more right first time and reducing the demand for appeals, which currently places additional psychological and financial strain on individuals. We will be guided by the personal experience of people through our experience panels and the expertise of our expert advisory group on disability and carers benefits, which met for the first time last week. We will be guided by our principles. One of those principles is that profit should never be a motive nor play any part in making decisions or assessing people's health and eligibility. I have seen and heard enough evidence to know that the private sector should not be involved in assessments for Scotland's benefits. I can confirm to the chamber that, in our assessment model, there will be no contracting with the private sector. I have begun to explore the potential to use the existing information and expertise of the health and social care sector. I want a genuine partnership to access only the already known information that is relevant to social security decisions, with appropriate consents and robust safeguards, and in doing so to limit the time health and other professionals spend dealing with the negative impact of the current UK system on individuals. So that our skilled and professional health and social care staff can focus on the role that they have trained to do, care for and support their patient and clients' health and social care. We need to get this absolutely right, so we will be working as a Scottish public sector with the professional interests of those in the health and care sector, drawing on the views of our experienced panels and asking the expert advisory group to clearly map out the application and assessment process so that we can gather evidence as early as possible and get our first and subsequent decisions right first time. I will return in the autumn to provide members with an update and detail our next steps. Today's announcement is not just the culmination of a major and robust options appraisal. It is also the starting point for the design of more detailed operational arrangements, agency locations, staff numbers and service design. Next will be our forthcoming social security bill on track for introduction to this Parliament by the summer and a timescale for the first suite of benefits that we will deliver. Our number one priority remains the safe and secure transition of 11 benefits for the 1.4 million people who rely on them. Our social security agency will deliver the benefits in an efficient and person-centred way, tailored to meet individual needs. It will provide major economic gain with a significant number of new jobs. It will demonstrate that social security is an on-going investment in the people of Scotland, and we will demonstrate that there is a better and fairer way of delivering social security to those who are entitled to and who rely on that support. This Government will build a social security system that will stand both the test of time and the test of trust from the people of Scotland who rely on it. This is a challenging time. It is, as Audit Scotland said, an exceptionally complex task, but it is also a golden opportunity, and it is one that I am determined that we will get right. Thank you very much, minister. The minister will now take questions on the issues that are raised in his statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes or so for questions after which we have to move on to next member's business, so I would ask members who wish to ask questions to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call Adam Tomkins to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Mr Tomkins. I thank the minister for early sight of her statement. It is good to see that progress is finally being made on the delivery of social security devolution, getting on for three years since the Smith commission agreed its terms. It is not news that there is to be a new Scottish social security agency. We have known that for more than a year, but we still do not know where it will be located, how it will be structured, what powers and responsibilities it will have, and to whom it will be accountable. In particular, we do not know what opportunity we in this Parliament will have to scrutinise appointments to or decisions made by the new agency. Will the agency report only to the minister, and, if so, will that be in public or in private, or will the new agency be directly accountable to this Parliament? How does the minister think that the new agency will function? Will it be operationally independent of government, such as Revenue Scotland, for example, or will it have a closer working relationship with ministers than that? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is a bit disappointing, I have to say, that Mr Tomkins has chosen to take the approach that he has. Finally, after three years with a Holyrood election in between, and we knew before that Holyrood election, in fact, in March 2016, what we would do in that we would have an executive agency and to answer his specific question directly accountable to ministers who are directly accountable to this Parliament. As he will know from the evidence that I gave to the Social Security Committee of this Parliament most recently, on which he sits, the legislation that we will introduce will include not only those principles and the fact that we believe that this will be a rights-based system on the face of that primary legislation, but also a requirement to create a charter that will outline very clearly the responsibilities of the social security system to the people of Scotland and to those who use it. On that charter, ministers themselves will be accountable to this Parliament and therefore to the people of Scotland for our delivery of the model that I have outlined. At this point, I think that we have made very clear the direction of travel that we are going in and made very clear the specifics. We have done so both before the election that Mr Tomkins and I brought to this Parliament and since. I also would hope that he will have listened on the three occasions that I have appeared before the Social Security Committee to explain very clearly the approach that we are taking. 1.4 million people will rely on our safe and secure delivery of those benefits. There are key steps that we have to take. We are taking them, but most importantly, we are taking them building on the direct personal experience of people using the benefit system. How very different that is from the approach of the UK Government. 2.4 million people will rely on our safe and secure delivery of those benefits. 3.4 million people will rely on our safe and secure delivery of those benefits. There is a great deal in the statement in which Labour can wholeheartedly welcome the intention to create a new social security system that gives face-to-face contact, pre-claims advice and seeks to have a local presence in communities. However, Labour very much welcomes that the assessment model will not contract with the private sector. My colleague Mark Griffin has been particularly vocal about that. The minister is reported as saying that these new arrangements will not be implemented until at least 2021. I would like the minister to clarify if there is any intention to go beyond that date and will she recognise that thousands of claimants desperately want those arrangements that she talks about sooner rather than later as they are in the mercy of the current system? Will the minister give a commitment that the pre-advice and support will be available in every deprived community and that the basic model of co-location that is mentioned in the statement will not be the exclusive way to ensure that there is indeed a local presence of Scotland's new social security agency across Scotland? I am grateful to Ms McNeill for her support for at least the bulk of what I have said in my statement and, in particular, for our determination and decision not to involve the private sector in contracts for assessments. In terms of the new arrangements, I think that the accurate reflection of what I have said in the past is that, by the end of this Parliament, we will be delivering all 11 benefits. However, I also said at the last meeting of the Social Security Committee that we will take on responsibility for each of those 11 benefits incrementally following the passage of legislation in this Parliament, which will be introduced before June and will take, I would expect, until around about the spring of 2018. I also said in the statement that I have just made that, in addition to that legislation being the next step for us in terms of this chamber, that we would introduce or advise members of the next steps in terms of delivering the particular suite of benefits that will come first. I hope that that answers Ms McNeill and provides some reassurance that, as I have said before, we are not waiting until 2021 with some big bang in order to introduce all 11 benefits. Not, I have to say, because we would be under pressure from anyone to do otherwise, but to do that is simply to risk the safe and secure transfer of benefits, so that is not what we are doing. On the pre-advice and support, it will be available across Scotland, available to individuals regardless of where they live. In our discussions with local partners, I am particularly looking for co-location in order that, as a Scottish public sector, because it will be public sector partners largely and perhaps the third sector that we are talking to, we will be looking to make it as easy as possible for things that are currently available, like discretionary housing payments and our welfare fund, to be co-located and triggered by an individual's first appearance, whether it is to their local authority or to the social security agency. Thank you. Before I call Ms White, can I say I have 10 members wishing to ask questions? You can see the clock. We only have 14 minutes. Please, short questions, no preambles and economic answers, if you could minister. Thank you. Sandra White. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and can I thank the minister for her statement, something that we have all been working towards and I am very grateful to her. Minister, we all have had people in our surgeries with issues around communication with the DWP. It is something that they dread and causes great stress and anxiety, as you said in your earlier on, and even seeking out the basic information. Can the minister assure me, therefore, that the social security system in Scotland is an agency that serves the people of Scotland as an exemplar in communication in stark contrast to that of which we have at the moment, the DWP? Not quite following my request, but I still live in hope. Minister. Yes, I can assure the member of that. Indeed, from the outside, in terms of our even our recruitment for the experienced panels, we have worked directly with individuals who will be involved and who have experience of the current system in helping us to make sure that our communication itself is as clear and direct as possible, but also that we use a wide range of communication methods. We will invoke both digital and telephone and face-to-face. We will be able to translate as we have done indeed for applicants for the experienced panels and we will make sure, with their involvement, that we maximise all the communication channels that we could possibly use so that our system is as accessible as possible. Annie Wells, you are followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you. Within the analysis of the written responses to the consultation, I note an entry by the Dumfries and Galloway Council regarding delivery of social security. I quote, Local authorities have a proven track record of delivering centralised benefits in a localised response of way to make the needs of its citizens. Can I ask the minister why the Scottish Government is ignoring the proven track record of local authorities in delivering newly-devolved benefits and why the Scottish Government— That's fine. I want to get everything in. I refer Ms Wells to what is also in the option appraisals analysis. It was judged that exclusive local delivery was judged to dilute accountability, lack the consistency of service across 32 separate systems and lack the flexibility to easily incorporate changes into existing structures. As I said, the appraisal process itself was undertaken with our partners, including COSLA. COSLA's response to the consultation, although expressing a preference for local authority delivery, noted, we are not suggesting all the elements being devolved fit within the local government family. I think that that is my answer to Ms Wells. I strongly welcome and agree with the no-profit motive in our social security system. I noticed recently that the DWP appeared to have been paid out— No, I'm going to put my foot down. I want questions. There's a question just coming. There's a question just coming. No, I want it now. With regard to overpayments for PIP assessment, does the minister agree with me that public funds should be used for public services and not for private profit? Thank you minister. Yes, I do. I call Richard Leonard, followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you. Of the 1,500 people who the minister has announced this afternoon will work in the agency, how many of them will be new jobs that is extra job newly created? Are those 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs? When will these jobs be created? And can I ask what about the old jobs? What about the current workforce providing these services? Will they be transferred and offered redeployment? That's how to do it, Mr Leonard. Thank you very much. In terms of the 1,500 jobs that will be employed, that's our estimate, the 1,500 estimated jobs that will be employed by the social security agency, in that sense there are new jobs because the social security agency will be new. The number of those jobs that currently may be undertaken by existing DWP staff working in Scotland is still to be determined because, as I said at the outset, the next step following our decision on the shape of the agency is to begin to design the specific jobs that will be required within our model and within our agency, particularly taking account of face-to-face delivery and the communication methods that I mentioned, and, of course, in discussion with PCS, the STUC and others. In terms of the transfer of existing DWP employees, it is, at this stage, not clear to us if a bulk—I think that the initials are COSOP, which is the public sector version or equivalent of TUPI. It isn't clear yet to us or to PCS whether or not the final shape of the agency, in terms of the jobs that are required, will match with any currently with the DWP, so we cannot yet say if the public sector equivalent of TUPI will apply, but, of course, as a Government, we have that commitment, so should it apply, then we will, of course, undertake that. Christina McKelvie, followed by Alison Johnstone. I welcome an announcement for the minister, and, as we know, when profit has a rolling assessment for benefits, claimants can suffer major stress, especially those who are disabled and suffering with mental health issues. Can I ask the minister if she believes that that decision will result in reduced anxiety among claimants, especially those who suffer from poor mental health, who have been stignified by this Tory Government? Of course, that will be one of the major tests of the decisions that we are taking. It is a degree to which what we intend to deliver will be significantly different from the experience that individuals currently have. I am convinced that it will be, and, in particular, the model of assessment that, with the benefit of the experience panels and the expert group and our partners in health and social care, we will devise, will be a model that will be better able to deal with mental health conditions, with fluctuating conditions, and we will be a model using the clinical experience that is directly relevant to the condition that the individual suffers from in our assessments in terms of disability benefits. I firmly believe that that is the case, and I would say that, should it ever be the position that what we are attempting to do in reality does not match our principles, and that is found to be the case. We will not do what the UK Government does, and that is change the rules because the upper tribunal disagreed with what you were doing. We will change our practice and always to meet our principles. Alison Johnstone, Olau Llywodraeth, Cole-Hamilton The minister and the previous question have highlighted the demeaning and distressing experience that so many people applying for benefits with regard to ill health and disability have experienced. The minister said that she is exploring using existing information. Does that mean that a letter from a GP would do away with the need for assessments in the system? I think that that would be a great step forward. What it means is that I am attempting in discussions with colleagues in health and social care and with the very welcome involvement of individuals with experience, for example Sam H, but also Dr Alan McDevitt from the BMA GP group in our expert advisory group, with their help and assistance in widening that to allied health professionals and others. I am attempting to secure evidence that currently exists in either health or social care in order to make the decision at the first point, one that determines eligibility based on self-assessment and supported by that additional, as I said, professionally founded evidence. I believe that if we can manage that and it is not straightforward, there are issues around confidentiality, around data protection and it would always require the individuals agreement to have their data shared, but if we can do that, then I am convinced that what we will then do is be able to make more decisions at first determination without the need for face-to-face assessment unless the individual themselves wish that face-to-face assessment to take place. That should speed up the whole process, but in addition it should allow us to use the right professionally qualified individual for the condition that the individual themselves, the applicant, is presenting with to undertake the assessment. All of that taken together are significant improvements on the current UK system. Alex Cole-Hamilton, followed by Ruth Maguire, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I thank the minister for early sight of her statement and indeed the inclusive approach that she has taken to adopting the new system. However, in the statement, there is no mention of the IT infrastructure that will underpin this. We have seen the failure of IT systems elsewhere in the public sector, despite years of development, not least in the £60 million i6 police system. Question, please. So what confidence does the minister have that the new system will have IT infrastructure capable of supporting a smooth transfer of powers and payments? Minister, I am grateful to Mr Cole-Hamilton for this, because it is an important question. The starting point that I want to make in my answer is that our approach in terms of IT is not to see the IT system as some standalone thing that sits outside our design of either the benefits and the assessment process and the way in which the agency will operate, but to be an integral part. I am pleased to advise the chamber that, in terms of the work of officials at this point up until now, all the teams are integrated. So we have working together digital specialists, IT transformation programme managers and policy officials, all working together to define a solution to this. We take the same step-by-step process to the IT build as we are to everything else, learning the lessons that have gone before and using individuals with experience of the current system to test out our emerging developing IT system. That alpha process is significantly advanced. We will continue to work it through so that, when we pass the legislation, however that is formed in this Parliament, and we begin to deliver on those benefits, we have a system that has been tried and tested, and we will then incrementally take over delivery of those benefits in order to continue to refine and develop that system, without putting 1.4 million people's financial support at risk. Ruth Maguire, followed by Bill Bowman. To hear the minister ruling out profit having a role in the assessment for benefits and that we are not following the failed assessment model of the Tories that caused so much stress and worry, can I ask the minister what evidence she looked at in coming to this decision and what role the experience panels will have as the assessment process is developed? I looked at the evidence of the current system in terms of how it is currently being delivered, and I looked most particularly at the evidence from our consultation exercise from the experience of those applying for benefits in the current system, but also those advising them in terms of those applications and critically from unions representing people currently working in the DWP and in that system. That is the evidence, broadly speaking, that I looked at. In terms of the experience panels, they will play a significant role in giving us the benefit of their direct personal experience, of course, but also of testing out for us, our policy and system development ideas, and of helping us to make sure that what we think is the right thing will, in practice, make that an efficient, accessible system. In the statement, the minister said that the annual running costs of the agency will be around £150 million. Can the minister tell me how much greater that is than the current system that is in operation in Scotland? Also, how does the figure compare to the running costs of the last significant agency set up by the Scottish Government? I think that she's only got time to ask one bit, so if you answer the first bit, please, so we're out of time. Well, there is no current system in Scotland, so the figures that I've given represent our estimate of the agency model as we have devised it. It's around just over 5% of what we expect to be the overall cost of the total service, including administering the benefits, and it is significantly less than the DWP's own administration cost for non-pension benefits, which is estimated at 6.3%. That has to conclude question. I apologise to Mr McGregor. This is what happens if people take too long.