 ond mae'n ddim yn dweud ag talks mewn cwmyselystd o'r bwrnol ac mae'n dwi'n dweud eich bwrnol yn gweld gweithio. Aouting the next item of business, stage 3, and we can now move to the next item of business, which is the stage 3 proceedings on the Welfare Fund's Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the martial list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. Fwrdd i'r gwrdd yw dod o'r Casparau Ffwrdd a'r Cyfleidol i'r gwrdd ffordd ddaeth a'u gweithio i mi gweithio'r cwestiynau, yr eich gwaith yn fytnop. Felly mae'n gweithio i'r cwestiynau i mi ddod, chwarae. Felly mae'n gweithio i'r gwrdd wych yn ddiwrl. Mae'n gweithio i'r gwrdd wych yn dupr cyflogion yn Yn chi nhw i'r cwestiynau i amendment 3 and 5. Mr Mackintosh, to move amendment 2, you can speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When an individual in crisis applies to the Scottish welfare fund because they've run out of money, as the bill stands before us, local authorities are not restricted in any way in how they decide to support that applicant. They can do so through an award of goods, vouchers or whatever type of in-kind payment they choose rather than in cash. The effect of the three amendments before us this afternoon would not be to change or restrict that range of options. It would simply be to give ministers the authority to produce regulations about the circumstances in which councils could make non-cash awards. Presiding Officer, what I would then hope to see is that power used to ensure that local authorities treat all applicants with dignity and respect by taking their circumstances, preferences and views into account in deciding on the nature of the award. I have no doubt that in many circumstances, when applying for a community care grant, when looking to move into a new flat, for example, an individual may welcome a moving impact with all the plates, cutlery, bedding, furniture and everything else to make a home habitable, but they should have some say in that. When it comes to crisis grants as opposed to community care grants, there is very strong evidence indeed that applicants would fare much better if given money rather than cards or vouchers. One of the strongest themes that emerged from the witnesses who gave evidence to the welfare reform committee was that turning to the state for support in times of difficulty made them feel judged and stigmatised. We heard direct evidence that for people using vouchers or tokens in local shops, the experience could be embarrassing, making them feel small and undermining their sense of dignity. Is that really what we are trying to achieve? Are we trying to make people feel worse or to give them a hand up in their time of need? If anyone in this chamber received their salary in furniture or tokens, in all probability they would feel offended or patronised, so why should we be surprised if applicants for welfare feel similarly? Surely our intention through our approach to welfare in the bill is to build up resilience by at the very least giving as much choice as possible in the hands of the recipient. Two years ago, a backbench Conservative tried to introduce a bill in the House of Commons that would see all benefit recipients paid using a card system through which the purchase of goods such as alcohol, cigarettes or Sky Television would be prohibited. He justified such an approach by talking about the idleness of the shirkers. I suspect that most liberally minded members here would be horrified at such a judgmental approach. How far away is that proposal from what happens day to day in Scotland? How easy would it be for some future administration to head in that direction? The anti-poverty organisations are clear that in kind awards from the interim welfare fund have already become the default position. Only half of all crisis grants and less than 20 per cent of community grant awards are made by way of cash, cheque or direct bank transfer. In committee, some SNP members tried to defend that practice by suggesting that it was more cost effective. We heard evidence that such awards often did not produce best value for the recipient and proved problematic and difficult as well as reducing independence. We heard, for example, that issuing vouchers instead of cash undermined a family's ability to get the best deals or the cheapest bargains by budgeting, spending payments or shopping around for goods. We heard that items that are currently awarded do not always meet the identified needs of the applicant and their household. In fact, disabled applicants and other people who are very specific needs suggested that they were far better placed than the local authority to identify and purchase items that met their own needs. For families in rural areas, the ability to find a shop that takes vouchers is likely to be limited as well as stigmatising. In health and social care, we are moving to self-directed support specifically because we recognise that the personalisation agenda is very good for people's health and wellbeing. We have recognised that it is good for people's health to have more control over the carers that they employ. Why cannot we employ apply exactly the same principle to welfare? The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations put it very well. For many, having cash to buy what they need is by far the best option, not least because it gives people some semblance of control and dignity at a time when they cannot control the factors that have led them into hardship. To my mind, whatever are fine words about the principles of respect and dignity that we wish to see underpinning our approach to welfare in Scotland, the real test comes in the practice. I was reminded at the weekend of the motto of the Poverty Truth Commission. Nothing about us without us is for us. The commission knows that poverty will never be truly addressed until those who experience it first-hand are at the heart of the process. The SNP's approach to the subject can at best be described as paternalistic. This is the first in a number of new powers over welfare. Let's get the foundations right from the start. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I really enjoyed here in Ken Macintosh speaking in support of his proposals there, because much of the argument that he chose to bring forward are exactly the same arguments that Conservatives are currently using for the universal credit and the fact that housing benefit, for example, should be paid directly to tenants rather than to their landlords in order to allow them to make choices about their priorities and what they do with their money. However, that inconsistency is one that I observe upon without influence on the broader argument. During the course of taking evidence on this matter, at which point I was mostly on the—yes, indeed. Ken Macintosh. Can I ask Mr Johnson what choice do recipients of housing benefit have when all of it has to go and rent? Alex Johnson. Let's carry on that argument at another time. I'd be delighted to do so. However, let's talk about the argument between cash and kind. During the course of evidence taking, during which time I was a member of the committee, it was obvious that Ken Macintosh had an agenda. That agenda is one that I understand. He was keen to ensure that, wherever possible, cash rather than kind was the means by which support was given to individuals who applied to local authorities for it. I take the view that, quite often, in certain circumstances, giving benefits or support in kind is the correct way to go. If you require a washing machine or a fridge and somebody can deliver one to you at short notice, that is entirely a desirable approach to take. Similarly, if you live in a rural community, as Ken Macintosh suggested was one example, then you may well be unable to source the relevant product or device locally at all. If you live in an island community, it's doubly as difficult. It's therefore essential in my view that local authorities are left with the discretion as to how they provide support, because no two local authorities are the same and no two circumstances are the same. As a consequence, many might prefer to be supported in kind, while others might prefer to be supported in cash. However, what can be delivered best locally is best left with the decision of the local authority. For that reason, I believe that it's essential that we do not constrain local authorities in their decision making process and ensure that the best decisions are made locally for local people under local circumstances. Therefore, I oppose the amendments in this section. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We have to remember that today we are discussing a £38 million fund that is having to deal with mitigating £6 billion worth of benefit cuts. I believe that we should be treating everyone with dignity and respect, and that's why I put forward an amendment regarding that at stage 2, which was accepted. We've also got to be realistic in terms of how far £38 million worth of funding can go. We've also got to be realistic in terms of how many people out there actually require help because of that £6 billion worth of benefit cuts. I, for one, want to see that £38 million stretch out as far as it possibly can to help as many people who are facing those cuts as we possibly can. I also believe that we should not be constraining councils and that I would hope that common sense and compassion would apply when it comes to the payment of money or the giving of goods to help individuals and families. From my experience in terms of those folks on the front line who are dealing with the Scottish welfare fund, common sense and compassion has come into play. During the course of the evidence-taking sessions, we heard from many folks how happy they were to receive goods rather than cash. We heard from folks who had left care, who had received furniture packages from the local authorities that they lived in, and they were quite happy with that situation. I do think again that common sense needs to apply. In terms of the goods aspect, in a briefing that we have from COSLA, it has said that there are benefits in terms of the provision of goods that extend beyond just the individuals and families that are concerned, but it has led to probably more being able to be done within the constraints of the £38 million fund. It highlights the creation of more than 140 full-time jobs as a direct result of the Scotland Excel framework in that area. It highlights more than 8,420 years of work experience that has been afforded to individuals throughout Scotland because of that. It talks about donations of furniture and flooring that have come in free of charge, including free personers, to allow installers and carpet fitters to help charitable organisations, assist vulnerable young adults to set up home. It talks about the opening of satellite stores to service councils, and that has provided substantial efficiency benefits, making deliveries from local premises leading to significant reduction in carbon footprint result in the savings of some 170 tonnes of CO2 emissions. It talks about recycling and reduction to landfill. Those are particularly good things. Mr Macintosh has painted a picture that nobody wants goods. That is not what has come out in evidence, but the key is the fact that we have a duty to help as many folk as we can within the constraints of that £38 million fund, which, as I said earlier, is having to mitigate £6 billion worth of benefit cuts. If Mr Macintosh was truly serious about resolving some of those problems, then his Labour colleagues would not have walked through the lobbies with the Tories the other week for £30 billion worth of more austerity cuts. I want to be clear at the start that the guidance on the Scottish welfare fund states that local authorities must ensure that items awarded meet the needs of applicants, for example where people need specific items because of a medical condition or their family make-up, and that is not a question of choice, but of need. I wish that we did not need a welfare fund, and applicants did not need the support that they do. However, the Scottish welfare fund is the safety net for people in need and, in most cases, it is their last resort. The minister will be aware that, in the quarterly report to 30 September, £1 million was provided to applicants for food, a disgrace in our society. Is there not a degree of urgency when it comes to feeding the wanes and feeding families who are hungry through the welfare fund and that we should do nothing to make the process any lengthier because urgent action is needed in those circumstances? Yes, absolutely. I agree with the member that it is a fund for dealing with people in emergency and crisis situations. It is a budget-limited fund operating in a time of increasing need, and, for this reason, it has to be able to help as many people as it can in the most efficient way possible. Local authorities have found, particularly with community care grants, that that means awarding goods rather than cash grants, and COSLA estimates that local authorities save around 20 per cent by using bulk buy versus cash payments. That is not to say that there is no choice. Local authorities provide choice where they can. In the majority of local authority areas, applicants have choices on a range of goods. They also have a choice in terms of fabrics, colour, curtains and tiles. They get a choice in that. Examples of where customers with specific needs have received different items to ensure what is awarded meets the need include a family with three children being offered a 10 kilogram washing machine, as opposed to a standard five kilogram washing machine. Large families can choose between bunk beds instead of single divans to allow more floor space for children to play. Disabled customers who request hard flooring to allow ease of use for wheelchairs would receive laminate flooring, not carpets, which could be unsuitable. Many applicants have been said by Kevin Stewart that they appreciate the service provided by local authorities. The delivery and installation of goods can relieve a lot of stress and anxiety that comes with having to arrange that for themselves, particularly at times of stress and vulnerability. Many simply cannot access shops to choose goods. To sum up, I would rather that local authorities were able to provide community care grants to 1,200 households by providing goods— A technical intervention. I note that this introduces an affirmative procedure for new secondary legislation. Given that that implies a 40-day delay before legislation can become effective, should the DPLR, the Delegated Powers Committee, not have had the opportunity to consider what form of secondary legislation should have applied in that example? I do not know how helpful the member's technical amendment was, but, in all of our work, we took on every recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that they made in terms of regulations and the affirmative procedure and introduced that at stage 2 of the proceedings. Back to where I was about, I would rather help 1,000 people to choose how they are helped, leaving 200 people with no help at all. It is about helping as many people as we can from the funds available. However, in respect of crisis grants, I consider cash or cash equivalent to be the most appropriate method of payment. I have committed to ensuring in regulations that cash is the default position for crisis grant payments unless it suits the applicant to have an award fulfilled in another manner. I therefore ask Ken Macintosh not to press amendment 2. First, Alex Johnson suggested that I have an agenda. I have an agenda. It is nothing to do with cash be kind. It is simply to empower individuals to make the most of their own abilities and to move away from a welfare system and a welfare reform programme that is punitive and undermines people's sense of their own self-worth. Alex Johnson went on to suggest that he was more concerned with constraining local authorities than helping individuals. Bizarrely, Kevin Stewart suggested that he agreed that he did not want to constrain local authorities. This is not about local authorities. I will give way to Mr Stewart. I think that you failed to miss the point because those folks who are on the front line actually have a real recognition of the difficulties that people are going through. What I said is that we should not constrain those folks and that common sense should apply. One of the key things that Mr Macintosh must answer in terms of his summing up is why it is that he pontificates here in certain regards, but his colleagues in Westminster go through the lobbies with the Tories to vote for more benefit cuts and more austerity in this country. It does not match up. I am not sure from Mr Stewart's work whether I failed or did not fail to miss the point in his opening remarks there. Just to clarify, Mr Stewart suggested that he was concerned about the constraint in this place on local authorities, not on individuals but local authorities. He went on in fact to talk about that we have to be realistic, we have to stretch money as far as possible. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal that I am making is going to be any less cost effective or any more expensive or would draw on public resources in any way than the current system. Alex Johnson, Mr Johnson. As we heard in evidence, if I give you the money to buy a washing machine, you can buy a washing machine with that. If I am a local authority and that registered, I can give you a washing machine and claim 20 per cent VAT back. How is that not more efficient? First of all, I do not know if Mr Johnson buys his own washing machine or does his own shopping. I am sorry, Mr Johnson. If I would suggest to you that you were to leave your spending decisions on your washing machine or any other purchase that you want to make to the local authority, do you believe that the local authority is better placed than you are—sorry to use the personal term here—I would ask Mr Johnson, does he believe that the local authority is better placed than he is to make purchases on his behalf? I do not believe that there is one person in this chamber who actually thinks that they would trust a council or any other body, no matter how much we admire that council, to purchase goods on their behalf. Why do we apply that double standard to local authority and benefit recipients? There is no logic behind it. It is not cost effective. It will not draw extra on the public purse. It is the idea that, somehow, the amendment would help—by refusing amendment, it would help 1,000 rather than 200. There is no evidence to suggest this whatsoever. This is a paternalistic, a producer-led mentality, and it is by recent—can I take the intervention, Presiding Officer, or not? Yes, but briefly please, because we are needing to make progress. I did not say help 1,000 less than 200. I said we could help another 200 people more by councils buying bulk goods. Instead of helping 1,200 people, there would help 1,000 if we did not buy the bulk goods. 200 people more can be helped, and I think that it is important that the fund has to stretch right. The minister has sent no evidence to back that up. Can I give the example that I did in committee? Can I give the evidence that I gave in committee just a few weeks ago in which instant neighbour in Aberdeen and Kevin Stewart's own neighbourhood pointed out that bulk purchasing of cheap, shoddily produced goods is not necessarily the sustainable solution that people wish. The Presiding Officer seems to agree with me that we have heard quite enough from Mr Stewart in this point. If he wants to side with the Tories yet again, as the SNP so often do to get its amendments or to defeat amendments, that is his choice. I have no doubt that the Government's attitude is just to strike a slightly different note to conclude. I have no doubt that the minister wishes to do the best by welfare recipients. I have no doubt what our intentions are, but if we do not allow ourselves to put the individual, the benefit climate at the heart of our thinking, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the current welfare system. I would take encouragement from her very last remarks that she will try to encourage local authorities to deliver cash and not in-kind payments, but I urge members to put that in legislation and I would move the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division, and this is the first division of the stage that I will suspend for five minutes. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 2. This will be a 32nd division, and members should cast their votes now, please. The result of the vote on amendment 2 is yes. 37 no, 80, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 3 in the name of Ken Macintosh. We are ready to debate with amendment 2. Ken Macintosh, to move or not. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division, and please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 3 is yes. 38 no, 80, there were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Before we move to group 2 under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 10 minutes. The question is that the time limit for debate be on amendments be extended by 10 minutes. Are we all agreed? No. We are now moved to group 2. I call amendment 4 in the name of Ken Macintosh and a group on its own. The effect of accepting amendment 4 would be to add families facing exceptional pressure to the legislative list of those who qualify for a community care grant. Just to clarify what that means, the channel poverty action group suggests that the kind of families and situations that we are talking about include lone parents with young children who need household items following the violent breakdown of a relationship, or in another example, families in which the sudden deterioration in the condition of a disabled child justifies an award for a washing machine. For those who did not follow our discussion on this amendment at stage 2, the Interim Scottish Welfare Fund lists five types of qualifying criteria. Four of those categories are explicitly described on the face of the bill before us today, and the only group that is omitted, the only group not mentioned at all in the bill, are families facing exceptional pressure. In other words, under the legislation as drafted, someone facing the possibility of prison would qualify for support, but someone looking after the disabled husband or child would not. Someone at risk of becoming homeless would qualify, but someone fleeing domestic violence would not. At stage 2, the minister presented two arguments. She seemed to suggest that, as an alternative to accepting our amendment, she could include families facing exceptional pressure in guidance but not on the face of the bill. I would ask her what authority she draws on to be able to name this group in regulations but not in statute. If the minister believes that the section 30 order passed two years ago does not give her the power to name families facing exceptional pressure as a qualifying category in this bill, she has no power to direct or guide local authorities through regulations either. Conversely, if the minister believes that she can use guidance to help this particular group of people, she should do so clearly in legislation, giving families equal status and equal priority with other vulnerable groups. The minister presented a second argument at committee stage. She suggested that what data there was indicated that the interim scheme was currently successfully targeting families facing exceptional pressure. The trouble with that argument is that the interim scheme specifically includes this category on an equal footing with the other four categories qualifying for assistance. We do not have an issue with the interim scheme. It is only this bill before us today that demotes vulnerable families and clearly indicates to those who will have to interpret the law that they are not on a par with others needing assistance. In fact, we are in the bizarre situation where under the old DWP social fund system the needs of vulnerable families were recognised. Under the interim system, their needs continue to be recognised but under the new legislation as drafted before us today, they are omitted. Whatever the minister's intentions, as the SCVO has clearly stated, such a situation would give rise to a risk that local authorities or future Governments might deprioritise applications from such families in order to protect their budgets or increase the share of community care grants available to other categories of applicants. Perhaps I can ask the minister to clarify one other point in her reply. At committee meeting, she highlighted her concerns over the competence of this amendment. One of the committee members then suggested that the whole bill could fall if we were therefore to indicate our support. Can I ask the minister to clarify that that is not the case and it does not do our discussion any favours to hyperbrolise the potential impact of one disputed clause? The poverty alliance has highlighted that the minimum cost of raising a child in 2013 rose by 4 per cent, while the minimum wage rose by less than 2 per cent and for those needing support, benefits were capped at 1 per cent. Quite simply, families are under ever-increasing pressure. They have little or nothing in the way of savings to call on and they are relying on us. They need to know that they can turn to the Scottish welfare fund for support in a crisis or in an emergency. This amendment has the support of the SCVO, Poverty Alliance, Inclusion Scotland, CPAC, One Parent Family Scotland and Care Scotland. I urge the chamber to support it and I move amendment 4 in my name. Many thanks. Given the constraints in time, I am afraid that I am going to have to limit speakers to one minute in this debate. Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Something that really frustrates me is when this Parliament is not given the competence to do something. Obviously, I think that the Parliament should have the competence over everything that affects the people of Scotland. What we have clearly been told is that this amendment would take section 2 beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and could risk the bill receiving royal assent. What I want to see is protection for families who are facing exceptional pressure. I hope to hear from the minister how we are able to do that, but what I do not want to do is I do not want to risk this bill becoming law. Mr McIntosh mentioned things like the minimum wage that we do not control. He mentioned the benefit cap affecting families. It is rather strange that his party voted for that benefit cap in Westminster. What we are hearing here today from the Labour Adventures is hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy. Thank you, and I will call on Tavish Scott. Order, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wonder if I could just raise two questions for the minister in line with Ken McIntosh's remarks. The first is the legal question of guidance versus the placing something in statutes. There seems to be a fundamental point there in terms of the consistency of the bill. I am sure that she would want to clarify that for Parliament in terms of the approach that she wants to take on all of the clauses that Parliament is debating this afternoon. Secondly, as Ken McIntosh also mentioned, the child poverty action group and indeed many other groups have looked for clarity around the Government's position on why this could be considered, could be considered by some lawyers to be outside the powers of this bill. If that's a case and if it's the case, is this not a case where under the Smith agreement, the very sensible constructive arrangements that are being put in place to ensure that Governments can resolve those issues should not be brought to bear? Finally, Alex Johnson. We took a lot about welfare issues in this Parliament, but today when we talk about the welfare fund Scotland bill, we are talking about the safety net that lies below the safety net. We are talking about the last line of defence. It is therefore essential that no one should be allowed to fall through it. Ken McIntosh has clearly identified a group that she believes were covered by previous provisions, were covered by the interim Scottish welfare fund, but yet are not covered by the proposals that we take today. Kevin Stewart is concerned that the Queen might be somehow offended by this and not grant royal assent. What I would say is that by stage 3 of this process we should have had more clarity from the Scottish Government about exactly what it is that they mean and not still dithering about whether it may or may not be competent. I therefore think that, unless the Minister can come up with a very good answer, it would be sensible for this Parliament to proceed today by supporting this amendment. The intention behind this amendment has been the subject of much discussion throughout the passage of the bill. I know that many stakeholders and MSPs in the chamber would like to add families under exceptional pressure as an explicit group in the bill. While I may have liked to be able to include a specific reference to families under exceptional pressure on the face of the bill, as as Kevin Stewart alluded, is with many decisions about welfare it is not within the gift of the Scottish Parliament without having regard to the limits of competence. The qualifying people in the bill are mirrored what is on the section 30 order and that is what we have got to stay within that to keep the competence of this bill. To have accepted the amendment, we would have taken the bill out of the competence of the Scottish Parliament. I think that the risk of the bill not gaining royal assent—it is not about the Queen, it is about the risk of this bill not gaining royal assent—is just too great. It would have resulted in the funds having no statutory basis and applicants having no right to an independent review by the ombudsman. That is not to say that we will not try to amend the terms of the legislation in future. The Smith commission agreed that this parliament should have new powers to make discretionary payments in any area of welfare. Clause 18 of the draft clauses published by the UK Government goes some way towards delivering that. We do not think, however, that it goes far enough and I have asked my officials to start discussions with the Scotland office about widening its scope appropriately so that this parliament can then revisit the terms of the act flowing from this bill in light of the required widening competence. In the meantime, my officials are already working with CPAG to make sure that families under exceptional pressure get due regard in the welfare funds guidance. As I said at stage 2, I intend to make explicit reference to families under pressure in the regulations that will follow the bill, and that is a subsection of the wider group covered. Having said all of that, I would like to take this opportunity to put beyond doubt the capacity of welfare funds to support low-income families facing exceptional pressures. As I said at stage 2, there is no barrier now, not under the permanent arrangements by virtue of the bill's wording, to prevent families under exceptional pressure from accessing welfare funds. Regulations and guidance will ensure that applications from that group continue to be given priority. That means that families under exceptional pressure will continue to be able to access welfare funds in the same way as they do now. Indeed, the Scottish welfare fund statistics show that, under the interim scheme, 38 per cent of households receiving community care grants contain children, in comparison to 32 per cent under the social fund. The Scottish welfare fund figures for crisis grants is 30 per cent compared with 16 per cent of social fund crisis loans. For the reasons that I have outlined above, I ask Ken Macintosh not to press this amendment. Given the questions over competence, it would be helpful to members who have not been part of the committee scrutiny of the bill if they could indicate whether the amendment's presence on the martial list indicates that it has been ruled by the Presiding Officer as competent. As members will be aware, whether or not the subject matter of an amendment is within the legislative competence of the Parliament is not one of the criteria which will determine an amendment's admissibility. I hope that is helpful. I now call on Ken Macintosh to wind up and press a withdrawal of your amendment as briefly as possible. Those comments were slightly helpful. Perhaps it would be more helpful to Mr Harvie to know that the amendment was drawn up by the Parliament's own lawyers, so its competence is in no doubt. I do not know if Mr Harvie has ever served under what he used to be known as the sublegs of committee, but the number of acts that go through this Parliament, which are challenged by the Scottish Parliament's lawyers as being incompetent and ultra-veries, every single week, every single week, and the Government blithely ignores those ultra-veries claims every week and says that they will not be challenged. They present this particular argument and say that they will not be challenged. I say to the minister who is going to challenge this. Who is going to challenge this particular argument? Please confirm to me that we are dealing with two completely different matters here. There is an absolute difference between something that is competently put down in an amendment and something that is competent under the Scotland act. Would you confirm that those two things are completely different and that Ken Macintosh is talking a lot of nonsense? As you will be aware, the competence in this set of circumstances is a matter of debate and the Presiding Officer has made her ruling on it. Mr Macintosh, please resume. I would suggest, and I would ask the minister yet again, who exactly is going to challenge the competency or otherwise of this particular order. We are trying to include families under exceptional pressure on the face of the bill. Does the minister believe that families will challenge this? Does the minister believe that benefit claimants will challenge this? Does the minister believe that Mr Stewart is far from being challenged this? I have order, please, to allow Mr Macintosh to make his points. On to what Mr Macintosh is saying there, asking our families going to challenge. Of course, I do not think that, but what we are saying is that this is out with the competence of what we are able to do just now. I do not want to put the bill under threat because of that, and families under exceptional pressure are not excluded from help throughout the permanent welfare fund bill that we are putting through today. Ken Macintosh, you have to come to your conclusion very quickly now, please. Bruce Crawford, the point of order. Would the Presiding Officer please confirm that it is actually the advocate general who would decide upon whether a matter is contravenes the Scotland Act or not and the power and responsibility lies in that office? It is highly likely that if a body of legislation that was passed here did not meet his particular rules, he would rule against that act. Once a bill has been passed, there are various processes in place as set out in the Scotland Act 1998 that may be initiated if someone views a bill or any of its provision has been out with the Parliament's legislative competence. Somebody who might use the bill might offer a challenge. Well, Mr Crawford, I put it to you exactly who. Perhaps Mr Crawford would get on his feet again and tell me who is going to challenge the competence. Mr Crawford seems to suggest that his Government's own advocate general is going to challenge the competence of a measure presented by this Parliament to help families under exceptional pressure. Oh, I'll take Mr Salmond. I'll take Mr Salmond, if that's all right. Mr Salmond. I would have thought that a parliamentarian of Ken Macintosh had a long experience. We know that an advocate general is a post of the Westminster Government. Not a point of order, but thank you. Mr Macintosh, you must close within the next 20 seconds. Thank you very much. I was quite pleased to hear Mr Salmond make a contribution to this debate, given that he supports the welfare cap that Mr Stewart talked about just a few minutes earlier, but I was delighted to see him come in. Thank you. Order! Order! Are you pressing or withdrawing your amendment, Mr Macintosh? I see the backbenchers seem very comfortable to sit on for Mr Salmond when challenged. Can I just suggest to the minister that she did not answer any of my questions? Press or withdraw your amendment, Mr Macintosh? Very well, Presiding Officer. I press this amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment number 4 is yes, 54, no, 62. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 5, in the name of Ken Macintosh, already debated with amendment 2. Mr Macintosh, to move or not move. The amendment is moved. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment number 5 is yes, 37, no, 80. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. As we have passed the agreed time limit under rule 9.8.4A, brackets A, I consider it necessary to allow the debate on group 3 to continue beyond the limit in order to allow those with the right to speak on amendments in the group to do so. In that case, that will only be the minister and Mr Macintosh. We now move to group 3, and I call on Ken Macintosh to speak to amendment 6. I hope that amendment 6 is slightly less contentious or provokes slightly less reaction than the other two seem to have. The effect of amendment 6 would be to ensure that decisions on applications for crisis grants should be made immediately where possible and if not immediately by the end of the next working day in any event. As some members will know from evidence to the welfare reform committee, under the interim Scottish welfare fund, local authorities have 48 hours in which to process a claim. However, under the previous DWP scheme, the deadline was 24 hours. The issue first came to light when figures were presented to the committee that revealed that the interim fund was not meeting applicants' needs as timuously as the previous scheme. For example, the figures for the old DWP crisis loan system show that the payments made in two days were made in 98.5 per cent of cases, compared with just 94 per cent for the Scottish welfare fund. The point was picked up by a number of voluntary and anti-poverty organisations. Couriers, for example, highlighted their concern that if a 48-hour deadline were to be applied, an application that is made on Thursday or Friday might not be processed until later on Monday after the weekend. The strongest evidence probably came from child poverty action, however, who said that, in the experience of our advisers, applications for crisis loans made over the phone were processed very quickly by the DWP. Delay was sometimes caused by difficulties getting through in the phone in the first place, but once connected, the process was generally very quick. Decisions were often made at the end of the initial phone call, with the claimant given an office from which an award could be collected on the same day. They went on, and that also happens with some, though not all, Scottish welfare fund crisis grant applications. CEPA concluded that there is no implicit reason that processing times should be longer in relation to crisis grants that are under the new system than they were for crisis loans. They are also concerned that the reference to a 48-hour time limit once all relevant information is received may lead some decision makers to request evidence when it is not needed. Although that is clearly not the minister's intention, the 48-hour backstop will become a target that will inadvertently have the effect of slowing down the process rather than speeding it up. In a remarks to the welfare reform committee, the minister suggested that she was going to consult actively in this area. She intended to think carefully about the issue before including in regulations. Can I ask the minister if she has a time to think about this matter further and whether she can share any of those thoughts with the chamber? If not, I would urge members to support amendment 6, in my name, which would replace the current 48-hour backstop with the original 24-hour timescale. Okay, thank you, Presiding Officer. We have been clear from the start of the interim fund that speed of processing is key because of the risk of harm to applicants. The guidance and interim fund requires local authorities to process crisis grants as soon as possible, and it requires that urgent applications for living expenses be prioritised. The maximum processing time of two working days is to make it clear that long processing times are not acceptable, and it is in no way a target or a waiting time. We also know that, under the interim fund, 64 per cent of crisis grants are processed on the same working day and a further 24 per cent are processed the next day. Only yesterday, in a visit to a Scottish welfare fund team, I spoke to the staff who demonstrated their dedication and commitment in dealing with all the crisis grant applications to process them within the day, especially on Fridays, so that applicants are not left in crisis for extended periods. As Ken Macintosh said, I indicated at stage 2 that I would be consulting on 24-hour processing times for crisis grants in regulations, but I have considered that further and looked at the amendment again. The amendment supports the approach that we have taken in our current guidance, and it also fits with performance of local authorities in processing crisis grants. Given the level of support of the amendment from stakeholders and from across the chamber, I am happy to accept it at this amendment. I was not optimistic. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We now move to group 4. I call amendment 7, in the name of Margaret MacDougall, in a group on its own. Margaret MacDougall, to move and speak to amendment 7, please. The amendment seeks to amend Kevin Stewart's amendment past at stage 2 in respect for and dignity of applicants for assistance and adds that the particular needs and choices of applicants are to be considered by the local authority. The amendment ensures that local authorities can make awards in cash rather than in kind, so that recipients can have some responsibility of choice and control in their lives. At stage 2, it was argued that introducing choice would put pressure on local authorities' budgets. However, I would argue that treating people with dignity and respect is about allowing them to exercise their right of choice, and this amendment ensures that a payment can either be made in kind or monetary value. There is no reason that a crisis grant grant would cost the local authority any more because the award is in money value rather than in kind. It would be cost-neutral. The amendment is also supported by the Poverty Alliance, who stated that the refusal to trust applicants with monetary grants increases stigma and can make the applicant feel like they are receiving handouts rather than accessing legitimate support from the state's social security system. We believe that it is important that all decisions are made around what is best for the individual and the applicant's voice should be heard through the decision-making process. In evidence, the welfare committee heard of many incidents where lack of choice resulted in increased stigma for the individual living in poverty. SCVO argued that the argument against choice focused primarily on administrative convenience. The bill will be the benchmark for any future benefits legislation in the Scottish Parliament, so it should be an exemplar for welfare legislation in Scotland. As such, it needs to show that it has the needs and choice of the individual at the centre of that legislation. Being allowed choice is how you are supported must drive the fund and the supporting legislation. I hope that the Scottish Government sees fit to support the amendment at stage 3 to remove the stigma and support that applicants write to choice. I would argue that cost is not an issue as this amendment to include choice is cost-neutral. I move the amendment in my name. Alex Johnstone, I'll wait. Seeking clarification from the mover of this amendment, if the purpose of this amendment is merely to ensure that flexibility exists within the system, then I can understand why we would wish to pursue that, but is it the intention through this amendment to bring in the guaranteed right of an applicant to have payment from a local authority in cash if they make that choice? Is that the intention of the amendment or am I misreading it? I would just echo the point that this bill, this is about getting the principles right behind this bill, this is the first of a series of bills implementing a new welfare system in Scotland and it's very important that we get the principles right. The minister accepted an amendment at stage 2 from Kevin Stewart on dignity and respect, but she left out the needs and choices of the individual and yet this is very much in keeping with Scottish Government policy. The self-directed support act talks about individuals being able to make an informed choice. The public bodies joint working act through integration principles encourages integrated health and social care services to take account quote of the particular needs and circumstances of individuals. The NHS quality strategy mentions improved patient choice. Can I just ask the minister what is wrong with having the word choice as a principle in this bill? It's always been a priority that welfare funds should be delivered in such a way that the dignity of welfare fund users is preserved and that's why I was happy to accept the welfare reform committee, to accept the amendment put forward by Kevin Stewart. That amendment at stage 2 accorded with my view that regardless of the funds available, welfare services should be delivered with respect and dignity and this is now clearly established in the bill. The issues that are relevant to this amendment have already been covered during the debate on the group 1 amendments that were brought forward by Ken Macintosh. As I said, while we were debating those amendments, it's simply not the case that allowing increased choice for applicants would not lead to increased cost for local authorities. Local authorities would have higher administrative costs involved with it, with discussing choices, with applicants' potential queries, change of mind and even getting the cash in some instances. I'm talking here about community care grants to get the cash out at the levels that are required. There's additional administrative charges in that. However, the Scottish welfare fund is a budget-limited fund operating in a time of increasing need and it needs to be able to help as many people as it can in the most efficient way possible. As I said earlier, local authorities have found in community care grants in particular that they can help more people awarding goods rather than cash grants. I've already made clear in the earlier debate that, when it comes to crisis grants, it will introduce in regulation that the default position for crisis grants should be cash. As I said, broadly, local authorities save about 20 per cent by using bulk buy versus cash payments. We can't discount that and it can't be done unless local authorities can guarantee certain volumes. It was also very clear that, where specific items are required, local authorities should be providing those. That is in the current guidance and will be in the statutory guidance that we issue under the bill. I don't want to go over all that ground again now but I'm happy to restate that we'll look again at the guidance for the permanent arrangements to see if there's more that we can do to ensure that, where applicants have a genuine need for a particular product, there's a clear understanding that that this should happen. I was happy to support Kevin Stewart's amendment at stage 2, which I do believe captured the essence of what stakeholders have been calling for without bringing additional pressure to bear in local authority budgets. Amendment 7 does not achieve the same. I urge Margaret MacDougall to wind up and pressur with draw your amendment, please. Thank you. In answer to Alex Johnson's question on whether, if an individual chooses a monetary crisis loan, the local authority must provide it. I think that was the register of what you were asking. The amendment allows for choice to best suit the needs of that individual in discussion with the local authority. There will be circumstances when the individual's choice will be overruled by the local authority. For example, if that particular individual perhaps has a history of losing their purse, which is quite often why a crisis loan is given, or there is a health issue with that particular individual, choice at least would be discussed. There has been wide support for the amendment with the third sector, and there is no reason that a crisis grant, as I said before, would cost the local authority any more because the award is in monetary value rather than in kind. It would be cost-neutral, so there would be no additional cost to the local authority. I have heard nothing in the arguments that make me want to reconsider my amendment, so I pushed the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division, and this will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote in amendment 7 is yes, 37, no 79. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 5. We are now extraordinarily tight for time for the afternoon. I call amendment 8 in the name of Margaret MacDougall in a group on its own. Margaret MacDougall to move and speak to amendment 8 briefly please. Thank you. This amendment relates to annual reporting, and it requests that the Scottish Government should prepare an initial report giving information about the delivery of welfare funds. The initial report should be laid before Parliament on or before 30 June 2016, with subsequent reports being laid before Parliament on or before the same date annually. The initial report should include information on the following, the amount paid out to the welfare fund, the number of applications for assistance in pursuance of section 2 that have been received, and the number of applications where financial assistance was provided and where assistance was provided in kind, and the number of applications rejected. This information is the bare minimum that the report must include, and the Scottish Government can include additional information if it considers it appropriate. Given that this is the first real piece of welfare legislation created by the Scottish Parliament, it is correct that we set procedure for proper review. Parliament should be able to scrutinise how the welfare fund is performing and its effect on risk and annual reporting would allow that. This amendment is in line with the Scottish Parliament principles, as it promotes openness and transparency, and it is a matter of good practice to make sure that those statistics are kept on record and reported to the Parliament annually. The amendment is also being called for by the SCVO, which states that, given the critical nature of the fund and the concerns outlined above, both government and parliamentary review are vital. We support proposed amendments for review that are submitted by Scottish Labour. At the very least, we seek a strong assurance from ministers that the fund will be comprehensively reviewed and can be scrutinised by the Parliament under the provisions of the Welfare Reform Further Provision Scotland Act 2012. Again, the amendment was voted down at stage 2, but I hope that the Scottish Government will reconsider, more so given the recent announcements regarding reporting on NHS statistics. I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks, and I'll call on Alex Johnstone. Less than one minute, please. Very briefly, Deputy Presiding Officer, the information requested in this amendment is information that should be easily available to the Government. It is not onerous to record and the publication deadline and timetable which is set out, I think, gives them plenty of time to achieve that. It would foster and underpin discussion and policy development on the scheme by both Government and other parties. I think that it would be valuable if that information were published annually according to the amendment. Tavish Scott, as briefly as possible, please. I would like to support Margaret McDoodle's amendment for two reasons. The first is that the Smith agreement will create more opportunity in this area for new developments of this Parliament that will wish to take forward. Therefore, it will be in the interests of the Government to introduce a new form of transparency to their policy making and indeed to Parliament's scrutiny of that. The second thing is if we don't do it now, Audit Scotland will recommend that in three years' time and we will end up having to do it. We are putting a new system in place for welfare. I believe that we should have the information to be able to scrutinise and hold that system to account, and particularly that Parliament should have a formal role to play in that. I would just remind the minister that, despite the heated debate of our heated interchange so far, this has been a generally consensual broad agreement about this bill, but there are concerns, for example, about the underspend of resources in certain areas, about keeping by some local authorities and about whether or not information about protected characteristics has been gathered. I urge the minister to accept the idea of a process of review and to give Parliament a role in that. As has been said, stage 2, I agreed with the views of the welfare reform committee stage 1 report that recommended that an on-going monitoring was preferable to a review clause. My view on this issue remains the same. Our statistical monitoring framework already captures the information that the amendment suggests that we lay in a report before the Scottish Parliament. The statistical monitoring that we currently publish on a quarterly basis provides an excellent mechanism for highlighting any issues that arise, such as those outlined by Ken Macintosh in the operation of the Scottish Welfare Fund. Many of the discussions that the Welfare Reform Committee has had since the welfare funds have launched have come directly from analysis of the statistical reports. Alongside the case observation work that we have been carrying out with COSLA, the statistical publications have allowed for both local authorities and the Scottish Government to respond to issues as they arise. At stage 2, I also highlighted the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and independent reviews of disputed local authority decisions that he will undertake. Those independent reviews will also provide a mechanism for scrutiny of the operation of individual local authorities and any patterns and complaints and reviews that indicate unintended consequences of regulations and guidance. I also fully expect that the workings of the permanent arrangements will be subject to an on-going parliamentary scrutiny through the committee process and future consideration of Scottish Government budgets. It would be very surprising if the permanent arrangements were not to be subject to scrutiny as the Scottish Parliament considers Scottish Government plans for implementing the new welfare related powers that will flow from the Smith commission process. In summary, I believe that sufficient mechanisms exist through the Parliament, Scottish Government statistical publications and from the input that we all have from the third sector in Scotland to mean that an on-going requirement to lay an annual review in Parliament is not going to add significantly to the knowledge that we have on how welfare funds are operating. In fact, it could even divert scarce resources from the established continuous improvement work that is taking place. On this basis, I ask Margaret MacDougall to withdraw her amendment. Margaret MacDougall, I am afraid that I am going to have to ask you to press or withdraw your amendment, please. I thank Alex Johnson and Tavish Scott for their support. I hope that the minister would have supported a specific report given the importance of the welfare fund and of this bill. I push the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed though. Therefore, there will be a division and this will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. As a result of the vote, amendment 8 is yes. 50 knows 66. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 6. I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister and a group on its own minister to speak to and move amendment 1. This is a technical amendment that removes a provision that would have related to a section of the bill that was proposed as a stage 2 amendment. The stage 2 amendment in question was withdrawn, so there is no requirement for the provision at section 6g52cd that this amendment removes. I move amendment 1. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That ends consideration of amendments. We now move the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12485 in the name of market burges on the welfare fund Scotland bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on minister market burges to speak to and move the motion minister of 10 minutes, please. I am delighted to open this stage 3 debate in the welfare fund Scotland bill. I would like to thank again Michael McMahon and all the members past and present of the welfare reform committee for their scrutiny of the bill and of the interim arrangements that are currently in place. This bill is important in a number of ways. It is the first substantive welfare bill to come before the Scottish Parliament and it will provide a permanent reliable safety net for people on low incomes. The bill sets out the high-level framework for welfare funds and it lays down some important boundaries that it will operate within. For example, the bill express rules out using welfare funds to provide loans to applicants. It also requires local authorities to ensure that welfare fund customers are treated with respect and that their dignity is preserved. That is an important marker for how this Government wants to take forward the new welfare-related powers that are coming to this Parliament. The detail of how welfare funds will operate, which we intend to be similar to the existing interim Scottish welfare fund, will be set out in regulations and guidance that we will consult on in the summer. By bringing forward the bill, we have demonstrated a long-term commitment to the Scottish welfare fund and allowed the option of having an independent review of cases by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The funding for the welfare funds can also be ring fenced if required. The approach is in direct contrast to the position in England where there is no equivalent systematic local welfare scheme in operation. I am proud to be part of a Government that is taking a distinctive approach to protect vulnerable people in Scotland. At stage 1, the welfare reform committee took evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals. In its testament to the successful partnership approach that we have adopted with COSLA and to the hard work that is put in by local authorities in developing the service over its short life, the majority of the evidence that the committee heard at stage 1 was positive. I would also like to put in record my thanks to all those working in the Scottish welfare teams across the country. I have visited a number of those teams and just see how hard those working there are putting committed to the service that they are providing to their local community. There have, of course, been some amendments to the bill and the largest number of amendments at stage 2 were planned in advance due to the timing of our discussions with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. They relate to the detail of his role in undertaking independent reviews of local authority decisions and welfare fund applications. That independent secondary review function is key in getting the right decision for individual applicants and in holding local authorities to account. It will provide a national overview of how the fund is working. That feedback will give policy makers an insight into the decisions that are being made and how they relate to policy intent. Another key amendment to the bill was the removal of section 3, which is related to outsourcing. That was originally included to allow for contracting with external partners for local authorities to contract with external parties to provide the services on behalf of them at some future time. Many of our stakeholders were clear in their views that private sector companies should not be allowed to administer welfare funds and I had never envisaged that it would be private sector companies that would do that. However, it was not possible to specify in the face of the bill that private sector firms could not bid for those contracts and the bill was therefore amended to remove this section. We also took on board the views of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee by establishing a right of review of a decision by a local authority on the face of the bill. We acknowledged that, as the bulk of the detail on how welfare funds will operate, will be set out in regulations and guidance that regulations under the bill should be subject to affirmative procedure. We come back to the families under exceptional pressure. Of course, there have been discussions around many amendments that were proposed and, again, we had the debate on that earlier. I know that many stakeholders and MSPs in the chamber wanted to add families under exceptional pressure as an explicit group in the face of the bill. The competence issue surrounding amendments relating to families under exceptional pressure has been well rehearsed and I do not want to go over it again, but I do want to restate that families under exceptional pressure will continue to be able to access welfare funds in the same way that I will take an intervention. Michael McMahon I thank the minister for trying to clarify the situation, but she is doing so making the situation more bizarre. If it is the case that, currently under the Scottish welfare fund, families under exceptional pressure can access that fund, if an amendment was to create a difficulty for the passage of the bill, all that would happen is that the welfare fund would continue to operate as it does, and families under exceptional pressure would continue to access that fund. Why were you so resistant to having that in the bill? I think that there are several things that the Scottish Parliament has always put forward, competent legislation, and we want to continue to do that. We will continue to do that, and I think that that is important for the Scottish Parliament. However, I also think that the interim arrangements that we have just now with COSLA are operating in a discretionary basis. We have no arrangement that that would continue further, and we are already aware that some councils are now coming out of COSLA. We want to make sure that we get that in a statutory footing. It is important that we get it in a statutory footing. It is important that we get the legal right of review into that process as well, and that is what we are currently doing with the ombudsman. That does not exist under the interim scheme, and that is why it is important to get that in a statutory footing. We get the legislation right, and we make it very clear in our attention at the outset that families under exceptional pressure are not excluded from accessing the permanent arrangements. We have been clear on that from the start. We are in discussion with some of the third sector groups on that just now, and they understand the issue involved, and their concern is that we make sure that families under exceptional pressure are not excluded from accessing funds. All of the information that we have is that they are not currently excluded, and they will not be excluded in the statutory fund. As I said earlier, on the exceptional pressure of families under exceptional pressure, the statistics show that 38 per cent of households receiving community care grants contain children in comparison to 32 per cent under the social fund, and also in terms of crisis grants, 30 per cent compared to 16 per cent under the social fund. Another area that has been subject to much debate is the provision of goods versus grants for community care grants, and how that links to choice for individuals. First, I would restate that the guidance on the Scottish welfare fund states that local authorities must make sure that the item awarded meets the need of the applicant. For example, where people need adapted or specialist items because of a particular condition or medical need or their family make-up, that item should be provided. It is not a question of choice, that is need, and that need should be met. However, the Scottish welfare fund is a budget limited fund, operating in a time of increasing need, and for that reason it needs to be able to help as many people as it can in the most efficient way possible. Local authorities have found that that means awarding goods rather than cash grants, particularly for community care grants. I do not accept that providing choice would not lead to additional costs, and local authorities have given us information on that as well. It could be a higher administrative cost for the local authority. However, I have said, and I will reiterate it again, that in terms of crisis grants for short term to meet immediate needs, we will be looking at the default position for that to be cash payment or cash equivalent payments. Many applicants also tell us how much they appreciate the service provided by local authorities with the delivery and installation of the goods that relieve a lot of stress, and often they can have that all organised and arranged prior to moving into a house. Just on administration costs for local authorities, in evidence, for example, East Dunbartonshire received £43,970 in administration costs. The total cost of running the Scottish welfare fund in the area last year was £224,232. The funding gap had to be made up by the local authority. There is a real issue for the funding of the welfare fund and how it is administrated by local authorities, which puts pressure on them to make sure that they are looking for, well, it is not always best value, they are just looking for the cheapest option. The minister is completely out of time now, if you have come to us please. Presiding Officer, I think that Margot MacDougall has answered my point. Her amendment earlier and Ken Macintosh's earlier were going to put even more pressure on local authorities. They are telling us that, not them, but local authorities are telling us that in evidence, so they are helping as many people as they can in their area in the most cost-efficient way as possible. For community care grants, that is very often by providing goods and not cash. I certainly would rather that local authorities could help as many people as possible. Delivery of the current system is generally viewed in a positive fashion, and most people have told us and the committee that local authorities are the right people to deliver the fund and to welcome the independent review that we were delivered. The approach to the bill has in the whole been very consensual, and I look forward to working with members' parties across the chamber to ensure that regulations and guidance under the bill help to deliver the best possible outcomes for welfare fund customers. I move the welfare fund Scotland bill. I now call on Michael McMahon. Up to seven minutes, please, less would be more today, as we are very, very tight for time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I would very much like to welcome what I am sure will be the passing into law this afternoon of the welfare fund Scotland bill. At the outset of my contribution, I would like to thank the clerks of the welfare reform committee who helped to get the bill to this point so efficiently. I am also grateful to the witnesses who informed the deliberations on the bill as it progressed through Parliament. Having heard all the evidence, I am absolutely no doubt that placing the interim Scottish welfare fund on a statutory basis has been the right thing to do. The message that this Parliament has heard is that the interim fund has benefited many vulnerable people across Scotland. The Scottish welfare fund has had its problems, it is by no means perfect, but, as the minister said, it has evidently been a comparative success. Let us first of all focus on the positives. Local authorities told us that creating a statutory duty will enhance the ability to retain staff members who bring expertise and knowledge to the practical implementation of the fund. Strange as it may seem, what is no longer in the bill is also a positive outcome, as the bill no longer allows for outsourcing. However, the potential benefits that can be derived from joint working between local authorities, such as economies of scale, increased purchasing power, sharing best practice and increased consistency will remain in place, and that can only be welcome. Another constructive aspect of the bill concerns placing the review of decisions in the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, and to have that body take on the new role as a second tier review body. Views on this role were split between local authorities who thought that it would be more consistent with the principle of local self-governance for secondary reviews to remain in local authority control. The third sector, however, believes that the use of the SPSO will make appeals independent, consistent and impartial, and the Scottish Labour Party agrees with the third sector on that, and our agreement with the third sector does not end there. However, that brings us to where our disappointments with the bill still persist. It is completely beyond my comprehension as to why the Government has remained so resistant to the principle of dignity being enshrined in the bill. While the bill sets out the circumstances in which a local authority can provide assistance, the failure of the Scottish Government to agree to the amendment that would see the needs of families facing extreme financial pressure added to those circumstances is a bit of disappointment. The bill clearly addresses needs that are the result of a sudden crisis, but many families have needs that are an on-going part of their everyday life. The DWP's social fund had a category for such families under exceptional pressure. While I recognise that the Government's assurances that this is a group of people that they want the fund to support, its absence from the face of the bill means that it is a commitment that comes now without a guarantee. That is why Labour agrees with the third sector and has argued that the Scottish Government should have enshrined in law that all those in legitimate need of the fund are able to access it as of right if it is the ability of the Scottish Government to put that in guidance, then it is surely not outwith the ambit of the bill. If it is in the bill in guidance, it could be on the face of the bill. We now have a ridiculous situation that a piece of legislation is going to be passed without that principle in the bill, but the powers are going to come to us through the Smith agreement. We may have to come back to the bill to put an amendment in, which will put in place what is exactly happening under guidance in the bill. How ridiculous a situation has been created here this afternoon. Surely the member must accept that, at the moment, if we do not have the competence, it would be wrong to put it in on the basis that, in a few years' time, as a result of transfer of powers under Smith, we will have that competence, lest it risk the legislation. Surely the point is that, at the point at which powers are unavailable to the Parliament, that is the right time to re-examine things rather than to do it preemptively when we do not have those powers. No matter how many times Mr MacDonald and his colleagues try to argue that case, it will not make any more sense to say that a bill would be jeopardised by putting in the face of that bill something that is already going to do in guidance and we will have the power to do it at some point in the near future. If that is the case, why won't the Scottish Government do what it boasts of doing at any other time and stand up to the deadly Westminster Government and implement something that is going to benefit the people of Scotland? It is just not acceptable at that argument. You can make it as many times as you like. It will not stand any serious scrutiny. Quite frankly, to say that it can be in guidance but not in law itself because a Westminster warding of the section 30 order is a total cop-out. Equally, there have been compelling arguments made that it is better for an applicant to receive an award in the form of cash than to receive vouchers or goods. I need to make some progress, but the provision of goods allows councils to ascertain whether an award is being used as intended and local businesses can benefit from organised procurement and distribution. That ignored the fact that choice is essential to maintain a level of dignity, self-determination and reduced stigma for applicants. Treating applicants with respect despite their circumstances is vital, so providing options and meeting individual needs should be central to the funds process. Given the increasing impact of welfare reforms, many which are still to be seen, there is a genuine concern over a growing level of demand on the fund and also worries expressed over variation in spend across Scotland. That is why monitoring unmet need, understanding why that might have arisen and watching out for potential shortfalls in administrative funding, which local authorities have already seen supplementing from their own budgets, surely merited support for annual reviews to take place in order to ensure that the wider outcomes that this bill is trying to achieve are not jeopardised. Yet again, for reasons best known to themselves, the Scottish Government has turned a deaf ear to that request. Another positive, though, did come late this afternoon. That is the processing time for applications. Local authorities would, under the bill, have had 24 hours in which to process a crisis grant, while for the previous DWP fund, that deadline was 24 hours. I welcome the minister's decision to listen to those who have said that when the key word in this is crisis, that it is essential that that part of the safety net provided to vulnerable people was not to be extended beyond a whole day. As I said at the beginning, Scottish Labour very much welcomes the creation of the Scottish welfare fund, but we agree with the poverty and disability organisations who believe that the principles of dignity and choice for applicants should have been enshrined in this bill. That is a good bill, Presiding Officer, but it could have been so much better. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This has been an interesting process and is almost a unique one in that the somewhat surprised evolution of an area of welfare expenditure required the Scottish Government to bring together an interim Scottish welfare fund and to put that in place a year before the legislation to formalise it has been put in place. As a consequence, we have been able to go through the suck it and see approach. We have been able to see what has done well, where there have been problems and, in the legislation, we have been able to make changes in some cases where it has made good sense to do so. Moving away from the concept of loans to grants and community care grants and crisis grants is one that I do not think at the end of the day that many people opposed. We did have one local authority representation that argued that perhaps it may be appropriate to continue with loans. Perhaps we can do something else with loans in the future. It is right that this scheme should concentrate on grants and I see no problem with that. The key areas that came to the fore even during the course of the interim scheme were the need to have a proper appeals procedure incorporated in that. Having had the final bill now passed through Parliament, we can formally put that in place. Some of the key elements that have come to discussion during the consideration of the bill at committee stage were, for example, the 24 vs 48 hours timescale. I am glad that we have come to a conclusion on that matter and the minister has been able to put our minds at rest. I think that one person gave evidence, a scheme user gave evidence before the committee, who clearly believed that their application had been completed in the initial phone call but yet believed that they were left to wait for the 48 hours until news of their successful application was passed back to them. That, if it happened, was unacceptable. I hope that it did not happen. I hope that it was merely an impression that was created in error. However, what we have heard from the minister today is a clear indication that that is not the intent and it should not and we hopefully will not happen. One of the things that I think we have taken from the interim scheme is that local authorities are actually very good at doing this kind of thing. There has been a mix of success rates and, of course, there was that dangerous situation that we were in for a while where we thought the interim scheme was going to underspend because it took so long for people to understand what was available and for systems to be put in place to pass that money out. There was additional money added by the Scottish Government during the course of the year, which resulted in more money being available. At the end of that process, I think that we had a scheme that had largely run to budget, supplied support for those who needed it and gave us examples of good practice in many local authorities across Scotland. I hope that that is a successful model that we can perhaps adopt for the delivery of other support mechanisms that are yet to be devolved to us here in Scotland. One of the areas where I am disappointed is in the outcome of the discussion on outsourcing. I perfectly understand that most people in this Parliament, perhaps not including myself, do have an objection to the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public service. However, I do believe that that provision could have given us the opportunity to include skills and knowledge that are held within the third sector to use them in the delivery of this scheme in future. I hope that we have not lost that opportunity completely by virtue of the fact that there are those with an aversion to private sector involvement. One thing that was discussed today at some length is the fact that the Government has chosen to go down the road of affirmative procedure for changes in this legislation once it is brought in. I am going to go off at a tangent here and say something quite clear. Not too much, because you have got 32nds left. I believe that the negative procedure is underrated and underused. I believe that, in the case of this legislation, the negative procedure would have allowed change to happen more quickly if the need for change was identified. That and the fact that administration costs have been very high in the interim scheme is something that we should concern ourselves in the long term. Where we deal with, in the grand order of things, this is a relatively small scheme, and I think that too much of it will be spent on our administration. We have to drive administration costs down in future when we have more responsibilities. We will support the bill. We now move to the open debate. I remind members up to four minutes. We have no time in hand. Kevin Stewart followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Between April 2013, when the fund was established in June 2014, 100,000 households have been helped by the Scottish welfare fund. That is the interim scheme. In terms of the legislation that is before us today, we heard at committee from Councillor Norman MacDonald of Kinyan and Yellen Shear that legislation will give certainty not just to local authorities but to the clients about what is in place. Dave Berry of Dundee City Council said that the proposed legislation would give local authorities assurance. In fact, they will now have a duty that must be done. That can only be good for the continuing development of the Scottish welfare fund. It is absolutely right that we lay out the legislative framework to allow the interim scheme to be in statute. I have to say that I am a little bit disappointed that we are constrained by the powers that we have. We have had a debate about that today, but one thing for sure is that I want to make certain that the bill receives royal assent so that duty is there and that local authorities must do all that they can to help those in greatest need. I mentioned earlier that what we have is a fund of £38 million, which is to mitigate £6 billion worth of welfare cuts. While we are seeing good work across the country, it has to be said that what we are facing with the onslaught of austerity and welfare cuts is quite incredible. Obviously, there are families right across this country who are suffering because of the policies of the Westminster Government. When it comes to some aspects of welfare reform, we are seeing some Tory ministers come out and express their ire. With Nick Boles, Conservative Minister, describing sanctions in the Guardian today as inhuman, hardly a system that has dignity and respect at its heart. However, I am pleased that the Government is willing to accept an amendment that I put forward at stage 2 to ensure that all welfare fund applicants are treated with respect and that their dignity is preserved. I wish that the Westminster Government would take lessons in that regard. There are some aspects of the interim scheme that did not provide for some of the things that we wanted to see, including the appeal system. I am glad that the appeal system has been resolved in the legislation. I am pleased that we chose not to go along the road of loans, because I think that that would have been detrimental to those folks in greatest need. 38 million pounds to mitigate six billion pounds of cuts is not all that is required, but it is all that we can do at present. I am sorry that you need to wind up. I need to move on. I welcome the fact that the DWP transferred funds for community care grants and crisis loans to the Scottish Government in 2013. The interim scheme set-up has now been set in statute. There has been some progress between the interim scheme and the legislation before us today. In particular, I welcome the fact that we are to have second-tier reviews through the public service ombudsman. I think that that will give the public more confidence in the appeals process, although clearly we have to advertise all the time the right of people to appeal. I also welcome some of the changes that have taken place during deliberations on the legislation, most notably the dropping of part 3 of the bill, which would have involved outsourcing to the private sector. I was pleased, perhaps a little surprised, to hear the Government accept the 24-hour time limit on decision-making, which Ken Macintosh proposed today. In one regard, at least, we have gone backwards today from the interim scheme, and it has been the most contentious of all the debates today around the words families experiencing exceptional pressure. Again, Ken Macintosh gave graphic examples of that, whether it was a lone parent through a relationship break-up or someone fleeing domestic violence. I still have not heard from the minister, perhaps we will in the wind-out, how it can be outwith powers to put something in primary legislation but not out with powers to put the same words in regulations or secondary legislation. I have never heard of that in all my many years in Parliament, but I am sure that Stuart Stevenson is going to enlighten me. It is not about viaries, it is about who is a gatekeeper. There are no gatekeepers for secondary legislation except the courts. Gatekeepers exist for primary that block it. That is why it matters. That is an interesting point, but I still find it strange. I would be very interesting if Stuart Stevenson, since he likes this kind of thing, could find me a precedent for that happening in the years of the Parliament or even before. No doubt he will do that for his homework and tell me tomorrow. That is the beginning of welfare devolution. I would like to see quite a bit more and more certainly going to get some more from the Smith proposal. It is very important that we have clear principles in this bill that will be at the centre of the aspects of the welfare state that are devolved. That is why the amendments moved about needs and choices being taken into account. We are very, very important. That, of course, was related to the whole issue of cash versus vouchers. I think that the inclusion Scotland had a very interesting few words when it said that the use of vouchers may impact on the dignity and respect of applicants. I think that it was very striking that we had very strong evidence from Inclusion Scotland, the child poverty action group and many others, whom I think normally the Government might pay a little bit more heed to. Obviously, I was disappointed that all those amendments that Labour proposed were defeated. That, of course, also includes our proposal for annual reporting, because we have to keep a close watch on how all that works. Again, the child poverty action group referred to on-going problems of gatekeeping and poor data collection and another point that has not been mentioned this afternoon, which struck me as surprising when I realised that there was an underspend on the fund last year. We have to keep a careful watch on that. The Finance Committee on Watch has looked at the whole issue of administrative cops and welcomed the bench marking exercise that COSLA was doing on that. Perhaps the minister could update us on that. You need to dry your notes up close. I am just coming to a conclusion. I have got 20 seconds. The Finance Committee also asked about how the Government arrived at the figure of 2,000-second stage reviews when there is only 144 this year. We have to monitor that very closely, even if there is no to-be, no annual review. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the chance to contribute to today's stage 3 debate on the welfare fund Scotland Bill. As members are aware, I am a relatively new member of the welfare reform committee. When I was appointed to the committee, I had a meeting with Clark who told me that, unlike some other committees of the Parliament, the welfare reform committee was a consensual committee, and the clerks weren't wrong. The consensual nature of the committee is due in no small part to the types of issues that we deal with, and the Scottish welfare fund is a good example of that. People accessing the fund are desperate and their individual circumstances must be acknowledged and respected, not politicised. That's not to say that members don't have their disagreements, as we have had today, but generally it's fair to say that we are broadly aligned in opposing Tory welfare reforms and taking action to mitigate their effect in Scotland. Members across the chamber will all have dealt with the cases that highlight the terrible consequences of UK Government welfare reform on some of our most vulnerable citizens. As has been mentioned already, 100,000 households have already been helped by the Scottish welfare fund. It is right that we put it on a statutory basis to ensure that this vital help will continue. What is not right, of course, is the fact that so many of our citizens are in need of this help in the first place. The themes that have arisen in the committee as the bill has progressed are concepts of dignity, choice and respect. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the minister brought forward amendments to remove the ability to outsource the scheme, so there is no risk that private companies will be left in charge—not that that was ever likely to happen under this Government but, nevertheless, safeguards are welcome. However, those themes were also raised in relation to the ability of local authorities to give support in kind, rather than cash, as has been discussed today. I sympathise with Ken Macintosh's intentions in amendments 2, 3 and 5, but, as has already been pointed out by my colleague Kevin Stewart and the minister, most of the in-kind grant is to help people leaving institutional care. There is choice available, and the point that has been made is that we have a £38 million fund to deal with £6 billion of benefit cuts. We simply have to ensure that, as many people as possible are helped by that fund. The £100 million provided by the Scottish Government in 2015-16 is a drop in the ocean. There will be huge pressures on the fund, and we must acknowledge the opportunities outlined by COSLA in its briefing for bulk buying goods. I do not believe that the bill is the correct place to address those issues. I also have sympathy for amendment 7, put forward by Margaret MacDougall, which would require consideration of the particular needs and choices of applicants. However, again, we must be careful when working in the context of extreme budgetary pressures not to increase the administrative burden on local authorities. It is important to remember that the people who will access the fund can be facing absolute destitution. The pot that we have to help them is limited, and so, if we do not use it cost effectively, other people facing that absolute destitution will be deprived of help. At stage 2, my colleague Kevin Stewart amended the bill to require local authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure that all welfare fund applicants are treated with respect and their dignity preserved, which I believe went a long way to address Margaret MacDougall's concerns. Finally, I hope that members across the chamber will be able to support the bill today, albeit with a heavy heart. As other members have outlined, and I have said before, in such a wealthy society as ours, we should not have to pass such legislation. When welfare reform at UK level seems to be incoherent and downright scary for most if not all vulnerable people, it is welcome that the Scottish Government and the Welfare Reform Committee have taken time to consult and be guided by the many excellent third sector organisations across this land who understand and support the victims of welfare reform. I do not use the word victim lightly. The welfare reforms that I see seem to be much more about reform and much less about the actual welfare of our citizens. Presiding Officer, the amended bill before us today at stage 3 proposes placing a duty on local authorities to deliver the fund in line with regulations and guidance that may be issued by the Scottish ministers. As we know, local authorities have been delivering this fund on an interim basis. The fund is intended to provide a safety net for vulnerable people on an emergency when there is an immediate threat to health and safety through the provision of crisis grants. As a child poverty action group says, I thank them for the advice and information that they have provided to us during the scrutiny and the process of the bill, they said that the development of welfare funds bill, the additional Scottish Government investment and national Scottish welfare funds scheme following the abolition of DWP crisis loans and community care grants has provided a level of support to households in Scotland now sadly lacking in many other parts of the United Kingdom. Currently, the fund provides a vital means of support for vulnerable, low-income households who are in or at risk of crisis, facing exceptional pressures and whose ability to live independently is threatened. It plays an important and preventative role, providing a safety net to reduce pressure on costly public services such as residential care, homelessness services and the NHS. It will also enable people to live independently or to continue to live independently preventing the need for institutional care through the provision of community care grants. When I was a training officer for social work services, I delivered a course that was named promoting independence. That was not about Scotland's constitutional future but about the value placed on personal independence for people with additional support needs or disabilities. I draw the minister's attention to the concerns raised by all of the organisations that gave evidence to the bill. I know that she will be well aware of and just to reinforce the need for clear, unambiguous guidance on the needs of people who fall into the categories of families under pressure. I know that the minister holds dear the fundamentals of proper wraparound care for families and I welcome her reassurances on this particular matter. In her excellent and forthright briefing as usual, Lynn Williams on behalf of SCVO says, we must not underestimate the importance of this legislation. The fund is small but its reach is significant. It is the final safety net for many people. Scotland can take its first steps in creating a more compassionate social security system with a fair, inclusive and empowering safety net, established as a result of this bill, or we continue to stigmatise those in poverty. As parliamentarians, we ask you to take the lead in this journey and support amendments to this important piece of legislation. Colleagues, minister, we have set a high standard. Indeed, it is one that this Parliament across all of the parties can live up to. If we do not, we have the superb advocates in the likes of Lynn Williams, the child poverty action group, Inclusion Scotland and many others in reminding us just why welfare state should be just that, a place of safety for our people in need. I commend the bill and the work of all those involved in bringing it to this stage today. I very much strongly support the welfare fund Scotland Bill and recognise the role that ministers played in introducing this statutory measure into Parliament today to put in place in statute measures, which have been of an interim nature. I also recognise the Parliamentary Committee who have done important work in scrutinising this and also listening carefully to those who have been so directly affected by so much of welfare reform that is without doubt painful and extremely difficult for many, many, many people who are directly affected by it. I also want to recognise the submissions that have been made in advance of stage 3's proceedings here in Parliament today and also reflect as one or two others might who are not here today but who have been involved in the Smith commission as well that some of the most compelling evidence given in recognition of the changes that Scotland can and should build introducing in the future are in the whole area of the safety net that we provide for our citizens who are less fortunate than others. There is no question that there will be further progress in this whole broad area of policy. I hope that the devolution more powers committee under Bruce Crawford's careful chairmanship can reach a sensible and cross-party accommodation of what without doubt a difficult issue and a difficult policy issue, but in my view there will be absolutely no doubt that that progress will be made. I also want to recognise the point that Malcolm Chisholm firstly made about the review mechanism that the Government is introducing through this bill in terms of the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman. That body that many of us interact with on a day-to-day basis on behalf of constituents doesn't have a completely blemish-free record. For every person who doesn't make their complaint stick with the SPSO then they are less than enamoured, but nevertheless I very much welcome the Government's intent here to introduce that PO mechanism to make sure there is a second tier reviewer. Not that I'm sure that that'll be universally felt by those who've made the initial decision but that's the nature of this game and I do want to recognise in that context that there are difficult decisions made by local authority officers over many existing areas of devolved policy whether it be housing allocations or other issues which directly affect people's lives. This adds and already has added another tier of responsibility to those officers and with the Smith agreement and with what will happen thereafter more will be added to that workload. I do think we need to recognise that in how we support local government. Two or three points just on the amendments that were carefully considered by Parliament, well carefully considered by Parliament this afternoon, is a moot point when we come to stage 3 because the time for backbenchers, never mind the ministers, is so limited. I think we've could reflect on that many many times as to whether we ever have got that right in the 15 years we've been in this place. I just wanted to reflect two of those points, Presiding Officer. The first was on the debate about in-kind or goods versus cash in terms of how local authorities should approach that, or rather how a government should frame that for local authorities to make that decision. It seems to me that the state should assume that it knows best in these occasions and it just seemed to that debate that was a very top-down approach being taken, whereas we should surely do this from the bottom up. I do think that was reflected in some of the submissions that we all read prior to this debate. The final point is on the annual report, which the minister doesn't agree with. I understand that I was a minister too, and I always had civil servants telling me we couldn't do something. Actually, it's a really good point about parliamentary scrutiny. It's a really good point when you're introducing something new to find a different way to do it, and we are introducing something new here. I think that Parliament should adapt and change over time, not just do it the way it's always done it. Our committee structure isn't perfect, and what I am absolutely sure about is Audit Scotland will pour all over that. I think that we should be ahead of the game, rather than waiting for it to happen afterwards. Thank you. I now call Sandra White, followed by Margaret MacDougall. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank the welfare reform committee, although not a member. The minister for the work that we have carried out in the Scottish welfare fund is £30 million. We welcome that, and the Scottish Government will use it in the best interests of the Scottish people. We really need to highlight the fact that 85 per cent of welfare powers are still in the control of Westminster. I know that Michael McMahon, who has just passed there, has agreed with the third sector in his contribution. I asked the party's opposite. It was a pity that it didn't support the many, many voluntary organisations—65 organisations, including Scottish Council of Royal Into Organisation, SCVO, Children's First, Engender, Barnadows and the Poverty Alliance—who called for the devolution of welfare powers and has been mentioned previously by other speakers. We are looking at £6 billion of cuts to welfare. £38 million? Yes, it is something, but what a missed opportunity to be able to say to our people in a rich country like Scotland that they don't have to scrabble about looking for extra monies when they are absolutely in a situation where they are in dire straits in that respect. Let's look at the benefits that are still reserved. Universal credit, employment support, income support, housing benefit, child tax credit, job seekers allowance, state pension, pension credit, incapacity benefit, child benefit and work credit, maternity and paternity pay—all reserved to Westminster with the opportunity to make sure that that was brought to the Scottish Parliament. However, as I said, I congratulate everyone for the work that they have done in the reform committee, and we have the £38 million at the moment, and we will use it in the best interest of the Scottish people. I wanted to touch on a couple of issues that I think Tavish Scott touched on them also. I did try to intervene twice in Mr Mackintosh, but it wasn't successful, so I want to pick up on some of the points just now. Ken Mackintosh and the others think that Margaret McDougall, with the later amendment, was asking about how it was going to be operated in the grants with a big cash or etc. However, I do think that your colleague Michael McMahon answered the question for you. He mentioned the fact that, under local authorities, they could work together and they could actually purchase under economies of scale. I have seen that in my own constituents, as I am sure others have, where people are able to get the goods fairly straight away, it creates employment, it recycles, and people can go and pick that up and they give over the grant that the local authority gives them and they can bring forward the goods that they desperately need. I am sorry, Ken. I do not have much time, but I would have liked to recommend that, but I think that your colleague answered that question. The economy of scale and the local authority can work together. On the other issue in regard to competency, which I did try to interject, I think that most people here know that I have been trying to push forward the Bill of the Responsible Parking Bill. I have been told, on many occasions, by the clerks in this Parliament, by the legal team in this Parliament, that even if it went through this Parliament, it could still be deemed not competent, and someone could still take it to court and challenge that. We have to remember that. It is not stopping me, obviously. I am still pushing forward, but it has made it more and more difficult to try to push this piece, which I think should be welcome legislation through this Parliament, but the constraints that I and others have been put under by the advice that we have had in the Parliament that it could still be competent, but it could still be challenged. I just put that forward to the members here that it is not just this amendment or just this particular piece of legislation that has happened previously before. As the newest member of the welfare committee, it has been a very interesting time to join as this Bill was making passage through the Parliament. That is a significant piece of welfare legislation, and it is crucial that we get it right to protect vulnerable people. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Scottish Government has decided not to support the Labour amendments today because it promoted choice, openness and transparency and provided support to families under exceptional pressure. The argument that my amendment on choice would put additional pressure on local authority budgets is frankly nothing more than a smoke screen. The amendment is effectively cost-neutral and would allow a local authority to pay in either cash or kind based on what the claimant would prefer and what would best suit the needs of that individual after discussion with that local authority. That goes hand in hand with Kevin Stewart's amendment, which was accepted at stage 2, as choice is crucial to dignity and respect. My amendment was supported by Poverty Alliance, which argued that the refusal to trust applicants with monetary grants increases stigma and can make that individual at a very low point in their life feel like they are receiving handouts rather than accessing legitimate support from the state social security system. It was also supported by SCVO, which stated that the fund should be driven forward by choice and set a benchmark for any future legislation. Today, the Scottish Government had a choice, and it chose to ignore the calls of Scottish Labour, Poverty Alliance and SCVO. It is also worrying that the Government has voted to block openness and transparency today by refusing to support annual reporting. The Lib Dem member had a good point on that this is a new legislation and we should be looking at new ways of how we review and scrutinise that. An annual report on my view is the way that we should be doing it. That amendment was supported by SCVO, which I have called on the Scottish Government to ensure that the fund will be comprehensively reviewed and scrutinised by the Parliament as set out under the provisions of the welfare reform further provisions of the Scotland Act 2012. While I understand that information will be collected and collated elsewhere, I was asking that the Scottish Government bring it in a specific annual report to Parliament to be reviewed and scrutinised. That would have given the Scottish Parliament a formal role to play in the process, because we have already heard, for example, that there was a huge underspend last year. It is crucial that we set a clear benchmark for future legislation in this field, and that was the opportunity to do it, given that it is a new and untested system and one of our first pieces of welfare legislation. I find it unbelievable that, even though it was proposed in the welfare reform act 2012, it has been blocked today. To conclude, I am disappointed that the Scottish Government has today decided to vote against Scottish Labour's amendments, except for Ken Macintosh's one-on-processing time. All of the amendments, which are widely supported by the third sector, today have voted against the principle of choice, openness and transparency and supporting families under exceptional pressure. That was a bill to set the future standard of welfare legislation in Scotland, and we have witnessed today that the Scottish Government's rhetoric does not match reality. There we have it in a nutshell the problem with the Scottish Labour Party, that they assumed that, because we did not agree with their amendment to put something on the face of the bill, that ergo we must be opposed to supporting families. That is the kind of punch in duty black-and-white approach on issues of welfare that does the Labour Party no credit whatsoever. I have no hesitation in supporting this bill, although, as Joan McAlpine rightly points out, it is not something that we should feel the need to be introducing in a wealthy society, but that need is nonetheless there. Why is that need there? Because, as has been pointed out, we have a situation where there are around £6 billion of welfare cuts that are going to affect the most vulnerable people in our society. The bill, as it stands, allows for a £38 million fund, because that is the limit to which we can extend within the powers and the resources that we have. However, we have a situation at the moment where what we are doing is installing a safety net below a safety net, because it ought to be the case that the welfare system, as administered at a UK level, should be the safety net that catches people. However, what we are seeing at the moment is a system at Westminster that is widening the holes of that safety net, which will mean more and more people fall through it. We then have to install our own safety net below that. Although it is a small safety net in comparison to the cuts that are affecting people, it is a safety net that is required and that will deliver real, tangible impact on some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society. I want to focus the majority of my remarks on part of the debate that is ensued today. It is around the argument that has existed over the amendment that the Labour Party put forward that could have seen the potential for the bill not being awarded royal assent. First, the reason why there is differencing legislation and guidance is that guidance to legislation does not require royal assent. That is why the matter can be put into guidance. Secondly, Michael McMahon made the argument in his speech that what we ought to have done today was to put forward the amendment and then have a fight with the Westminster Government over that. He said it himself. He said that the Scottish Government should just fight with the UK Government because that is apparently what we are all about, is just fighting with the UK Government. I will give him the opportunity to clarify the remark that he made, but I am sure that the official report will show it in accuracy. It is not the Parliament's authorities that have said that the amendment could not go through, but only advice from the minister. No one else has said that we would have the difficulty that he is trying to get this Parliament to accept. As the member will note, the advice that came back quite clearly was that the issue is not around competence but around admissibility. There is a very big difference between those two things. At the end of the day, it is in the gift of the advocate general rather than in the gift of the Parliament's lawyers. The point here is that the second element of that argument appears to be that powers will come to the Parliament eventually as part of the Smith commission process. Let us act before those powers are there, which is exactly the issue that has led us to not be able to agree to that amendment. It is a risky strategy, but the reason that it is a risky strategy is that the risk is not carried—the risk is not one that is carried by the Scottish Government. The risk is carried by those vulnerable individuals who would therefore find themselves unable to access the fund were the legislative competence to be challenged. That is why it could not be accepted. I would have hoped that the Labour Party would have at least been able to understand that. We have now moved to my reading up speeches and I will go do four minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that this debate has been genuinely interesting. Obviously, there have been moments of some exchange and some passion, but it represents the conclusion of an important and interesting process for a number of reasons. Obviously, the bill's scrutiny, embarked upon with the welfare reform committee, followed the operation of an interim scheme, which was the implement of devolution of the social fund. I think that that background was very important to both the local authorities and to the Scottish Government in informing them about what works and what does not work. Practical information was able to inform both the bill and the scrutiny process, and I hope that the legislative process will provide a template for how this Parliament approaches a new and important welfare powers being delivered in the back of the Smith agreement. The bill does something else. It rightly recognises the relevance and the importance of using local authorities with their geographical spread as being suitable for the delivery of a key welfare provision. It also recognises that the local authorities themselves have gleaned experience and built up expertise. I think that that builds a very solid base for the current system, and I think that it holds out well for the future. I can see further opportunities for local authorities when the new powers are introduced. It is clear that the bill, with the amendments that were passed today, provides a vital local link to people in Sudden and perhaps a predicted need with the swift provision of help to meet that need. There is also a welcome recognition of the importance of conferring upon local authorities flexibility in how to meet that need. What I think that we are all agreed upon is that when extreme difficulties are encountered, help should be to hand which is quick and appropriate, and I think that the bill achieves that objective. However, I was less impressed by the Scottish Government's opposition to Mr Macintosh's amendment, his amendment 4, which would have enabled qualifying individuals to include being part of a family facing exceptional pressure. I think that Mr Macintosh argued his point well. He identified a need to clarify the definition of qualifying individuals. The Scottish Government said that the amendment would place the bill beyond the scope of the section 30 order, and the whole bill would then become ultra-virage. Now, that may be an opinion, but the minister failed to clarify what legal advice had been sought and from whom, or what it said, she failed during the passage of the bill to clarify that she consulted with the UK Government on their attitude to such a provision. In short, the Scottish Government's response to me was unsatisfactory and unconvincing, but, interestingly, section 2 is unamended, and this may offer sucker unexpectedly to both Mr Macintosh and the minister. It seems to refer to individuals in subsection 1 line 2, so presumably a family, which comprises individuals, could all present themselves as individuals and be addressed under the section, so how the clarifying amendment creates an ultra-virage status is bizarre. Equally important is to understand that, when people find themselves in such distressing situations, they may find it difficult to think clearly or, indeed, to describe what their circumstances are. By providing for both a local authority review of decisions and referral to the ombudsman is an important safeguard, and it also provides reassurance to the claimant. That is a very important aspect of the legislation. However, if claimants are entitled to reassurance than they are, so is the Parliament and so is the taxpayer entitled to reassure that the system is working effectively and transparently. My party supported Mr MacDougall's amendment to provide for reports to be laid before the Parliament by the Scottish Government. That seemed an entirely reasonable requirement. The Scottish Government's response, in short, explained why all the information was there and the question remaining is why not put it into a report. In conclusion, I think that this is a good bill, an important one, and it is welcome. It will make a difference in my party's support. I hope that I expect the chamber to be unanimous in our support for this measure. I want to thank all those whose contributions have brought us to the stage, the minister and her team, members of the welfare reform committee, the third sector and anti-poverty organisations who offered their expertise. I want to particularly thank Lynn Williams from SCVU and Hannah McCullough from CPAC for their support advice and for their forbearance. Perhaps most important of all, I want to thank the many individuals with direct experience of welfare in Scotland who shared their personal life stories and their insights on being on the receiving end of the Scottish welfare fund. This is not a particularly earth-shattering piece of legislation, but it is an important one nonetheless. I do not also want to shatter Mr MacDonald's belief that this somehow was invented all by SNP ministers. It was actually the Conservatives and Liberals who decided to devolve the former DWP administered social fund to local authorities in England and to pass it to us, the power to decide on how to provide the support in Scotland. Ministers have, for the most part, done the right thing, topping up the fund itself as well as the welcome change, moving from a system of loans to one of grants. There have also been a number of practical reforms replacing the DWP administration with the service provided by our local authorities and establishing an independent appeals mechanism. I think it fair to say that the appointment of the Ombudsman to conduct this task was not greeted with unanimous approval, as appointed me by Mr McMahon earlier, but I also believe that there is some optimism that this will prove effective. I would also thank the minister for responding to at least some of the stronger concerns raised about the bill. The Scottish Government's original proposal to allow the administration of community care grants and crisis payments to be outsourced or privatised struck most observers as particularly ill-founded. I want to thank the minister for recognising the danger inherent in such an approach, the unacceptability of profiting from social misfortune, even if much to our amusement, her SNP colleagues on the committee seemed more dogmatically and unquestionably loyal to the Government's original will than to the evidence before them. There was not a huge amount of movement from the minister at stage 2, but I want to thank her for at least acknowledging some of the arguments, and, for example, in tempering the powers of the Ombudsman to pursue claimants. I also add my thanks to her for her acceptance at stage 3 of the amendment in my name on a moving to 24-hour deadline. However, I also want to express my disappointment, my misgivings perhaps, over our approach to this legislation. This is one of the first bills to lay the foundations of welfare in Scotland, and we are about to get many more such welfare powers of point. Malcolm McChism talked about the significance of devolving more welfare powers to Scotland. Yes, there has been a nod in the right direction, but it is a critical way that principles are right from the start, and I am not convinced that we have, even though the words dignity and respect are now in the face of the bill. When it came to what that means in practice, when it came to offering welfare acclaimants some sort of say or some sort of choice, some control over their own treatment, the minister bulked at the prospect. I am not going to rehearse the whole argument. We had several contributions, additional contributions, from Michael McMahon, from Sandra White, Joan McAlpine and a very interesting one from Annabel Goldie in summing up there. I believe that it demonstrates the two sides to this administration. I have no doubt that the minister wants to talk the language of progressivism. I have no doubt that she sees herself and many of her party colleagues broadly as social democrats, but I worry that many of the actions of this Government are conservative with a small sea. SNP ministers often seem more concerned not to rock the boat, not to upset people than to make the radical change needed with the powers already at their disposal. Certainly colleagues the minister and colleagues like Mr Stewart seem never happier than when turning an issue in which we can make a practical difference into a constitutional impasse, featuring by and large the big bad bogeyman Westminster. In this particular case, my fear is that by essentially replicating the old social fund we are doomed to replicating some of the faults of the welfare system. We know that the current system and the welfare reforms introduced by the Tories and more so are overly judgmental. Inadvertently or otherwise, the current system can demean rather than empower, and I am not convinced that we have done enough to put the needs of individuals at the heart of our thinking. I recognise that these are difficult decisions at a difficult time. When our welfare system is under attack, as it is from the current Conservative Government, then in some ways our first duty is just to hold on, to defend what we have got, to stop the vulnerable being further undermined and subject to political interference. But by not fully grasping the importance of these principles, by not adopting a more rights-based approach, if we do not look at the fact that whatever the original attempt of welfare to tackle the big evils of want, squalor and poverty, in some ways it has become a sop to the fact that we now live with almost permanently long-term mass unemployment, we are almost accepting our willingness to live permanently with poverty in our midst. I do not believe that that is something that we are prepared to do, that that is the point of welfare. It should be there to get people back in their feet, it should be there as a support, it should not be judgmental, it should not stigmatise, and yet I think that we are in danger of doing exactly that. That is just the first and several new measures and I hope that the Scottish Government will reconsider its approach as we develop welfare powers in Scotland, and that we all think again about what we are trying to achieve in the long term. How do we treat the vulnerable in our society? What status do we give them? And how can we best help them? On that note, I do believe that we should support this bill for the benefit that we will bring to the people of Scotland. Thank you Mr Mackintosh and I call on Margaret Burgess to wind up the debate minister until five o'clock. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to the members for their contributions to this afternoon's debate. I have encouraged that, across the Parliament, there has been recognition of the benefits of the statutory Scottish welfare funds. There has been disagreements about some of the detail of what should be in the bill and what might be more appropriate for regulations. However, the support across the chamber for the principles of the bill is strong. The bill is also supported by the third sector and the third sector organisations who have worked with us as we have worked the bill up and also who will work with us as we have produced the regulations and the guidance. I want to make a couple of comments that have been made, and I do not want to just rehash constantly the families under exceptional pressure, but I want to make it absolutely clear that families under exceptional pressure will be able to access the statutory Scottish welfare funds Scotland. It is absolutely critical. They can access it just now and they will be able to access it in the future. There have been arguments that we should have just gone for it and risked it and whether the legislation is competent or not. Somewhere in me, I wanted to just say, I let's go for it. Let's go for it. Let's take them on and let's just try and challenge this legislation. However, the result of that is far, far too serious. This is about vulnerable people. If we do not get this legislation, get royal assent, we won't have a statutory Scottish welfare fund. We won't have the 24-hour processing time that we have agreed today is the best way forward. We won't have—because that is part of the statutory fund—and I am not willing to take that risk that if we don't get that, we won't be able to do any of those things that we want to do. We want to help vulnerable people. I have given a commitment that families under exceptional pressure will not be excluded from the statutory welfare fund. If the Scottish welfare fund requires legislation to allow it to operate, how is it possible that the bill has operated for the past two years, providing the support that it would continue to do? Putting it into statute gives some protections, but it does not change the rules, the criteria for applications that have operated for two years. No, I think that what we have just now is a discretionary fund, an interim fund, and it is discretionary. It is not a statutory fund based on—and the criteria for the Scottish welfare fund are laid out on what was in the section 30 order, and that's why the bill has followed the section 30 order, which gives the Scottish Government or Parliament powers over aspects of welfare. The issue here is that, although I would like us to have all the powers over welfare, we won't be in this position today. Secondly, I would say that I have not just given the commitment that we will put it in regulation and guidance. I have also given a commitment when we do get the powers from the Smith commission that we will look at widening the scope of the bill to just any last vestige of doubt that we are not caring for families under exceptional pressure. I don't appreciate the message that Labour members are putting out today that, in some way, this Government does not care about families under exceptional pressure. This Government has made sure that the current fund and the statutory fund will look after people in those circumstances. Secondly, the point that Margaret MacDougall made at the end about the choice is that we are very clear and outlined in the initial debate some of the choices that exist for people when they are applying for a community care grant. I want to make it very clear that Margaret MacDougall did not seem to distinguish the difference between a community care grant and a crisis grant. I have been very clear that, if we move forward in regulation, crisis grants and cash should be the default payment for crisis grants, that might be cash neutral for local authorities. Local authorities have told us and told us very clearly and have demonstrated to us just how much more they can get out of the welfare fund and how many more people they can assist by providing goods instead of cash for community care grants when we are talking about large sums of money. The evidence that we have from the people who have benefited from the Scottish welfare fund is that they very much appreciate that service. They have some choice in it. They can choose what they want, the furniture, they can decide the date that is to be delivered. That is currently happening. I will take note of the fact that local authorities are underfunded to administer the fund. Margaret MacDougall seems to be talking here in circles. One minute she is asking us to take away the right of local authorities to be able to fund goods. At the same time, because they are telling us that it has cost too much, she is saying that they are underfunded. We provide £5 million for local authorities to administer the Scottish welfare fund. For me, it is very important when we have a limited budget that is helping those that should be helping. That is the vulnerable people in Scotland. We do believe that they should be treated with dignity and respect at all times. That is why I was very willing to help to accept Kevin Stewart's amendment to that effect. The third sector organisations have been telling us that they are pleased that we have taken that move forward as well. I would want to make sure that that is understood by Margaret MacDougall because I am not sure that she did understand it. As we move on, I would certainly say that there are things that can improve in terms of how the fund operates, and we need to work with local authorities. Can people who are coming to the chamber please do so quietly? It is disrespectful to the minister that she is taking part in this debate throughout and you have just walked in and you are not listening. We need to work with local authorities to ensure that the people who need help are able to get it and when they need it. We are doing that through a structured programme of improvement work. The welfare reform committee made a number of recommendations in its stage 1 report that touched on the more operational aspects of the interim scheme, and it is right that it highlighted, among other things, the length of application forms and processing times that we have dealt with today and local authority variation. We are continuing to work on that and work with our local authorities to get that right and to have the scheme consistent across the country. Another issue that was raised—I want to touch on in case I run out of time—is the annual report on the transparency. Again, members said that we are not being transparent with the scheme. That is one of the most transparent schemes that we have ever… Every quarter, 84 pages of information are provided publicly and they are scrutinised by other members of the chamber, by third sector organisations, by the welfare reform committee. I think that that is the right way to do it because at an early stage, if there is a pattern developing that could be improved or changed, we can deal with that at a very early stage. I, for one, actually appreciate that kind of scrutiny that we are getting from the third sector, from the welfare reform committee. It is a continuous process and I do not see putting that all together once a year is going to make any difference because I think that we should be acting when we know that there is a problem happening. We can do that on a quarterly basis rather than once a year, as is being proposed. There is no lack of transparency in the scheme. That is transparent and we will continue to make sure that it remains transparent. Sorry, I did not realise the time there. I will wind up. However, I would say that this is a vitally important piece of legislation. It does not only provide assistance to some of the most vulnerable—it provides assistance to the most vulnerable people in Scotland and it is also a stark contrast between the UK Government, how they have responded to the abolition of the social fund and the nationwide scheme that we are introducing here in Scotland. I would hope that all of this Parliament will get behind us in this scheme to make sure that we get absolutely right for those that need it most. That concludes the debate on the welfare fund Scotland Bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is decision time. There is only one question that we have put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 12485, in the name of Margaret Burgess, on the welfare fund Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and the welfare fund Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.