 I think that this is about making the law better and clearer, not necessarily about increasing the costs. Many thanks. We now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 11494, in the name of market budgets on welfare benefits for people living with disabilities. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request speak buttons now, or as soon as possible. I call on market budgets to speak to and move the motion. Minister, when you are ready, you have 14 minutes, please, or thereby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's just three months since the last debate on welfare reform took place in this chamber, and much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Although the referendum didn't produce the result the Scottish Government wanted, we are determined to ensure meaningful change for Scotland. That's why the Scottish Government has submitted its proposals to the Smith commission, calling for full powers over all social security and tax matters to come to this Parliament. It's not just the Scottish Government. 65 leading charities in Scotland are calling for more powers over tax and welfare. In the previous debate, I noted that we live in a society where, according to Oxfam, the richest families in the UK are wealthier than the bottom 20 per cent of the entire population. That statistic is an outrage in one which goes right to the heart of the increasing inequality and unfairness in our society, and we know it's our most vulnerable people who bear the brunt. In the Scottish Government's draft budget, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth focused on three key goals to make Scotland a more prosperous country, to tackle inequalities and to protect and reform public services. It also sets out our commitments designed to tackle the poverty and inequality that blights our society. The Scottish Government committed to maintaining our spending and welfare reform mitigation, providing additional investment in housing with a strong focus and affordable in social housing, and confirming our commitment to the living wage and Scotland's wider social wage. We have called this debate today to highlight the impact of Westminster cuts on disabled people in Scotland, to set out some of the work that the Scottish Government is doing to provide support to disabled people and their carers, and to call on the UK Government to halt the roll-out of the PIP in Scotland, the personal independence claimant. That's clearly something that the Labour Party is not prepared to do, because they've attempted to remove that part from our motion, and I think that that's disappointing that they're not taking that step. Members will be well aware that the UK Government's welfare reforms over 2010-11 to 2015-16 could result in the total Scottish welfare bill being reduced by £6 billion and is highlighted in the Scottish Government report Financial Impacts of Welfare Reform and Disabled People in Scotland. Our disabled people bear much of the burden, including a disproportionate loss of income. Disabled people already face higher costs of living and are more likely to live in poverty. Following the replacement of disability living allowance with personal independence payment, around 105,000 disabled people in Scotland will lose some or all of their disability benefits by 2018. A reduction in any one component of their entitlement is worth at least £1,120 a year. The Treasury's 2013 budget document estimates reduced spending due to replacement of disability living allowance with personal independence payment will save nearly £3 billion a year by 2017-18. In Scotland's share of that cut is around £310 million a year. That, Presiding Officer, gets to the heart of why the Labour Party will not call for the halt of the personal independence payment because they've signed up to these cuts and we know that Labour in Scotland are following what they're told to do from Labour in London, and that is disappointing. It's not a cheap drive. We know it's not because that's the reality of it and we've heard that and not just from the SNP or the Government from the Labour Party themselves, Presiding Officer. So let's look at what this means, these cuts mean to disabled people in Scotland. It means I'll take an intervention. Macintosh. I think the minister recognises the inaccuracy of her jive at the Labour Party. Can I just ask what tax-raising measures does the Scottish National Party intend to introduce to counter those cuts? Minister. I think, as the member is well aware, and I don't recognise the jive. I think it wasn't a jive, it's actual fact, and it came from the Labour Party themselves. So let's just get to the bottom of that one. But in terms of the member's intervention, what I would say to the member is that we have put in our submission to the Smith commission and it's very clearly that we have said in that that we want the full control of social security and tax-raising powers. It was very much part of what we had in the white paper, and I think it's disappointing that the Labour Party are not even prepared to call the haul-out of PIP to the outcome of the Smith commission. They could at least do that. But we have to look at what these cuts mean to disabled people in Scotland, and it means that 66,000 less people will be receiving disability benefits by 2018. That's 66,000 of our most vulnerable citizens being further disadvantaged. It comes at a time when wider benefit reforms are having disproportionate impacts on disabled people. Less income means less money being spent in local shops and in local businesses throughout Scotland, so the impacts are far-reaching and will affect all of our communities. I'll take an intervention. I thank the minister for taking an intervention. She mentioned in her opening remarks about 66,000 vulnerable people. Some of those vulnerable people she knows will be people who have been diagnosed with eternal illness such as motor neuron disease. Could the minister tell us what the Scottish Government intends to do about the inconsistency of care charges across the councils in Scotland? I'm looking for a very positive response on that. She knows that it's something I've campaigned on for a very long time. Minister. I would say to the member that the Scottish Government is clear that people with terminal illnesses should not be charged for their care and we're working very closely with COSLA and the charging guidance group to look at this. I think the minister for public health and the health minister have already said that COSLA is aiming to have a new guidance in place by April 2015 and that there should be no care charges for people with terminal conditions using the same definitions of terminal as used by the DWP. We are taking that on board and it is a very important matter and I thank the member for raising it. We all know and it's very clear that PIP, like most of the UK Government's welfare changes, has been beset with problems from the outset. There's the unacceptable delay in processing claims and the National Audit Office reported that over 2013 there were 92,000 claims outstanding and recent DWP data indicates that this figure is now substantially higher. The voices from the front line report from Citizens Advice Scotland and the impacts of delays of PIP highlights the real hardship and distress that is causing disabled people and their families. It's for those reasons as well as awaiting the outcome of the Smith's commission that is calling on the UK Government to halt the roll-out of the personal independence payment. Limited is our current devolved powers are in this area. I can assure the chamber that this Scottish Government is doing all it can to support our people and organisations throughout Scotland in these extremely difficult times. We have topped up the discretionary housing payment budget to the maximum allowed and this enables councils to help those with the cost of the bedroom tax. We have continued this commitment up to £35 million in 2014-15 and £35 million in 2015-16 to fully mitigate the impacts of the bedroom tax. We should remember that over 80 per cent of households in Scotland affected by the bedroom tax contain a disabled person but quite frankly rather than spending £90 million on a policy that we have no control over I'd much prefer to have the power to abolish the bedroom tax. It's also clear that the UK Government had made no cumulative impact assessment of these reforms until summer this year when research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission confirmed what many of us knew. It concluded that impacts of tax and welfare reforms are more negative for families containing at least one disabled person particularly a disabled child and that these negative impacts are particularly strong for low-income families. Scottish Government officials have confirmed with the authors of that report that households with a disabled child could expect to face an average loss of income of around £1,400 while households with a disabled adult and disabled child will lose £1,900 a year and it begs the question why the Scottish Government would do that as a matter of deliberate policy but we know the kind of government the kind we have in Westminster the con-dem's proposed benefits freeze from 2016 it's not applied to disability benefits but it would apply to work-related activity group of employment support allowance and many people in this group have illnesses which are serious or progressive and the Office of National Statistics figures suggest that around 28,000 people in this group in Scotland have mental health or behavioural disorders many others have diseases of the nervous system which include progressive illnesses such as MS or Parkinson's and barely a week goes by without more evidence that the current UK system is failing the most vulnerable members of society. The Scottish welfare fund provides help when people need it most through community care grants 15,000 households in Scotland have been helped by the fund in its first 15 months of operation In the first year of operation around 11,500 community care grants and around 25,000 crisis grants were awarded to disabled applicants and it should be noted that disabled people had a higher success rate than others Two weeks ago the DWP announced the award of the delivery of health-related assessment to maximum health and human services I have written to the UK Minister of State for disabled people Mark Harper to ensure that measures are implemented that allow greater confidence in the assessment process while protecting the dignity of those being assessed I want to have in place a system that treats people with dignity and respect and I want a system that prioritises supporting individuals The Scottish Government greatly values the contribution that disabled people make in the labour market and in our communities Disabled people make a significant contribution to the economy and should have the opportunity to take part in everything and a equal footing with non-disabled people The employment rate for disabled people in Scotland is much lower than it is for non-disabled people and this is not acceptable to improve the situation The Scottish Government's ambition is that all those disabled people who want to work get the opportunity to do so Our employability policy for disabled people is focused around the development and promotion of supported employment a place and train model which enables people to learn on the job with support from colleagues and a job coach We are keen to encourage the use of the supported employment model and we continue to work with partners to ensure that supported employment becomes a more integrated part of the local services available to those seeking work The Scottish Government is clear that we should focus on helping disabled people into mainstream employment whenever possible However, we also believe that there can be a valuable role for supported businesses businesses where more than 50% of the employees are disabled persons and we are stepping stone towards mainstream employment and for those who are unable to progress We know that the welfare reform changes not only affect disabled people but can have a knock-on effect upon the income of people caring for them We are listening to carers and will bring forward legislation within this Parliament to support carers and young carers Presiding Officer, all of us in this chamber know that the UK Government and the welfare changes continue to cause hardship for too many of our people people who already face higher costs and are more likely to live in poverty We surely must all agree that it is utterly obscene that disabled people are being disproportionately affected by those Westminster cuts I believe that halting the roll-out of PIP having full powers over social security and taxation is the best way to protect and defend the rights and incomes of disabled people in Scotland and I move the motion in my name Thank you very much I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 11494.3 I would further invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons if indeed they do wish to speak in the debate Jackie Baillie, 10 minutes Thank you very much Presiding Officer I welcome this motion and debate brought forward by the Scottish Government because it is right that we take time to consider the impact of welfare reform on disabled people because for many months disabled people their families, their carers have endured hardship, hostility and fear they are living with the consequences of decisions made by the Tory Liberal Coalition that are actually causing them real pain increasingly disabled people are becoming anxious and despairing of the impact and as we see the reality of the impact on disabled people's lives we begin to truly understand that this Tory Lib Dem Coalition has not the first idea of what it is like to be disabled but Presiding Officer it was Lord Freud's recent remarks that have rightly caused anger and outrage to suggest that disabled people do not deserve to get paid the minimum wage is wholly wrong more than anything else I think this gives us an insight into the thinking of the coalition government this is what they believe deep down and disabled people know this because of the effect that the coalition's other policies are having on their lives so let us today send a very clear message that we value disabled people as equal citizens that we treat all people with respect that we recognise the worse and potential of every person and that we will not tolerate an attack on their dignity and on their rights I am clear that Lord Freud should not be in government I am equally clear that this Tory Lib Dem Government should not be in office and I remember David Cameron's promise that the cost of austerity would be borne by those with the broadest shoulders but what I didn't realise is that he meant that those shoulders were those of the sick and disabled rather than the millionaires sitting around his cabinet table to give the welfare system to make it fit for purpose but the change from DLA to PIP is accompanied by a budget cut of 20% entirely based on an assumption that some disabled people would be removed from benefit or have a substantial proportion taken away and the time delays in processing claims is frankly quite extraordinary it was supposed to be no more than 12 weeks from application to decision UK ministers say they want to bring to 16 weeks but the reality is that this is taking in some cases up to a year there's a huge backlog of assessments thousands of people waiting in limbo delays causing untold misery and just imagine what it's like perhaps you have become disabled recently due to an accident you're having to spend money on adapting your home new equipment to help you out and get you about you maybe had to give up working into the household and your partner may have had to give up working to help care for you and your PIP award which should be helping with the additional costs associated with your impairment is stuck in an enormous backlog now I know it's easy to criticise the Scottish Government do it as well but you know it's not sufficient for the Scottish Government to simply say halt the rollout we need alternative proposals Labour have committed themselves to reforming PIP we would urgently address the backlog in claims I will in a second in claims so that disabled people get the money to which they are entitled the SNP alternative proposals are vague and uncosted the suggestions that the expert group report gave us of a new benefit to replace DLA gives no idea of how much this would cost who would be eligible and experts have suggested that there would be a need for wholesale reassessment for disabled people now I don't think any of us in this chamber would want to see the fear and uncertainty that that would create so I'm happy to give way to the minister if she can tell us what her proposals would cost what the alternative would be minister Dainton, thank you Jackie Baillie for taking the intervention but Jackie Baillie has outlined there the huge problems with the delays in the PIP awards and the assessments does she not accept halting the rollout till they get that sorted out and get those awards out the door to people that are in hardship as she identified would be better and why won't Labour commit to halting the rollout of PIP given its current position Jackie Baillie will show that the minister failed to offer any solutions as to what the SNP proposed to do or what it would cost and I do think you need to take responsibility if you're calling for the halt of something you need to be very clear about what you would put in its place how you would get the money to disabled people which after all is what should be happening but Labour has made pledges to disabled people they include scrapping the bedroom tax which the minister is quite right it does hit disabled people disproportionately I'm only sorry the SNP Government took a year to make up its mind devolving control of the work programme in Scotland because we know that the work programme includes disabled people with only one in 20 securing employment transforming the work capability assessment and involving disabled people in that design urgently tackling the PIP backlog and making rights a reality for disabled people in Scotland because we recognise to get truly transformational change we need a rights based approach we would use the power that the Scottish Government already has to improve the lives of disabled people everything from the motion is any mention of the Scottish Government's responsibility for the policies and services that have an impact on the lives of disabled people let me give you one or two examples firstly housing adaptations which we know are essential for many disabled people the budget has been cut by this Government then restored but you know there still remains a real terms cut now adapting homes means that disabled people can stay at home near their friends and family it protects the public pass but it also protects people's dignity and their ability to live independently in their communities adaptations such as grab rails, stair lifts can save the NHS thousands of pounds and should be a key part of the Government's strategy on prevention so cutting this budget is short-sighted at risk seeing people transferred to care homes, hospitals or other costly institutions when it can be avoided now we know that thousands of people across the UK may lose out on concessionary travel whether it's the companion travel card or eligibility through a passported benefit now the deputy First Minister said in response to questions from me that disabled people in Scotland would not lose out as all those currently eligible would have continued access to concessionary travel irrespective of welfare reform and I welcome that but can I have an update from the minister as being taken forward and how many people have so far benefited thirdly let me touch on the independent living fund now devolved to the Scottish Government I know there is a court case decision awaited about the closure of the fund but in the meantime we have little idea of how the fund will operate in Scotland whether existing claims will be honoured how new applicants will be assessed will the extra money announced by the deputy First Minister be available next year and will it be match funded by local authorities if it's not then there's a real danger that that increase will mean reductions swallowed up in local authority contributions for care packages now I'm told by SPICE that the amount to be transferred is 35.4 million with the additional 5.5 million the fund will stand at £40.9 million the average annual payment was £18,000 so the fund will either support around 2,300 claimants or less than previously or the average payment will reduce to £14,000 I'd be grateful to know which option the minister will pick let me touch on Gordon Aitman's campaign about motor neurone disease and associate myself with comments from Christina McKelvie the Scottish Government must act particularly on the question of care charges and in the time remaining to me that is an area I want to turn to care charging otherwise known as Scotland's care tax this covers charges for care services to help people under the age of 65 in non-residential care this is about people living independently at home and the majority of these people are disabled councils have increasingly turned to introducing care charges rather than cutting services in an attempt to try and protect the most vulnerable they are faced we know with huge budget cuts due to underfunded council tax fees and not only is the resource being squeezed by the Scottish Government but the application of charging is wildly inconsistent care charging is all over the place there are different criteria on what income is counted and what isn't different prices in different places and we are now beginning to see care tourism where people choose to move between local authorities Scotland is too small for such wide variations and I have raised this with ministers before indeed I think it was Shona Robison herself they set up a joint working group with COSLA three to four years on little has changed quite simply this is a tax on disabled people and while some would argue it's a breach of human rights it is simply not fair here is something the Scottish Government can do now and now is the time to do it because health and social care integration will be effective from April the Scottish Government have been warned that they are combining two different systems that are sorting out the underlying principles and that is a recipe for confusion in closing Presiding Officer let me just point out the NHS treats people according to need you are assessed and treated no one asks about your income but with social care your needs are assessed but before deciding what service you will get your income is assessed and charges are applied two very different outcomes that must be sorted out before integration proceeds so here is the opportunity £50 million is a small amount of money you could cancel Scotland's care tax if you wanted to do so you could provide certainty to disabled people about the support they will receive to live independently and that would be a real achievement Presiding Officer if the SNP spent as much time on reforming the things that they are responsible for rather than attacking and blaming everyone else then just think what we might achieve for disabled people in Scotland Thank you very much Before I call on the net mill I just inform the chamber that there is a modest amount of time available for interventions to be made unidly taken on the net mill in six minutes so thereby please Thank you Presiding Officer in approaching this debate I was hoping that it would be constructive rather than acrimonious but judging what I've heard so far I think this seems unlikely because the Government is doing to help and support people with health problems and disabilities to achieve what most people want the dignity of being in employment so they can support themselves and their families I come from a background for most of my young life my father suffered from serious cardiovascular problems and was without permanent work in difficult economic times picking up whatever temporary work he could to avoid being dependent on state benefits my mother took in borders to pay the mortgage because they didn't want social housing my dad when I was 19 and he was in his 50s so Presiding Officer I'm all too well aware of the pressures of low income and the lives of people with poor health and disabilities and I share the UK's ambition to give them the help and the support that they need the issue of welfare reform in general was a key plank of the Conservative manifesto at the last general election to address the inequalities in the benefits system for some people in benefits there is a belief that the financial risks of moving into work are too great and therefore there needs to be more incentive to encourage these people to start paid work the long term intention is to make the benefits system fairer and more affordable to reduce poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency and of course to reduce fraud in the system which has gone on for generations turning to the specific issue of the impact of welfare reform on people with disabilities let me dispense with some of the alarmist terms such as damaging and destructive used in the motion the UK government is committed to providing the necessary support for disabled people through a range of programmes access to work provides practical and I don't think I have time to take interventions I'll see how time goes access to work provides practical and financial support with the additional costs faced by individuals whose health or disability affects the way they do their job it's tailored to an individual's needs and can include travel to work support workers and specialist aids and equipment access to work does not replace the duty an employer has under the equality act to make reasonable adjustments but instead it provides support that is over and above that generally it's available to individuals who are in or about to start paid employment or a job centre plus work trial and their disability or health condition to do their job eligibility in the scheme has expanded to cover a number of opportunities that help people with disabilities to prepare for employment including work experience supported internships and traineeships the amount of help available I'll give way I thank the member for giving way many disabled people were employed by remploy factories across Scotland many of closures of those under successive Westminster Governments large numbers of those people remain unemployed surely she must recognise that those kind of policies have a directly negative impact on disabled people and their employment prospects I'm well aware of the remploy issues about bound to be some repercussions when our welfare system has changed but I think the ultimate intention is to make disabled people better off and I fully expect that will happen the the access to work scheme the ward varies also depending on how long recipients have been employed what support they do need the size of the employer and whether they are self-employed in 2013 the scheme supported 34,000 35,400 disabled people throughout the UK to keep or get employment and I think that that is better than being out of work and claiming benefit because most people really do want to be in work another strategy developed by the UK Government is disability confident set up to break down barriers challenge prejudices and help people into work and to reach their potential over 1100 employers have signed up to this campaign with businesses as diverse as Honda, Sainsbury's, Barclays Asda, Marks and Spencer's EasyJet, BP, the Royal Mail and Balfour Beauty all committed to changing their employment practices with disabled people the motion before us from the Scottish Government seeks to discredit the introduction of the personal independence payment or PIP which replaces disability living allowance that's a benefit which is both complex in its nature and indeed outdated for the needs of people with disabilities today PIP will include an assessment of individual needs and aims to ensure that financial support is targeted at those who face the greatest challenges to living independently there are no savings coming to Government from changes to disability premiums and any money saved will be recycled back to disabled people throughout the process of developing the new benefit the UK Government has listened to the feedback it has received and made significant changes to the assessment as a direct result this includes holding one of the biggest consultations ever at the department for work and pensions it's worth remembering that UK Government figures show that most people who claim DLA have conditions that change over time yet 71% of people get DLA for life without any inbuilt systematic checks and this has led to hundreds of millions of pounds in over payments and under payments despite what the Scottish Government's motion states without reform the number of DLA claims would rise to 3.6 million by 2018 that's around one in every 17 people and is more than three times the 1.1 million who received the benefit when it was created in 1992 our considered amendment recognises that there's a backlog in the PIP assessment process but it would be wrong to suggest that the British Government is sitting on its hands and ignoring the genuine concerns of those in the sector because it has made significant changes to speed up the process these include more assessors and assessment centres extended working hours evening and weekend opening and clearing the oldest cases first the minister should recognise that while significant work remains to be done to remove the backlog of PIP assessments performance is improving with latest figures showing that 37,200 cases across the UK were cleared in July 2014 compared with 2,300 in the same month last year so therefore instead of spreading fear in the matter of welfare reform for disabled people in Scotland through the use of selective figures the Scottish Government should acknowledge that the necessary action taken by the British Government has the potential to deliver positive change and improve the lives of people with disabilities I support the amendment in the appallic Johnston Many thanks and we now move to the open debate six minute speeches or thereby a call on Annabelle Ewing to be followed by Rhoda Grant Thank you Presiding Officer and I'm pleased to have been called to speak in this important debate this afternoon both from the perspective of my membership of this Parliament's welfare reform committee and also as a deputy convener we heard a lot, Presiding Officer during the independence referendum campaign from the no politicians about the pooling and sharing of resources but we did not hear so much from them about the realities on the ground as far as to take one example the welfare system is concerned indeed if we had heard from the no politicians we would have heard from them about how the welfare system is being dismantled at Westminster before our very eyes and about the devastating impact on the withdrawal of the safety net on the most vulnerable members of our society in particular if we had heard from the no politicians about the realities on the ground we would have heard from them about the disproportionate impact of their Westminster policies on disabled people indeed further to our Scottish Government report that we discussed in our debate in August on the subject a few months ago it is clear that 100,000 people more than 100,000 people in Scotland will lose disability benefits as a result of the move to replace disability living allowance with the personal independence payment specifically in terms of current information some 105,000 disabled people will lose at least £1,120 per year further to this Westminster policy and within that figure some 47,000 disabled people eligible for the enhanced rate mobility component are expected to lose up to £2,964 per year for those affected individuals and their families that will mean not only the loss of much needed financial support but also an unwanted and negative impact on their quality of life and speaking of quality of life what can be said of a system whose rollout is causing such anxiety and distress to disabled people in terms of the astonishing delays now built into the administrative processes involved in making an award of benefit and I would refer here to the Systems Advice Scotland report of October this year on the impact of delays on personal independence payments part of the Citizens Advice Voices from the Frontline series of reports and in terms of this report we can see that there are not only delays in sending out the actual form to be filled in once CAB noted a three month delay here but there are also delays in securing an assessment with some six months delay being cited as far from unusual there are then further delays considerable delays in some cases in terms of a decision actually being made and also of being communicated and during all this time no money is coming in to that household in some cases and bills of course are mounting applicants therefore are being placed in financial difficulty many of them in severe financial hardship and this to me is totally unacceptable and quite rightly this process has now been much criticised and I would submit that such delays fly in the face of the rights of disabled people under equality legislation at the same time the disproportionate impact of these welfare policies on disabled people should also in my view be considered alongside equality legislation and in this regard it is interesting to note that the UK Government has thus far refused to commission a cumulative impact assessment of the effects of the welfare changes on disabled people notwithstanding requests for it to do so from organisations such as Inclusion Scotland perhaps Presiding Officer it is because the UK Government hope that people will simply forget the prime motivation behind the welfare changes and the introduction of the PIP which was of course the intention to achieve a 20 per cent cut across the board to the welfare budget for disabled people but what can we do for disabled people in Scotland if welfare changes are concerned given that as we have heard again today Labour will not halt the roll-out of PIP the Tories won't halt it nor will the Liberal Democrats perhaps we can find some hope and inspiration from the infamous 11th hour panicked intervention in the independence referendum otherwise known as the VAU for in terms of the VAU signed by the UK Prime Minister the UK Deputy Prime Minister and the UK leader of the opposition the promise of course was for extensive new powers for this Parliament and as far as welfare issues are concerned Presiding Officer I would submit that it would be important to examine what is needed in this devolution process to ensure that Scottish priorities and preferences can indeed be addressed and in fact as I mentioned in a sitting of the welfare reform committee yesterday when we had a panel of academics discussing the Smith commission process said that it could be useful to start from first principles and look at what we should be trying to achieve by means of social security provision in Scotland and in this regard I think it is worth recalling that the expert working group on welfare concluded and I quote from paragraph 4 in page 7 a progressive and modern nation is one that among other things recognises the importance of an effective social security system to social cohesion and the health, wellbeing and services of its population it should be a safety net and importantly a springboard to a better life where ever that is possible so in conclusion that must be our starting point and we must surely therefore see the halt of the roll out of the personal independence payment in Scotland so that we do not prejudge the outcome of the Smith commission process we do all of us I believe have the opportunity to act where Westminster has failed and we do I would argue also all of us have a duty not to leave the vulnerable in our society to the mercy of Westminster cuts thank you Presiding Officer thank you now Colin Rhoda Grant to be followed by George Adam six minutes thank you Presiding Officer can I draw the chamber's attention to my register of interests Presiding Officer people living with disabilities are often the most vulnerable in our society they find themselves facing discrimination not only with regard to physical access but also with regard to access to work and indeed social activities and if we are really serious about building a fairer and more inclusive Scotland we need to deal with this discrimination and also enable and empower disabled people to take their rightful place in society welfare benefits for disabled people should be about facilitating that and helping them to break down barriers however it often appears to create worry and hardship for them no-one's saying that our welfare system should not be reformed in order to keep pace with the needs of the 21st century however the reform should never be a byword for cuts reform should be about making systems more accessible and improving the lot of those who need that assistance doesn't appear to be the case and add to that the increase in costs that disabled people are now facing disabled people are incurring increasing costs to access the very basics of social care at home we learnt that they are now the new council tax payers as councils face budget cuts they have to choose either to cut services or to charge for them councils start to cash increasing costs to disabled people for the assistance they need to survive and go about their daily lives Scotland against care tax has petitioned the Parliament presenting figures that show not only could this be affordable but it might indeed in the longer term be a saving it's surely a human right to be able to access society regardless of disability it should not incur a charge it should be free at the point of need and that is a challenge that we should all be facing up to this afternoon not settling for the postcode lottery that we find for charging for care not having the term in L paying for their own care we really need to face up to this and deal with the issues at hand it's simply wrong that the most vulnerable in our society are facing the higher costs and service cuts while the welfare are enjoying tax cuts from this Scottish Government and I'll give way to Annabelle Ewing issue of care charges for terminally ill individuals is it not the case as far as care charges for terminally ill individuals are concerned that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being has made it quite clear to local authorities including presumably Labour local authorities that this is not on and that no charges have to be made would the member accept that's the position? I would accept that the cabinet secretary may have said that however the cabinet secretary has not paid for that the underfunding of local authorities means that the most vulnerable in our societies are having to pay and the Government if it's serious cannot pass the buck it needs to stand up and take responsibility it's absolute no I'm not doing another intervention because it is absolutely disingenuous to castigate colleagues not only in local government but also in Westminster for welfare cuts when you're doing exactly the same yourselves surreptitiously both our governments are letting down the people they should be protecting and it's surely long since time that we should be facing up to the hard choices we need to make to protect them the Scottish cab tell us that unacceptable delays being faced by people applying for personal independence payments which causes severe hardship access to PIP can lead to access to other benefits too so a delay means exclusion from them living expenses tend to be much higher for disabled people who require to pay for many aspects of their social care and are dependent on accessible modes of transport which often cost much more we also need to bear in mind that the information we have on hardship experienced by disabled people doesn't always give us the full picture because as exclusion Scotland tells us many disabled people are unable to mobilise in their own defence and often don't tell when they are experiencing hardship the Scottish welfare fund should help vulnerable people who are waiting for the outcome of their PIP and benefit claims however it's not designed for that the Scottish government's own guidance and welfare fund does not take into account these delays it restricts access to crisis grants to only three in 12 month period if you're waiting six months for your PIP application to be approved it's clear that you will need more crisis support throughout that process this guidance needs to be reviewed and changed in order to provide a safety net for those in this situation it may be that funds could eventually be clawed back if the claim was held and indeed backdated but it shouldn't be dependent on repayment as those most in need would be afraid to access it if they were going to have their claim turned down and indeed include a debt for the future the Scottish government is always wanting more welfare powers but it actually doesn't use the ones it has to help most disadvantaged so they need to review the welfare fund as a matter of urgency it should also be a human right to access work to have the fulfillment of contributing to society and receiving the benefits that that brings yet we have disabled people being discriminated against in the workplace it's sad to say that only half a percent of disabled people access the Scottish modern apprenticeships while they make up 20 percent of the population we need person centered access to work programme that takes on the individual and helps them discover the outcome and overcome the barriers they find excluding them from the workplace assistant will vary with the individual but at the heart we must have the ability of people to work and sustain their employment this is surely about a human right and about equalities we need to make it's also about making workplaces representative if more disabled people work people get used to the impact of the barriers that barriers have on them and they're indeed less likely to build those barriers going forward discrimination is rife in our society and during hard times for everyone there emerges a blame culture we find this with the rise of nationalism where immigration is blamed however we also find it in a mindset that increases discrimination against those who need most support from our welfare system and I find it appalling that disabled people face that backlash it's unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated it's false to us all to confront these attitudes where we find them and build a fairer more inclusive Scotland I now call on George Adam to be followed by Jim Hume six minutes please thank you Presiding Officer I too extremely interested to take part in this debate because my involvement of course is from a quite an personal point of view as my wife Stacey has multiple sclerosis and most of you know I'm the chair of the CPG on MS within the Parliament and because of that I've actually had a lot of dealings with various groups throughout my time as an activist and then a politician both local and nationally and as such I've talked to the Scottish Disability and Equality Forum and I asked them today if they could possibly give me some information on what they thought in the current debate and they instantly sent something back to me and they said the SDEF we would like to see welfare system completely to the Scottish Parliament as this is the only way that disabled people will have a life without discrimination and cuts. Now I think that that just shows you, it's one paragraph they have summed up exactly what this debate is about because it is about the extra powers that this Parliament should be receiving and I've said in various other debates that the Smith commission had a lot to deliver it has to deliver on as my colleague Annabelle Ewing said about the vow they have to deliver on that and it's ideal that this place would have the powers to be able to make that kind of transformational change in our society and with the more powers as the ministers already said we can scrap the bedroom tax ensure the national minimum wage increases at least in line with inflation and scrap the roll out of the personal independence payment something today the Labour Party seems to want to not do because every one of their members actually hasn't said anything and I would like to say well can I just say this point excuse me sir as well one of the other points I'd like to make is you know Rhoda Grant just said there don't castigate a Tory Government well I'm sorry my constituents and the people who have disabilities in Scotland are asking me to represent them here in this place and ensure that we actually make their voice be heard and if Ms Grant wants to take that back Presiding Officer I'm quite happy Rhoda Grant Mr Adam which intervention are you taking Mr Grant Rhoda Grant please he absolutely misquotes me I told him it was disingenuous for him to castigate for his party to castigate the Westminster Government when they were doing exactly the same themselves George Adam you know one of the we'll check the official record and we'll take it from there but the one of the things about Government is the responsibility that we must take up here and that is what the extra powers are and that's why the people in Scotland want in a recent panel based poll you know 75% of people actually said they wanted welfare and benefit system to be devolved to this Parliament and that shows you the power and what they want as well because that was the promise after September the 19th everything was changed and Scotland has changed forever but the reality of the situation is 105,000 people working aged disabled people will actually be disabled benefits from 2018 but loss of £1,120 per year now this includes 47,000 disabled people who receive enhanced rate mobility and that's one of the issues that we've got to look at here because in the MS society they recently did a paper on the fact that people with MS is very difficult for them to actually be able to see and one of the problems with the whole PIP system is the fact that the people that are assessing them are not taking into consideration their actual condition they're being left as if they don't understand it and there's been constant complaints you know I've got one example here I was lucky to have support but they do make it really difficult they don't respond to letters I've written to them on team times and you're left wondering did they even get my letter now these are people dealing with the DWP going through a very difficult situation and on the fact that they have a certain condition like multiple sclerosis one of the triggers for an attack can be worry and stress now we have people who have gone into the system and I've said to the MS society in Scotland they've come out the other end and they're actually feeling as if they've actually had an MS attack now is that the type of Scotland that we're wanting to live in when we have people here and I think the Labour party in particular should back the Scottish Government when they say we must stop the rollout because we can no longer allow our citizens to be put through this kind of discrimination that they're kind of getting put through because most of our, sorry Mr Living, Mr I can't remember your name sir Macintosh but at the end of the day I've got Ken right anyway but at the end of the day one of the things that we've actually got to look at is some of the very serious issues that people with MS in particular have had to deal with you know, you need help and compassion it's so stressful because it's one individual that's a member in Aberdeen you know, is this the right system because most of them end up going through the system and they end up getting it back on appeal later on so the whole idea that the Tories that this will make a difference are ideal that they will take 20% off of the cuts right away regardless of that individual that 20% was regardless of their disability and that individual it was just purely a number now we have to say that the future as we deal with things in the here and now I'm not reliving the independence referendum I'm asking for the powers in this parliament that was promised by the no parties I'm also asking the other parties in this chamber to back the Scottish Government and say no to the continued roll-out of PIP and we deal with the here and now but the problem we have as the Westminster elite is that they don't want to play that game because there is the old Westminster campaign next year and they want to go back to the same old Tory Labour fallout now things have changed dramatically in Scotland and I think they have to ensure that they give this parliament the power that the people of Scotland voted for I now call Jim Hume to be followed by Christina McKelvie the fact that we have a welfare state shows that we have a social conscious for others less fortunate or who may be going through a difficult patch in their lives Poverty has to be tackled by as many instruments that we have to hand and that's of course by financially supporting others in times of need and it's also about making work pay to when possible that's not just the Lib Dems and Governments who say that but also the Scottish Government's expert working group on welfare there has been change in welfare but there is agreement that we had an unsustainable situation in the Chancellor's office back in 2010 stating that there was no money in the kitty sorry about that and the fiscal commission said that independence would mean that the Scottish Government would have to match the trajectory on debt reduction a fact that a certain Mr Swinney agreed on regarding more facts let's look at some Lib Dems and coalitions have protected carer and disability benefits so that they actually rise with inflation that's a percentage point above other benefits other benefits such as disability living allowance personal independence payment and incapacity benefit and the support group component of employment and support allowance all increasing by 2.7% there's £40 billion spent every year supporting people living with disabilities in the UK 20% more as a proportion of GDP than the EU average it's something we as Lib Dems take very seriously it's widely agreed that a simplified streamlined system of back-to-work support with those who can has the benefit of one assessment and one budget so that those in need have more control and choice so Lib Dems and coalitions of course will also stop the worst that the Tories could have done George Osborne wanted to cut an extra £12 billion from welfare spending we put ourselves in a position to stop that dead in its tracks I will at that point to you I'm grateful to the member for giving way I just would ask him then all of the charities and organisations who have raised significant concerns about the impact of PIP and the roll-out of PIP are they wrong Well I can actually quote you from the Inclusion Scotland 2.4 of their briefing where it actually says that PIP however suggested that there be more people have been successful in claiming PIP and a higher rate PIP than the DWP was actually predicting and Labour allowed of course working age welfare spending to increase by 50% from 63 billion to 90 billion in the three years up to 2000 which of course was totally unsustainable reckless decisions that the rest of us have heard to clean up whilst Labour retired to opposition benches across the UK in hope that no one would notice the damage they'd done while the public certainly did notice during the referendum debate it was implied by this Government that there would be a reversal in welfare changes but no mention of that in their white paper explicit mention every time any of us in opposition hold this Government to account which is a job what do we hear where is the money going to come from well that works both ways there was no mention where a possible £2.5 billion would come from of course there was no mention of where an extra £600 million would have come with cap budgets as promised and if Scotland hadn't got membership of the EU either these are all ffountains of chocolate in a Walter Mitty fantasy world where we're getting credit when things go well and blaming others when it suits happening from the sidelines about any changes that they attempt to make gain from whilst at the same time feeling to commit any reversals their expert working group on welfare reported last May that they'd tackled payday loans well that's already done by Lib Dems in coalition their expert working group recommended changing universal credits to well more universal credits replacing the work programme well with another work programme sorry I'm just finishing up here and replacing sanctions with well other sanctions so bluff and bluster with no real substance those looking for change with independence must have been left cold with the thought of no radical change just a real labelling exercise so let's have a reality check welfare in budget Scotland within the UK is going up £50 billion more than which is more than any previous Government has been spent SNP promised more spending everywhere and of course lower taxes more saving on oil fund but they did not put their extra spending on welfare in the white paper it's crocodile tears we see today in populist politics at it's worst Presiding Officer it is vital that those in need get support and those who can work are encouraged and benefit in doing so Lib Dems want to create opportunity for a stronger economy and a fairer society SNP's white paper on independence failed to identify a £2.5 billion increase in welfare support their own working group failed to recommend that increase in the social security budget but what the group did not fail to recognise was that welfare spending in Scotland in 2016 to 2017 is set to rise not fall rise by £2 billion not mentioned today but the economic with the truth again unlikely to happen of course under Tories alone unaffordable under the spend spend spend of labour and of course delivered by the Lib Dems in coalition thank you thank you now called Christina McKelvie to be followed by Ken McIntosh oh well thank goodness for the Lib Dems we're all blessed Presiding Officer before I get into the the meat of my speech I would want to pick up just on one point with the minister on my intervention earlier I was delighted to hear when the minister said that the Scottish Government ministers were working with COSLA on guidance for care charges but I wonder if in the summon up the minister could maybe give us some insight and how they would tackle the situation should that agreement not be in place by April 2015 and I'd maybe suggest looking at some formal legislation to intervene on that if that's maybe something the Government would look at Jim Hume said reality check and I thought well ok then we'll have a reality check Mr Hume it's been estimated by Citizen Advice Scotland that around one in three disabled people will lose or have already lost some or all of their DLA they were receiving that's their reality check that's a good thing says George Osborne in coalition with the Lib Dems obviously they are the Government these people were all expecting money for nothing and it's time we saved a bit of cash by getting it back in our treasury coffers and he might have added that most of the recipients in Scotland won't be Tory voters anyway so it doesn't matter much to him since the so-called welfare reform began this Government has done everything it legally can that is what Westminster allows us to do to help mitigate the impact of cuts and the imposition of the bedroom tax our powers though are limited that's the reality check so that we can secure the vital control over welfare benefits we are stuck with Westminster policies and it doesn't matter whether it's red, Tories or blue Labour and Government they're going to continue them anyway so people in Scotland die younger and suffer from more disabilities than anywhere else in the UK that's a reality check that's something that needs to change and there are a range of initiatives in place to help do that in the meantime though we have the policy makers in London eating away at all of our efforts turning back the tide towards our improvements every single step we take forward is undermined by two steps taken backwards by a Government we didn't elect the bedroom tax is a clear example introduced by the Labour Party continued by the Tories first of all in Scotland it didn't build smaller council houses in Scotland or flats homes for families homes for life homes that keep communities together so many of these folk have disabilities often multiple complex needs and what do they get from London's welfare reforms well let's make no mistake Labour's defence today of the welfare reforms is because they invented it they legislated for it and the Tories continued it a kick in the teeth is all that disabled people in Scotland get Westminster irrespective of who's in government and that's a great threat to their personal independence or maybe they'll get a nice letter from Labour appointed Jackie Baillie didn't mention that she wouldn't take intervention on it Labour appointed Lord Freud telling people with motor neurone disease to work longer hours or to take in a lodger Lord Freud the man who thinks people with disabilities are not worth the minimum wage Labour's hypocrisy on welfare reform is no bounds disability benefits and the loss of these disability benefits or the imposition of the bedroom tax I know most of my colleagues here have the same experiences absolute despair and let's remember that people with disabilities did not crash the banks rich private health care bankers did but people with disabilities pay for their incompetence through cuts to life saving benefits the historic agenda is voted for and it doesn't matter what any of them say in this chamber today they voted no so they voted for austerity is pushing more and more vulnerable disabled people out to the periphery of our communities far from benefiting from opportunities for inclusion these folk are being isolated and rejected because of their particular needs they cannot and we must not tolerate that there are claims that some are even pushed to suicide because of the despair that they put themselves in the different criteria that have cost people their benefits don't change the conditions that allow them to receive DLA in the first place no instead people are being told that while all of the barriers are still there they will just have to do without the financial support that previously helped them to overcome some of the challenges physical, economic, attitudinal and communication barriers the introduction of PIP of which we heard much of this afternoon will make matters especially for those aged over 45 66% of these people in receipt of the current lower rate element of DLA are set to lose that benefit 65% of the households being hit by bedroom tax contains a disabled person that is 60,000 plus people there is an overlap between some groups of claimants likely to lose benefit entitlement for example ESA and DLA lower rate care recipients both groups also have large cohorts of people with learning disabilities and or mental health issues or cognitive impairments there are some perhaps thousands will lose both ESA and DLA less money coming in will mean that there is a greater burden on household budgets so the prospect of more people falling into rent arrears should not be ignored they will lose incomes that perhaps pay for additional care needs whilst being simultaneously squeezed by the bedroom tax Leonard Cheshire research shows that disabled people have about 25% extra costs compared to non-disabled people only 50% of disabled people are in paid employment compared to 80% of non-disabled people and disabled people are twice as likely to be poor than non-disabled people and I'd like to pick up the point of Rhoda Grant made about Remploy factories it was a Labour council and a Labour government that closed the Remploy factory in Springburn when I worked with the people who worked there before I was an elected politician people there will never forget that as ever with conservative policy whether it's blue or red it's the most vulnerable and the poorest who are hardest hit Inclusion Scotland calculates around 270 million a year will be lost to disabled people by 2018 so to protect disabled people here we must be able to design and implement policies that work here that means having full control over all welfare and with the progressive policies of this SNP government we can give people the care and support they need that they deserve but more so what they're entitled to Thank you now Ken Macintosh to be followed by Mark McDonald Thank you I want to share with the Parliament if I can the experience a constituent brought to my attention just this week and which yet again left me depressed about the impact of the reform programme and first of all can I say that my constituent Russell Macmillan is not someone about whom you would ever use a word like depressed he's registered blind and has survived a double transplant yet he has more to help people in East Renfisher than half a dozen supposedly more able bodied individuals Russell benefits from the access to work programme and he's the first to sing the praises of a scheme which allows him to employ a support worker or driver for 11 hours a week allowing him in turn to continue to hold down a steady job I'm sure we will hear this afternoon more about the relationship between disability and employment and it is a sad fact that two thirds of blind or partially sighted people of working age that is are not in paid employment so here's a scheme that gets to the heart of what most of us think welfare and working age reforms should be about helping people to make their own choices supporting them into employment or to sustain a decent job now unfortunately the recent changes to access to work mean that Russell's payments are getting later and later instead of being reimbursed at the end of the month Russell now has to wait and find two months of wages from his own pocket to pay the support worker when he phoned access to work to raise this concern he was told to speak directly to the access to work team but that the telephone operator would email them asking someone to contact Russell within 48 hours and that was a month ago and he has yet to hear back I appreciate that this is far from the worst case many of us have heard but it seems to be all too typical of a welfare system plagued with delays driven by the need to cut costs rather than support individuals and becoming ever more remote from those it is meant to serve Russell himself said as a blind man I am incredibly grateful for this support as without it I would be unable to carry out my job resulting in becoming yet another disabled person who is unemployed I'm not keen to complain as I have no wish to be seen as ungrateful however I do feel the need to raise this issue on behalf of the many disabled people that I believe to be in a similar predicament and he goes on is this really meant to be the outcome where disabled people need to go to to cover the support workers wages whatever the original intentions behind the Tory welfare reform programme these changes are simply not working on any level for disabled people the biggest reform has been the move from disability living allowance or DLA to personal independence payments or PIP introduced in Scotland in June 2013 the reassessment programme has been rolled out to more than half of DLA claimants but thousands are still waiting to hear a decision on their claim as the citizens advice bureau reported last month these delays are leading to severe hardship with the vast majority of claimants saying the process is having a debilitating effect on their own condition and with advisors suggesting that a quarter of cases involve inaccurate decisions which need to be appealed the national audit office, the work and pensions committee and the public accounts committee have all strongly criticised poor performance and unacceptable delays even on the Tories professed aim to save billions of pounds in welfare spending the office for budget responsibility the OBR recently suggested spending on incapacity benefit is now forecast to remain flat for the next five years and the switch to a new system of assessing disability benefits could also result in few savings so this parliament can unite in calling on the Tory government to rethink its approach to welfare to recognise that their so called reforms are hurting the most vulnerable and are not even producing the savings predicted but of all we do is call out the Tories for their shortcomings I think we do the parliament and disabled people in Scotland a disservice we heard evidence at the welfare reform committee just yesterday of how complicated and difficult welfare reform is always going to be over the last year many of us were encouraged by some of the principal thinking behind the Scottish government's expert group on welfare yet several witnesses at yesterday's committee commented that there was little sign of a radical new approach or even an attempt at reform in any of the taxes and benefits so far devolved to the Scottish parliament I will give way to him Annabelle Ewing, most grateful to the member for giving way will the member of course be aware as we were talking about the Smith commission process that some 65 charities have called for this evolution of welfare does the member support those charities? As the member will know, the Labour party too has called for the devolution of housing benefit and attendance allowance and the work programme and I would just point out that we put this question to the Scottish people just two months ago in which the argument about the pooling and sharing resources was overwhelmingly supported by the Scottish people and to hear Ms Ewing yet again trotting at the same argument which have been totally rejected by the Scottish people is utterly depressing I have to say and if, as we've heard this afternoon the SNP can only say that the answer is to devolve benefits and taxation without then seeing what they'll do with them when they actually will refuse to actually say they'll put up taxes and I would offer the Labour party would restore the top rate of tax on those earning over £150,000 will the SNP support Labour in that call and reverse those benefit cuts? Minister Minister Minister, I said we can't hear you if you talk away from the microphone. Ken Macintosh gave the impression that people who voted no in the referendum were somehow in favour of the continuation of welfare to be under the UK Government. Is he really arguing that those people who voted no wish welfare to remain in the hands of the UK Government? I think that surely does a great disservice to those many no voters of welfare policy to be decided in this place so that we can have a fairer system here in Scotland. Ken Macintosh? I do think that the overwhelming result of that referendum was the belief in the pooling and sharing of resources and that means the sharing of our communal taxation paying for our communal benefits and that is the system that we have just voted for and what really worries me is that the minister doesn't think that that was the result of the referendum and to go round in circles yet again hearing the same answers with the same solutions when the Scottish people have an entirely reject them is not an answer to the needs of disabled people in Scotland. What worries me even more is that some of the stress and anxiety that has been heaped on our most vulnerable citizens results directly from decisions taken not in Westminster but in this Parliament. Just this week again in my own constituency care providers dealing with elderly disabled although suffering from dementia have been left reeling from the impact of Scottish Government cuts. Worried families are looking on the one hand at services that are closing and on the other to the new Scottish Government care tax and across the board above inflationary rise in charges for the services that remain. The local authority does not even have the discretion to mitigate these cuts because ministers have imposed a council tax freeze. How can the Scottish Government complain about Westminster Dictat when it is even less flexible in imposing its will on our own directly elected local authorities? Can you begin to conclude please? I will conclude, Presiding Officer, because MSPs across the chamber can come together in opposing damaging welfare reforms but we need to put our principles into practice. The SNP have been in power now for more than seven years and the Scottish people expect more than just to rail against the Tories. We need to see something about what they can do not what they can't. Mark McDonald, to be followed by Bob Doris. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would note my interest that my son is a recipient of disability living allowance. We hear a lot about the necessity of reductions of welfare budgets. A situation that is not of the making of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, nevertheless sees them being the ones to bear the disproportionate brunt. We are all in this together if you listen to Westminster politicians but I would quite like to see some of the comfortably wealthy who managed to get away with avoiding paying their fair share of taxation being pursued with a scintilla of the zeal with which the vulnerable and the voiceless appear to be being pursued by the UK Government. That would be at least a start in living up to that rhetoric. Unfortunately, I have got some progress to make if Dr Simpson will let me but all too often these folks who do not have the ear of prominent members of the UK Cabinet so unfortunately it is tough luck for them. Of course, one way that you can reduce benefit expenditure is to increase the amount in which people are paid for work which reduces the requirement to rely on in-work benefits such as tax credits which make up a significant part of the welfare budget but we know that the Government at Westminster do not seem and successive Governments at Westminster have not seen the minimum wage rise in terms of the cost of living or indeed in line with inflation. It is very sad today that the Labour Party cannot find it in themselves to make common cause with the Scottish Government and instead are choosing to turn their fire on the SNP and the SNP Government. We know the reason for that is that while it is undoubtedly the policies that are being pursued by the Tories at Westminster that pose a significant threat to their comfortable position at Westminster and therefore they are more concerned with protecting themselves than they are with protecting the vulnerable in society. It is not too late for them to come to their senses and back the position of the Scottish Government in relation to PIP at decision time but maybe like the bedroom tax they need to wait for Ed Miliband to make up his mind and tell them what their position is on that. I want to move on to some important case studies which I think highlight the reasons why PIP needs to be stopped and why it needs to be halted in the way that the Scottish Government has called for. The child poverty action group in Scotland had a stall in Parliament last week and they handed out information about their early warning system and contained within that were a number of case studies. In one, my father with dyslexia, spinal arthritis and COPD was sanctioned for not attending a work-focused interview. He told the job centre in advance that he didn't have enough money to get to the office as it was not local to him. He was told to walk to the appointment but was unable due to health conditions and was sanctioned for 13 weeks as a consequence. In another case study highlighted within their information one client made an application for the enhanced higher rate of PIP which was refused. The subsequent mandatory reconsideration was also unsuccessful. The client then lodged an appeal and the DWP got in touch with her at this point and offered her the standard lower rate of PIP on the condition that she decided to drop her appeal which I think frankly is a scandalous approach to be taken and shows that there is something clearly rotten within the system. It's also important and as members will know I have a keen interest in the issues around autism. Autism unlike many conditions that present is not a condition that is visible. People with autism don't carry a stick they don't use a wheelchair but nonetheless they have significant challenges that arise as a result of that. I've received a copy of the National Autistic Society response to the independent review of personal independence payments which was made in September of 2014. They say, we are extremely concerned about the implementation of PIP while we have had contact from a relatively small number of people who have pulled experiences and highlighted a number of serious problems including severe delays and poor administration. People with autism in their families are experiencing very lengthy delays in their claims creating high levels of stress and anxiety for a group of people that are already likely to experience high levels of stress or anxiety that delays are also impacting on people's ability to lead active and fulfilling lives contrary to the policy intention behind PIP. Of the people who the National Autistic Society spoke to said that it was either difficult or very difficult to start a claim for PIP only 9 per cent said that it was easy or very easy. Almost four in five required assistance from someone else to start a claim over the phone. Just over four in five reported that they were not aware of the different ways to start a claim for PIP if they were unable to do this over the phone. Just under half who needed to claim PIP through an alternative method were not provided with this. Almost three quarters said they found completing the PIP form difficult or very difficult. Of those who answered the question almost all said they did not know that they could ask for extra time to complete the claim form. A couple of case examples quotes in the report. I have problems using the phone which lead me to suffer extreme anxiety and meltdowns so my husband makes calls on my behalf. He called about starting my claim and explained this to the person on the phone but they said that if he didn't hand the phone over to me I would not be allowed to put the claim in. I had written and asked for a form but this was not sent so I had to phone and find extremely stressful. The telephone menus were infuriating. I had to make countless phone calls just in order to get an appointment for a consultation. No one told me I could have a home visit. Another case study A has a learning disability and autism and has recently turned 16. A family member has applied for PIP both with him and on his behalf. When his application eventually made it to the assessment provider he was given an appointment date and an assessment centre. Unfortunately due to his learning disability and autism when a family member contacted the assessment provider they were told that a home visit was not available in the next six months because appointments can only be booked six months in advance his family member was told to simply wait until an appointment became available. Frankly, none of this is good enough and there are other case examples but I realise I've run out of time all I would say is that PIP needs to be halted because there are clearly endemic problems within the system that are causing great stress and anxiety for disabled people in Scotland and we cannot allow the roll-out of a flawed system to continue which will only add to that burden for our disabled people in Scotland. Thank you and I call Bob Doris to be followed by Dr Richard Simpson. Presiding Officer before I make progress in my speech can I just give reference to one particular comment that did not sit easy with me today and that was the accusation of of populism. Can I just say if defending the most vulnerable people in society is an accusation of being populist I will be populist every single day of the week for the people that I present. And in supporting the Scottish Government its motion before us this afternoon I do so in defence of the many thousands of my constituents across Glasgow region who are disabled and who feel very much directly in the firing line of a UK Tory Lib Dem Government that is how they feel they tell me this. Of course and this is just factual Presiding Officer with Scottish independence there would have been a halt through a personalised independence payments there was complete clarity on that and let's be clear that would have protected 105,000 disabled adults from an income cut of at least 1,120 pounds we are dealing in facts here indeed reforms to the mobility component of that benefit is likely to see 47,000 disabled people up to 2,964 pounds worse off they would have been protected with Scottish independence that was a factual assertion clarity that was given I accept that there was a no vote in the referendum but I still have a duty to seek to protect my disabled constituents and I have to look to see how I can best do that we know that the Condemn UK Government won't provide them with any prediction and today we also know with the UK Labour amendment before us this afternoon we have confirmation yet again neither with a Labour Government at Westminster Labour this afternoon with its amendment refused to support SNP calls Scottish Government calls for the PIP roll-out to be halted again let's just be crystal clear that means Labour are refusing to support calls to protect 105,000 disabled Scottish citizens many of them my constituents that means perhaps later that means Labour are putting constituents directly in the firing line also can I say that we have heard this afternoon requests to find out what this Parliament what this Scottish Government would do differently and indeed the expert working group has been mentioned and it did look at it and it did make some suggestions and I fully and readily admit it didn't give every specific detail for me that was the strength and indeed much still has to be worked through and I readily acknowledge that if we halt the roll-out of PIP protect the most vulnerable and get it right before it recommends with any reform of a welfare system what Labour seems to be saying today is PIP is wrong but we're going to slam the pedal to the metal and accelerate PIP reform and accelerate the pace by which the most vulnerable people will be attacked within Scotland you have to halt the damage if you want to protect the most vulnerable briefly clearly that's not what we're saying one of the measures we would propose which would actually help reverse any cuts to welfare would be to increase the top rate of tax on those earning over £150,000 given the minister refused to endorse this Labour policy will Bob Doris do so on behalf of the SNP Mr Doris have we embarrassed your time I thank you very much I endorse all proposals to bring all forms of progressive taxation to this Parliament the most vulnerable Mr McIntosh if only you would do the same so we've heard I wanted to talk about actually what I wanted to talk about now was some personal reflections in relation to how we could reform the system and what some of my feelings are in relation to it and I've got many many friends that are impacted by this can I say three words come to mind culture of fear I know many disabled people who want to get better I apologise for the language not want to get better I know many disabled people who would wish to seek employment but they're terrified to try because as soon as they say I would like to try their benefits get stopped people are wishing themselves some people are wishing themselves to be unwell for economic reasons one thing that used to happen in the past there were 104-week link grill it wasn't perfect but it was an example where if you moved off of incapacity benefit into employment under certain circumstances of that work placement broke down you immediately went back on to your previous benefits without impact that no longer happens now I think it was a very good idea and perhaps should have been extended rather than eradicated giving people living with disabilities a positive reason to seek employment because they can do it rather than being terrified to maximise their potential because they'll be economically sanctioned for being brave to do that so there's one concrete example that I would like to see if this chamber controlled the tax and benefits system for Scotland a progressive approach I believe also in terms of carers I'm going to come on to carer charges in a second if I get the time, Presiding Officer in terms of carers I think it's wrong that carers allowance is the lowest form of benefit that there is in Scotland so if you give up your work to look after a loved one you get 10 quid less a week than if you were just looking for work anyway that's just wrong why can this Parliament not do something about that why do we not have the powers to address that let's get the powers to this Parliament to have a proper welfare and benefits system we must address that and I want to talk about carer charges because I got the briefing from Ian Hood in relation to Scotland against carer charges and I see it in the Labour amendment today Ian Hood is suggesting that potentially that abolishing carer charges we have to look to see how we can do that of course could cost as little as £22 million and let's look at some of his modelling work I want to read out from the submission we got Presiding Officer it talks about I'll just read through this it talks about two additional sources of income to benefit the Scottish Government if new devolved powers over income tax indeed NVAT are delivered it says that the Scottish Household Survey puts the figure for the number of carers in Scotland at a level of 657,000 of this 46% had given up care work to care 22% had reduced working hours 17% had taken a less qualified job or turned down a promotion to care and 10% had retired early to care if only 1% of this number were able to take up employment as a result of change to the care charging system then the additional income tax and national insurance payments would be in excess of £20 million I am incredibly sympathetic to having no one pay carer charges in Scotland incredibly sympathetic but in finishing off it's absolute hypocrisy from a Labour party demanding the abolition of care charges as Scotland's budget is absolutely slashed and here's a suggestion from the coalition which wishes to see care charges abolished but it requires it requires the tax and benefit system to be given to this place something the Labour Party stands in the way of they also stand in the way of helping the whole southern people in society but this party doesn't this government doesn't and I support the motion what is this afternoon Thank you Dr Richard Simpson to be followed by Jamie Hepburn Deputy Presiding Officer I'm pleased to be participating in this debate one of the SNP speakers referred to the phrase all in this together and it must certainly rank as one of the most hypocritical statements by government in recent times a government which cuts welfare to meet a deficit not to improve the fairness of the system can reduce tax to those earning and fails to tax bankers' bonuses is not one that subscribes to values I recognised but I think for the SNP to talk in the way they are doing when they have frozen the council tax now for seven years giving people like me three times the benefit that people on the lowest in the lowest level of housing that is not progressive no I was refused three times and by you I'm not taking intervention through the chair please sorry Presiding Officer but you know they've refused me I don't see why I should take interventions the SNP are not committed to a 50% 50p rate of tax they're almost every single one of their populist giveaways are not progressive they benefit people they benefit people least who are least well off and that can't be denied I've challenged the SNP repeatedly to say what measures they've got that are progressive they aren't they have the powers how about the 100,000 households including 32,000 families who have been helped through the Scottish welfare fund over the last year what about the 537,000 vulnerable people who have been protected from the increased council tax liabilities what about the 71,000 households affected by the bedroom tax and what about the 72 projects supporting 20,000 people through advice services there's a few points but our point is about our point is wrong because what I'm talking about is fiscal measures all the fiscal measures you've adopted are not progressive not a single one of them and you can't deny that I mean the fact that we've been named as having the lowest maintenance grants in western Europe is an absolute disgrace how does that benefit no I've taken an intervention already what is clear however is this UK coalition are intent are intent upon making work pay what is clear is that this UK coalition government are intent upon making work pay but not by improving wages and living standards for those in work but by cutting those who rely upon welfare those with disabilities often the poorest paid I'm particularly concerned a couple of other speakers George Adam and Mark McDonald have already alluded to those about a number of people within the system who are particularly hard hit by the reforms that are being undertaken these are people with mental health problems these are people with relapsing and remitting conditions of a physical nature these are people with learning disability and with autism and ADHD many of these who have chronic many of people who have chronic mental illnesses will experience significant variation in their disability and to take bipolar disorder as one example patients with the current episodes of many a depression may experience pedigins when they are stable and these can last years as a society we have yet to find a way to support such individuals sensitively but there is no doubt that the welfare forms are making many of these people much much worse and that's really unacceptable it's similar for those who suffer from panic disorder chronic anxiety and depression many of whom will seek to minimise their conditions when presenting to what is a tick box exercise that has really got to be reformed significantly to those with the milder forms of autism spectrum disorder or milder learning disability are being completely failed by the current system the personal independence payment which replaces disability living allowance appears at first sight to be a reasonable approach to supporting those with disability and it is certainly true that the massive expansion which Nanette Milne referred to in those experiencing those receiving disability allowance was far greater than could be accounted for either by the substantial improvements in both morbidity and survival for those with disability and improving prospects of those in terms of achieving independent living the numbers have increased very significantly and I think this really does need to be tackled the increase also may be partly a result from the highly effective shift from institutional care for many of those with learning disability for example or with severe and mental illness so that may account partly for the increase but it is greater than either of those two factors can account for a reassessment of disability and a realignment of benefits to match the level of disability seems a reasonable action however the way it's been carried out has been almost draconian on the one hand and shambolic in its maladministration on the other the figures which we've received from citizen advice and sanctions demonstrates clearly that maladministration is rife the fact that PIP claim cases have frequently been delayed for six or more months some for more than 13 months and even the average of 107 days is considerably excessive what was sold to us by DWP in the original proposals for PIP the process is further damaging due to significant delays in arranging medical assessments and has resulted in unnecessary hardship and much more importantly I believe a deterioration in the health and wellbeing of many applicants subjected to this stressful process I have learnt in the last week that the DWP has wound down many of its trapeel tribunals why? Can I ask if that is does anyone got any idea why that's happened on the coalition benches there is much more that I could say deputy presiding officer but I realise that my time is relatively limited Labour have made five pledges which I won't repeat and I think Jackie Baillie is absolutely right to talk about some of the challenges that we do face the greatest challenges is the inequity in the difference of treatment of those needing social and healthcare and it's something that as a parliament at some point we're going to have to tackle that issue today Jackie Baillie is also right to emphasise respect, reform for better equity not savings per se the vital road of aids and adaptations at concessionary travel all within our power this parliament has a lot of power this government prefers to give it not to the poorest but to the people who are slightly better off and more to the better off and it's no use shaking your head exactly what you've been doing with your populist giveaways you should stop that and start defending the people that you so loudly try to defend today thank you can I remind members to speak through the chair before I call Jamie Hepburn can I say that we are now a bit limited for time so members need to stick to their six minutes Jamie Hepburn to be followed by Ann McTiger please thank you I'll do my best to do that then can I remind all members there is a process of the welfare reform committee of which like Annabelle Ewing I am a member this allows for members of public to contact the committee directly to inform us of their experience of social security system and in particular the process of welfare reformer to commend the process to members and their dealings with constituents who contact them about these matters can direct them to the UC process I am presently engaging members of public through that process directly about PIP and I'll talk about PIP a little later if I have the time but I want to draw attention of members to the evidence of some of those with a variety of conditions who attended committee meetings after providing evidence through the UC process the evidence doesn't directly to PIP but other aspects of social security system but it speaks clearly of a system that has let disabled people down on the 18th of September 2012 Henry Sherlock, a 50-year-old blind man who became blind at the age of 31 who worked for a government job for a number of years with support before having to give up his employment spoke of his experience the work capability assessment he was asked whether he could pick up an empty cardboard box he told us it physically yes he could pick up an empty cardboard box but we did not know where the cardboard box was he'd have to have someone show him where the box was when he picked up the box he needed two hands he'd become immobile because he would not have the use of a cane or a dog to get around he gave a full explanation of why that would be difficult for him but when he asked for the medical report to be sent to him that was completely missing from the report all it said was that he was physically capable of lifting a cardboard box about his disability or anything associated with it and given that I don't have as much time as our members I'll just point to other evidence from one other witness Marlene Hepburn, no relation president also spoke to the committee on 5 February 2013 who was retired from her job as a senior teacher on the grounds of ill health five years before she came to the committee she told us that she had a copy of her assess report that in her mind placed huge emphasis on how well she looked and how well turned out she was as if it was a crime for her to have arrived at the meeting well presented so it was little wonder then I think and the committees have received much other evidence it's little wonder then inclusion Scotland say that the current programme of welfare reforms having a devastating and disproportionate impact on disabled people in Scotland and if I can gently draw that remark Mr Hume's attention particularly might want to remember those words when he suggested inclusion Scotland was supportive of PIP by his selective use of their briefing and turning to personal independence payment scheme specific inclusion Scotland also say that it's clear that the prime motivation behind the replacement of DLA by PIP has not been empowering to disabled people to have the same freedom choice dignity and control as other citizens to participate in society and live an ordinary life rather it's been about cutting their budget and we know that the Scottish Government has already published an analysis that as many as 66,000 working age disabled people in Scotland will lose a minimum of 1120 pounds per year due to the introduction of PIP and that will have a severe impact on those people on the sharp end of such and their ability to lead a fulfilling and active lives and indeed in terms of the processing of PIP claims that's somewhat of a burach when citizens of East Scotland tell us of clients waiting up to 15 months for a decision on their PIP claim people with terminal illnesses running up council tax and rent arrears while they wait decision and clients their clients going to food banks while they wait a decision and our welfare reform committee has taken extensive evidence that demonstrates welfare reform is increasing the usage of food banks in Scotland but department for pensions represents come before the committee David Mundell who was appearing for the UK Gump because no department working pensions minister will come before our welfare reform committee also refused to recognise this merely saying that more research into the increased demand for food banks was require to understand that UK Gump has no plans to commission such research so I think this doesn't speak for a system that's delivering for people I do believe that PIP should be withdrawn I hope that Parliament can agree on that point tonight I think it seems very unclear when members have rehearsed that point and so I won't go into it in much detail here but I think it's very unclear that there is much prospect that Westminster will withdraw the PIP process I do believe that this Parliament should be empowered to do so both the welfare reform committee and the finance committee of which I'm also a member looking at the devolution of further powers and light of the Smith commission process there seems to be a broad support from those who come to speakers thus far different mechanisms have been proposed for such but there seems to be wide support for the devolution of welfare responsibility I think that also does reflect wide support across Scotland I think it does also reflect the fact that in Civic Scotland organisations making submissions to the Smith commission is suggesting that aspects of not all of welfare powers should come to this part are very broad range of diverse organisations we would do well to heed that popular opinion Scotland wants this Parliament to be able to forge a different direction in social security and people with disabilities in Scotland need a different direction in social security thank you and I now call Anne McTaggart to be followed by Nigel Dawn thank you welfare benefits for people living with disabilities is an ongoing matter which is of great concern to all of us here and many of my constituents in Glasgow as a society we are responsible to look out for those who are in need including the people with disabilities surely we all subscribe to this regardless of our political colour in the past few years though there has been little done to protect this group of people and instead their wellbeing in the name of the budget cuts and new policies have threatened them an area where the Westminster coalition government has threatened disabled people has been in relation to the introduction of employment support allowance system known as ESA the purpose of the ESA is to grant state funding to disabled people who cannot work so they can make ends meet under the ESA applicants are subject to a much harsher test than in the past and it is impossible to be covered by state funding until an applicant is approved for coverage this leads to large gaps in coverage the consequences here are not simply talking points in 2014 over 47,000 disabled Scottish people were left waiting for an ESA decision without any coverage that's potentially 47,000 people responsible with family responsibilities equally problematic is the possibility of cuts to the ESA based on Westminster government documents seen by the BBC ministers have considered cutting ESA £72.90 from £101.15 the base level for claimants who are able to work is £72.40 this cut is then understood to mean that a disabled person who does not work needs 50p more than someone who does the effect of this proposed cut is fairly obvious for people who are unable to work in the earn and income government at Westminster is threatening to cut the only source of money they have I believe we must send an extremely clear message to the Westminster coalition government that it is unacceptable that the ESA is not reform instead the government is trying to save money and disproportionately affect people who are disabled and unable to work the Scottish Government has yet to offer a comprehensive solution to fixing this issue the most frequent suggestion for mending the broken welfare system is to simply have the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament this solution is simplistic and unworkable as it would put an already strained system on shaky untested grounds creating greater uncertainty and anxiety is it not certainly to the member for taking intervention I would just ask the question again then whether the position of the some 65 third sector organisations who have been indeed calling for that very thing for we in our Parliament here to have control over welfare powers I'll answer that further on in my speech Presiding Officer we should support the existence of a very wide welfare state where a social union exists and where we work together to protect the basic entitlement enjoyed by all British people Professor Ian McLean a professor of politics from Oxford University made a submission to our finance committee and I quote it is for this Parliament to decide whether it wishes to take over responsibility for the whole of this social protection expenditure or only part if it takes on the whole the relatively unfavourable demographics of Scottish population means that it will face a sharper fiscal squeeze than will the rest of the UK the Labour party has released five pledges for disabled people which I greatly believe in two of these pledges relate directly to reforming the ESA the first is to transform the work capability assessment this test is currently far too harsh and results in too many people who do not have the ability to work being told they must instead the system should be able to support those who require help and not to just try and push them out through a medical test the second pledge is to make rights a reality for disabled people in Scotland this includes ensuring that enough funding exists for disabled people as is needed this does not include cutting funding from the ESA in order to save money towards the deficit instead we must assure funding for those who most need it and if there truly is a need for reducing the deficit not to do it on the backs of the disabled one manner of pleasing both the need to protect the right to the proper funding for disabled people and reduce the deficit would be to reverse the cut the tax cut for those earning more than £150,000 in conclusion what we all want is a fair and equitable country which protects those who are most in need when looking at the current state of funding for disabled people who cannot work easy to see that something is wrong and the solution is not coming from the current Government the system must be changed however simply waving the wand of devolution is not going to work either let's face it we must maintain the welfare state centralised in Westminster and we also need to remember that the welfare state is there to save those who need it and when it is not being accomplished it's time to reassess let's reassess thank you very much and the final open debate speaker is Nigel Dawn thank you very much and this has been a long afternoon a very interesting one and I want to start by picking up on the issue that Tim Hume brought before us a bit of selective quoting from Inclusion Scotland is I think a lot with why extensive quoting from the brief from Inclusion Scotland which is of course the disabled people's organisation members will have received this at 2.1 it says it is clear that the prime motivation behind the replacement of disability living allowance by the personal independence payment has not been empowering disabled people to have the same freedom sorry not been empowering disabled people to have the same freedom choice, dignity and control as other citizens to participate in society and live an ordinary life rather it has been about cutting the welfare budget at 3.5 according to the national audit office sick and disabled people trying to claim the new personal independence payment which is replacing disability living allowance are facing distress and financial difficulties because of mismanagement by civil servants and the outsourcing firms ATOS and Capita challenge of course is by way of reconsideration at 5.2 whilst in theory mandatory reconsiderations should speed up the process of correcting an error made by a decision maker the reality is that they have introduced another element of delay into the process mandatory reconsiderations have no time limits which can leave the claimants without benefit for a considerable period of time at 6.1 Inclusion Scotland are extremely concerned that the interaction between work compatibility assessment regime and conditionality sanctions is disproportionately impacting on disabled people particularly those with mental health issues learning difficulties and cognitive impairments such as autism at 6.3 in Scotland 18,597 sorry 118,000 597 sanctions have been applied over 20,000 of those between January and March this year this suggests that nearly 30,000 job seekers allowance sanctions have been applied against disabled people in Scotland at 6.5 although the UK government claims that the sanctions are a last resort it is evident they are being imposed almost as a matter of course with no opportunity for the claimants to give reasonable cause for the failure that led to the sanction and to prove it at 6.7 two thirds of employment support allowance claimants who requested a mandatory reconsideration of a sanction imposed for failing to attend a mandatory interview or over half of those who had a sanction imposed for failure to participate in work related activity had their sanction overturned this suggests that sanctions are being imposed as a first resort without adequate account being taken of the circumstances of the case it does make the question Presiding Officer whose money are they distributing it seems to me that it looks rather like the UK government thinks it's their money to hold on to and somehow or other the claimant gets it as a last resort I would have thought that people should be entitled to their entitlements and should be helped to get them this does bring me straight back to the discussion we had I think only last week about supported employment and the equality issues which that then raised and I do take the opportunity of repeating what I said then that it is quite clearly demonstrable and well written up that it is in absolutely everybody's interests for have us to have a society where there is a greater financial equality that is simply no longer contestable filter down drop down economics doesn't work however there are three things that you can do you can raise more tax and actually curiously I notice Mr McIntosh just returned curiously there is a debate to be had about that because it is not evident and again there is some international research on this that taxing those who earn more is necessarily the best way of doing this this issue is actually about redistribution and the two important bits about that and colleagues have already mentioned to this are that we get people into employment where they can and of course the debate about the minimum wage and the living wage is about making sure that you are paying them enough that they can actually live on it and secondly that you protect those who are unable to work and that is what this afternoon is about I am looking forward to listening to Alex Johnson who is just about I think to sum up for the Tories Alex Johnson is going to have to defend an amendment which says while this transition may be difficult he is referring to the transition we have all been discussing it has the real potential to deliver positive change and to improve lives I think Ken McIntosh got it absolutely right when he said this isn't working Mark Wood Donald said exactly the same thing whose money is it it belongs to the people who should only need to ask for it not jump through hoops to claim it and my query to Alex Johnson and the challenge is how on earth are these delays remotely acceptable when on earth is the UK Government actually going to start looking after its most vulnerable citizens many thanks that then brings us to the closing speeches and I call on Alex Johnson in six minutes please can I begin Deputy Presiding Officer by addressing that very issue the answer is that these delays are not acceptable and that is why that issue appears right there in the heart of the amendment that I drafted I hope that this Parliament perhaps may be ready after the referendum to begin to deal with the issues that we've discussed today in a manner which is more conciliatory however having heard the majority of speeches I doubt very much whether we're ready for that yet of those who came closest Jackie Baillie in her opening address and in the motion she proposed or the amendment she proposed possibly came closest but yet it was all the more obvious that she it was who chose to open by delivering an unjustified attack on Lord Freud Lord Freud it was who through his own admission believes he mistakenly accepted the premise of a question which was asked at the Conservative Party conference and his words offended many people but he it was also who as quickly as he possibly could apologised unreservedly for the offence he'd caused he is a passionate advocate of getting disabled people into work and has made particular effort to redress the offence that he may have caused worse still it has to be said that this Parliament will quite often seek to score political points at the disadvantage of those who might benefit the repeated complaints that ministers from the DWP will not come before this committee are of equal concern to me however David Mundell the parliamentary under the secretary of state at the Scottish office the one minister who has taken seriously our attempts to communicate at governmental level finds himself the butt of an unjustified attack by the convener and the vice convener of the welfare reform committee and he made he has of course found himself in the position where his efforts have not been rewarded very briefly I thank the member for taking intervention because I think it really has to be clarified exactly what the circumstances are here we welcomed the cabinet sorry the minister's attendance at our committee and in public it is something that his colleagues have failed to do but it is on the record he made a very clear commitment to meet with us and people who had been affected by sanctions and other aspects of welfare reform he said he would do that our claps of the committee have contacted his office on 10 occasions and that has not been fulfilled that is the basis on which we have attacked David Mundell I regret that that was required but the member should really be clear exactly what the letters in the correspondence relate to Alex Jones I can give you a few seconds back I think the opportunity exists to have a more constructive relationship with the parliamentary under secretary of state and that what has happened in the past week has done nothing to serve that moving on I would like to address what was brought up right at the first instance by Margaret Burgess in her speech she said what many on her side have said and that is that having lost the referendum convincingly lost the referendum their submission to the smith commission takes the form of passing the white paper over and telling Lord Smith that what they want instead of independence is just independence by another name the truth is that if we are to have the opportunity to go forward with a welfare system that fulfills its needs and serves the people then Scotland must address the issue of cyclical events, shops to the economic system and our ever-aging population and realise that if we were to tax and spend our entire budget welfare budget in Scotland then we would expose ourselves to a situation where our welfare system would itself be put at threat along with the principles that lie behind it no I have to make some progress moving on to the issue of PIP which is the centre of this discussion the change which is taking place from DLA to PIP is one which will always be difficult to achieve and yet one which I believe is worthy of pursuit let me sort out a few of the myths around this the projected 20% cut in budget for PIP over DLA is not designed to be a complete removal of support this is most likely to be achieved by a reduction in the number of people who will qualify for PIP but they will not lose their qualification for support altogether these people will continue to be eligible to be supported through back to work benefits and these individuals are the ones who will benefit most from that change and getting back into work of those who remain some of those will lose out some of them will gain but that's because PIP is designed to put the resources in the hands of those who need it most and for that reason it is entirely inappropriate to suggest for that reason taking into account the fact that has pointed out by Jim Hume that budgets for welfare are actually rising in Scotland at the moment and in future years not falling it has to be realised that only entitlement is changing therefore it is wholly inaccurate to say that the most vulnerable will see their support cut because the most vulnerable under this system will see their support rise the difficulties associated with the Scottish welfare fund and care charges administered by the Scottish Government make it quite clear that it's not only the Westminster Government that is guilty of problems when it comes to welfare the truth is that what we have seen today from too many speakers is not so much concern over welfare but an attempt to stick back to the politics of grievance that we've seen over the last three years for that reason I support the amendment in my name thank you very much and I'll call Mike Wightman in eight minutes please thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I'd like to thank the minister for bringing this debate to the Parliament this afternoon her motion gives us an opportunity to consider the impact on welfare policies on disabled people as the convener of the welfare reform committee and as the convener of the cross-party group on disability I am sadly all too familiar with the concerns of disabled people about the detrimental effects of the welfare reform act 2012 now I emphasise the fact that the current situation corresponds with the introduction of a draconian act of parliament in 2012 by the present Tory-led administration hardly two years ago it would also take the opportunity provided by this afternoon's debate to look at what the situation has been in Scotland in relation to disabled people under the Scottish Government since 2007 and also consider what could be done in future to improve that situation now I've found myself sharing similar views to many speakers this afternoon especially in respect to the arguments put that there should be further welfare of devolution however while the motion focuses on disability benefits I believe that we must consider all aspects of support required by disabled people and the role that the Scottish Government has in providing for disabled people now and in the future The Annabelle Ewing made reference to the discussions we had yesterday at the welfare reform committee and I would remind her that Professor David Bell provided a paper which made the very important point that we should not make decisions on the future powers and purposes of welfare on the basis of opposition to one specific policy that currently exists Annabelle Ewing will accept that other participants in the panel yesterday in their submissions and also in their oral statements had slightly different points of view I think it's fair to give an impression in the round of what happened I was going to come on to do that but there's no doubt that the bedroom tax has been a disaster and not only fails to achieve the aims intended for it by the UK Government but has also brought monumental distress and hardship to swath of people across the country especially disabled people however when considering what powers we should devolve to Scotland we should do so on the basis that we have taken into account all the risks and the resource implications of the changes that we are making and that's the point Annabelle Ewing seems to miss that a lot of the academics and the experts have gone in great detail to looking at all aspects of welfare in the round and looked at the risks and the resource implications and you cannot do these things in isolation it is difficult to unpick welfare so we've heard the usual position argued this afternoon by the nationalists that we should have all welfare power and all taxes devolved to Scotland but despite the strenuous efforts of my colleagues on these benches the minister has failed to tell us how much they would raise taxes in order to pay for the better benefits and services that they want to control and when the cabinet secretary made her intervention on Richard Simpson she didn't give us one progressive policy she gave us a list of things that the government spends money on and that maybe is part of the problem the fact that we can't tell the difference between an expenditure and a progressive policy which redistributes welfare from one section of society to another probably tells us why they don't have a progressive policy so Margaret Burgess is correct in stating that UK government's welfare policies are extremely disruptive the replacement of the disability living allowance for the personal independent payment is a good case in point certainly Jamie Hepburn just to clarify is the member seriously arguing that the establishment of the Scottish welfare fund supporting many vulnerable people across Scotland is not a redistributive policy Michael Itman is clearly not a redistributive policy it was a devolved resource given to the Scottish Government which they distribute to people who depend on that service that is not the same as a taxation and distribution policy so as I said Margaret Burgess is correct in stating that the UK government's welfare policies are extremely disruptive the replacement of the disability living allowance with the personal independent payments is a good case in point as ever though rather than tell us what they would do how improvements would be made and what they would do to support independent living for disabled people we get cheap jibes aimed at Labour and simplistic calls for a moratorium to do nothing other than take the problems of PIP forward so again yesterday at the welfare reform committee we were reminded of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of 2013 which concluded that the Scottish Government had failed to utilise all of its existing powers and budgets at its disposal in addressing poverty it was an argument about the failures of this Government the simple fact is that notwithstanding the impact of Tory reforms the Scottish Government has to take its share of responsibility for inflicting inequities on our welfare system through its failure to address what we now know is being referred to as the care tax the underfunding of local councils through the council tax fees and the direct cuts to their budgets has resulted in a huge increase in care charges for disabled people that's the argument that has been put to us at the petition committee that subject was raised at the petition committee yesterday and we heard how charges for services that the Scottish Government is responsible for restricts choices, controls freedom and dignity I've heard those claims made against the welfare reform act but there's been no doubt that the Scottish Government's policies also lead to those difficulties so I totally agree with Christina McKelvie in her call for action in relation to Care Cross for those under 65 who have terminally illnesses and it's been hardening to see the cross party support for the Gordon's fight back campaign and it would be good to hear a commitment from the Minister on her summation to support Gordon Aitman's calls for the outlawing of care charges the provision of MND nurses from the public purse and a doubling of their number within the NHS these are all within the gift of the Scottish Government and they could also resolve his final request for the doubling where I would definitely part company with Christina McKelvie in relation to the care tax in her call for legislation to force councils to address the issue I'm sure that our councils could address the problem of care charges if the Scottish Government would rectify the spending restrictions they place on our local authorities we've also heard a lot this afternoon about hypocrisy and attacks on Labour for failing to agree with the SNP's call for a halt to the roll-out of PIP in closing I would remind the SNP that it is Salis the publicly funded NHS body which carries the contract for delivering PIP in Scotland a contract which was approved by the Deputy First Minister before it was signed by NHS Lanarkshire yet again rather than look to what they can do themselves or what they have they call on others to act when you could intervene directly yourselves to stop the roll-out of PIP by insisting that Salis stops playing their part in delivering PIP in the first place Thank you, I now call on Shona Robison to wind up the debate Cabinet Secretary till 4.59 Okay, thank you very much Presiding Officer I've listened with great interest all the contributions today and I want to deal with as many as I can Let me start on a consensual note I agreed with a lot of what Jackie Baillie had to say about Lord Freud's comments Jackie Baillie of course forgot to mention the fact that it was Labour that appointed Lord Freud but we'll just leave that to one side but what Lord Freud said I think did reveal a disdain and complete misunderstanding and detachment from the ordinary day-to-day lives of people with a disability so I agree with a lot of the analysis that Jackie Baillie made about those comments and indeed her comments about the direction of travel of the UK Government However it does beg the question if Labour were serious about creating a fairer system then why did Labour MPs along with the Tories vote for George Osborne's welfare spending cap that includes DLA, PIP and indeed Attendance Allowance in fact Labour MP Diane Abbott who I agree with quite often who opposed the cap said the Chancellor does not say many things that I think are correct but he is correct to say that voting for this cap locks us into the coalition's cuts I think that it says everything that needs to be said about Labour's position on welfare reform, yes of course Jackie Baillie I wonder whether she would care to comment on Alex Salmond's reported comments in the Sunday post where he supported a cap on benefits for individuals nonsense and in fact the SNP MPs were very clear when they voted against the cap at Westminster you will be known by your deeds Jackie Baillie and your colleagues voted for the cap and as Diane Abbott says locking Labour into the coalition's cuts but then of course Jackie Baillie mentioned the bedroom tax so surprisingly because of course what has come to light about the bedroom tax and Labour's position since we last debated in this chamber was that Jackie Baillie had to wait by the phone for quite some time before Ed Miliband let her know whether or not they could indeed oppose the bedroom tax and to support the abolition of the bedroom tax yes of course I thank the cabinet secretary she cannot help surely but recall the year long confrontation I had with the SNP government to get them to move on the bedroom tax I wasn't waiting for phone calls or permission it was wrong we were pushing you to do something about it all year and you did nothing you made people suffer Cabinet Secretary this government has done something we have provided £50 million against the bedroom tax but of course what would be better is to have the powers here to abolish the bedroom tax something that Jackie Baillie does not want this place to have control over but anyway I hope Jackie doesn't have to wait by the phone before she can announce Labour's position on other policies going forward she mentioned the Scottish independent living fund and of course the new funding of £5.5 million is very important because not only will that help to keep the ILF fund open but it will also make the fund open to new users I would have thought that something that we could all agree on is a good thing and something we should all support if I can move on to Christina McKelvie she asked specifically about the position in relation to those with a terminal illness not being charged, care charges and what would happen if there was a failure to agree that position was local government I should say I'm very optimistic and hopeful of an agreement with local government but obviously the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being has made it clear that if that was not the case I would not be prepared to introduce secondary legislation to regulate that aspect of care charges for people with terminal conditions using the same definition of terminal as used by DWP for benefits purposes but as I said I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to that position I want to respond to a few things that Ken McIntosh said in his contribution which I thought actually was a very thoughtful contribution and I thought the example that he used in relation to Russell highlighted the absurdity of a system and changes to a system where someone has managed to get a job hold down a job very well but the support mechanisms around that person are solely being pulled away from under them it doesn't make any sense on a moral position but also on a financial position because if the outcome to that of course is a danger the person loses their job and therefore the financial consequences of that system so I would agree with him it's the conclusions though that I find it difficult to agree with Ken McIntosh on because given what he has said and all the other examples that we have heard whether it's access to the work programme or the other benefits issues surely then what we should be able to agree on is that we could do better if we were to agree with that then surely we would agree that this place is the best place to decide going forward on welfare policy but that's not what Ken McIntosh said what he said was that the no vote in the referendum meant that people were content for welfare to be reserved at Westminster now come on to why I don't think that's correct in a moment but even from that position the Labour Party if they believe that then the lack of consistency in their own approach to that why then would you bother to say that housing benefit and attendance allowance should be devolved if you believe that people are content to have welfare reserved at Westminster and that's what a no vote meant then why bother with housing benefit and attendance allowance so there's a lack of continuity and consistency from Labour Party and ask people where they think welfare should sit time and time again we have seen the overwhelming majority of the Scottish population wanting all welfare to be devolved to this place and on that point I'll take that time McIntosh can I thank the minister for beginning of her comments at least what I actually said of course was that the no vote in the referendum was at least partly a confirmation of the fact that the Scottish people believe and share of resources a very clear argument the pooling and sharing of resources and I think that was a convincing argument that the referendum endorsed and if the minister does not agree can I at least ask her to explain what taxes she will put up to pay for the higher benefits that she is in theory proposing it's quite interesting because a number of Labour members have talked about the sharing of risks and benefits across these islands but you see to me it seems that it's disabled people who are taking all the risks and receiving very little of the benefits Ken McIntosh Ken McIntosh asked about how we could do things differently well the Scottish Government has put in a comprehensive submission to the Smith commission based on a system of fairness and equality and early intervention an ability to bring together of course the tax and benefit system along with the care system again it remains to be seen what elements of those we get devolved to this place because they have to link together and they have to make sense and in terms of the funding of it we're already funding £300 million has been spent over the last two years in mitigating welfare changes from the UK Government would it not be better to have been able to spend that 300 million or indeed the 104 million that we're going to spend next year on designing a better welfare system here in Scotland no I've only got a minute left Mark McDonald used a number of examples about and so did other people about some of the difficulties with people who have non-visible disabilities like autism and the fact or mental health problems that Richard Simpson mentioned and the fact that the benefit system never manages to be able to take account of those conditions which sometimes can be intermittent people can have better days than other days and the system just does not cope with people who are in that situation Alex Johnson in his summing up seemed to have created a number of different categories for people we had the vulnerable the very vulnerable and the most vulnerable I think people are all vulnerable if they're in that situation and it's those very vulnerable people that your Government is attacking if you look at some of the figures around 190,000 working age DLA claimants in Scotland will be reassessed for PIP of which 105,000 of them will lose some or all of their disability benefits by 2018 with a loss of at least £1,120 per year households with a disabled child face an annual loss of income of around £1,400 while households with disabled adults and disabled children will lose £1,900 a year those are the vulnerable people Alex Johnson that this Government wants to prevent your Government from harming any further you need to wind up minister you need to wind up we need the power over welfare to support the Government's motion that concludes the debate on welfare benefit for people living with disabilities we now move to the next side of the business which is consideration of business motion 11496 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme many members wish to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11496 to speak against most therefore I now put the question to the chamber the question is the motion number 11496 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to are we all agreed the motion is there for agreed to the next side of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion I'd ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11498 on approval of an SSI moved the question on this most will put decision time to which we now come there are four questions to be put as a result the first question is amendment number 11494.3 in the name of Jackie Baillie which seeks to amend motion number 11494 in the name of Margaret Burgess on welfare benefits of people living with disabilities be agreed to are we all agreed the Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment number 11494.3 in the name of Jackie Baillie is as follows the next question is amendment number 11494.2 in the name of Alex Johnson which seeks to amend motion number 11494 in the name of Margaret Burgess on welfare benefits of people living with disabilities be agreed to are we all agreed the Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment number 11494 in the name of Margaret Burgess on welfare benefits of people living with disabilities be agreed to the next question is motion number 11494 in the name of Margaret Burgess on welfare benefits of people living with disabilities be agreed to are we all agreed the Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment number 11494.2 in the name of Alex Johnson is as follows yes 17 no 93 there were no abstentions the motion is there for agreed to the next question is motion number 11498 in the name of Jofix Patrick on approval of an SSI be agreed to are we all agreed the motion is there for agreed to that can be done we move to vote members should cast their votes now the result of the vote on motion number 11494 in the name of Margaret Burgess is as follows yes 64 no 46 the motion is there for agreed to that concludes decision time we now move to members business members should leave the chambers should do so quickly and quietly