 We will now be aware when we have no spare warning in hand, unfortunately. The next item of business is a debate on motion 2.6.5.1 Coming in Body of Public道 on the future of social security in Scotland, I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Jane Freeman to speak to remove the motion, please. I am pleased to open this debate about the future of social security in Scotland. The new social security powers will devolve a total of 11 benefits to the Scottish Government. Those benefits affect one in four of us. That's 1.4 million people across Scotland. It's no exaggeration to say that transferring the new devolved benefits safely is the biggest challenge that any Scottish Government has faced since devolution. When our Parliament was reconvened, we collectively took responsibility for existing Scotland-specific institutions, laws and delivery infrastructure in health, education and injustice. There is no Scotland-specific social security legislative framework or infrastructure. Our job is to build a social security system, a public service from scratch. The 11 benefits that will be devolved represent 15 per cent of the total UK spend on welfare. What we have to do together is simultaneously unpick an integrated UK benefits system, which has developed in a piecemeal fashion over the past 50 years, design and build the Scottish social security system and plug it back in to the UK welfare system that will, for the benefits it retains, still carry on and operate in Scotland and will be undergoing reform at the hand of the UK Government. The scale is large. 11 benefits, 1.4 million people and the task is complex. Let me give a couple of examples so that members have some idea of that complexity. The existing cold weather payment rests on 11 different DWP IT systems that have to work together to give us the data on who in Scotland is eligible for that payment. The industrial injuries and disablement benefit is paper-based. That means that for us to simply know who in Scotland receives that payment, the basic information of name, address, age, payment level, someone will need to go through all the brown folders, one each for everyone in the UK who receives the benefit and pull out the Scottish post codes so that those paper folders can be passed to us. We need to understand too that the UK Government's approach to transition will also have a bearing on timescales, including introducing devolved benefits that does not simply depend on what we do, equally it depends on what the DWP has to stop doing. We are not and never will be entirely in control of any timetable for the switch-on or switch-off of social security powers. The cabinet secretary details some of the bureaucratic stuff behind the scenes that has to go on, but none of that is new. That has been going on for some time. Therefore, why was a commitment given previously in the white paper that said that all of that could be introduced within 18 months? No, Mr Finlay, we have done this before. I urge you to go back and read that white paper. What the white paper's commitment refers to is the transition platform for 18 months, which sets a framework in which all of the subsequent work, including this, would go ahead. I also say that my point about complexity is to demonstrate, I hope, to members who are not hard of understanding, that unpicking 15 per cent from a total is a lot harder than taking 100 per cent and redesigning it from scratch. We have dealt with that. If we set that scale and complexity against our overall primary objective, which is to secure the safe and secure transfer of benefits, I hope that members will understand why no-one outside of this chamber has at any point asked us to move more quickly, but everyone has urged us to move safely. We need to make sure that when we take over the delivery of the 11 benefits in the timeframe that we have consistently given in the lifetime of this Parliament, every one of the 1.4 million people will receive the money that they expect at the level that they are entitled to on the day that they expect it. Not one person can be let down or fall into any gap between the Scottish and the UK systems because we have not taken the time to think through and work out every aspect and angle of what needs to be done. We have been clear from the outset that the social security system that we will build will be based on a clear premise and guiding principles. Social security is an investment that we collectively make in ourselves and in each other. Our system will operate from the premise that everyone who comes to it for help and support does so because they need to, and the service and the system will have embedded throughout its operation the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. We are also very clear that to get this right to deliver on those principles, we need to build the system from the ground up. We have recently completed a three-month consultation specifically designed to hear directly from those with real, lived experience of the current benefit system, those who work with and support them and the people who deliver it. Over 120 events were held covering every local authority in Scotland and reaching many hundreds of people. Over 500 responses have been received, written responses, over half of those from individuals and those were published on our website yesterday. The cabinet secretary and I went to many of those events and we were privileged to hear very many people tell us about their experience. Very often, that was not easy for those who told us their story. We heard experience after experience, all of which had the common threads of a lack of information, a difficult-to-access service, assessments that did not touch on how life really is for the individual concerned, decisions that are not based on the evidence presented but on what appears to be subjective judgment and a process that feels heartless and impersonal and leaves people feeling judged, demeaned and diminished. Members across this chamber will have heard very similar stories from their own constituents. It was not easy for the people that I listened to and the very many more who spoke out at those events, but I am profoundly grateful to them for their trust in us that we were listening and that their experiences will be at the forefront in every step that we now take and every decision that we make to build our new social security system for Scotland. I am sure that every member in this chamber will want to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks as a Parliament to everyone who was involved in that consultation for taking the time to give us the benefit of their experience and their knowledge. We cannot fix every wrong or address every unfairness that we heard about. Wrongs and unfairnesses in a UK welfare system that the UN committee has rightly condemned for grave and systematic violations of the rights of disabled people. I am very grateful to the minister for taking an intervention. She is perfectly right to say that 11 benefits are being devolved under the Scotland Act, but she has not said anything yet about the fact that, in addition to that, the Scottish Government will have the power to top up any reserved benefit and have the power to create any new benefit within devolved competence. Will the minister say anything about that in these remarks or not? Minister, I do not intend to know, although Mr Tomkins is, of course, right that those powers are transferred to us. Where was I? He did interrupt me, interestingly enough, right in the middle of what I was saying. The UN committee, I was listening to that. The UN committee, let me repeat, rightly condemned the UK welfare system for grave and systemic violations of the rights of disabled people. What I can tell the member is that the Scottish Government will not replicate those mistakes. Nor can we fix the cumulative loss to Scotland of £2 billion a year by 2020 as a result of the UK welfare cuts made since 2020, which is Sheffield Hallam research for the Social Security Committee has highlighted. We can make absolutely sure that our social security system will not be ruled by an ideologically driven intent to impose cuts on those least able to withstand their impact and those least responsible for the state of public finances, as we have seen—no, I will not—as we have seen from the Westminster Tory Government. So each and every response that we have received and each and every one of those conversations is important. The consultation responses are now being independently analysed and we will publish that analysis and our response to it in early 2017. As we have said, Presiding Officer, the devolution of those powers is a process, and in that process there are key stages. The relevant sections of the 2016 Scotland Act need to be commenced by the UK Government. This Parliament needs to make our own legislation and as a Government we need to ensure that the necessary operational infrastructure is put in place. It all adds up to a robust delivery infrastructure and a legislative framework scrutinised as it should be by this Parliament. So now a number of parallel work streams have begun. To continue to reflect our absolute commitment to build our social security system on the foundations of both real lived experience and grounded expertise, in January we will launch a recruitment exercise for 2,000 volunteers to join our experience panels. The volunteers will be people who currently receive one or more of the 11 benefits, and they will work with us long term to help us to make the right improvements and changes to every aspect and detail of how our system will work, how it will communicate, how it will engage and how it will make decisions. We already have people coming forward to express their interest in joining us, and I hope that members will make sure that their constituents know about this opportunity and encourage their involvement when we launch in the new year. At the same time, we will bring together those with direct experience and expertise in providing benefit advice and support services to help us to make sure that the benefits that we deliver are aligned with the UK system, and we do not create unintended negative consequences by improving Scottish benefits, which then have a knock-on detrimental impact on the benefits that an individual receives from the UK system. Alongside that, more real expertise is coming to us in delivering payment systems, benefits and others, to help us to design the processes and build the working culture of dignity, fairness and respect that will be essential for those who will deliver our social security system in Scotland. All of that work will run in parallel with drafting the necessary legislation that we will introduce in this parliamentary year. To provide additional strategic oversight to our work and help us through the challenges of improving critical areas such as the assessment process, we will establish a disability and carers benefits expert advisory group, working with us again long-term from early next year. The scale and complexity of our task is clear, but so too is the golden opportunity that we have. Not just to build a social security for Scotland that brings our finding principles alive, but to build that system in direct response to the lived experience and long-term involvement of those who know best what needs to change. Every party in this Parliament and every member has a direct state in the future of social security in Scotland. Our collective job is to put the people of Scotland first, political point scoring last and get on and build this new public service as an exemplar of fairness, accessibility and transparency, focused on doing the right thing for those it serves. I move the motion in my name. Security in Scotland is now the joint, that is to say, the shared responsibility of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. In the Smith commission, nobody seriously advanced the proposition that the state pension should be devolved and that accounts for nearly one half of social security spending in Scotland. To have devolved all of working age social security would have been to have failed to respect the result of the independence referendum in whose immediate aftermath the Smith commission met. In that referendum, a clear majority of Scots voted to maintain the pooling and sharing of risk and resources that the union of Scotland with the rest of the United Kingdom represents. In no field is that pooling and sharing more important than in that of social security. Working age social security was split. Some of it remaining at UK level, some of it devolved. The UK is responsible for about two-thirds of this and the Scottish Government responsible for about one-third. Even within the two-thirds share, the UK remains responsible for, Scottish ministers will have the powers to top up reserved benefits, powers to create new benefits and powers to alter the operation of reserved benefits in Scotland. I say all of this, Deputy Presiding Officer, because Gene Freeman's motion bizarrely fails to recognise any of it, hence our amendment to include the United Kingdom as well as Scotland in the opening words of the motion. We recognise that social security devolution is both novel and complex. We are surely all agreed right across this chamber that the priority in the design and in the delivery of devolved social security must be the welfare of the people in Scotland who rely on it. It is also important, Presiding Officer, that Scottish ministers are open with and accountable to this Parliament for the decisions that they make about social security devolution. It emerged earlier this month that in October Scottish ministers asked the UK Government to consider a wholly novel split competence approach to the devolution of certain welfare powers under the Scotland Act 2016. No one had heard of this notion before. For all of their protestations to the contrary, neither the Cabinet Secretary nor the Minister for Social Security explained to the Social Security Committee on which I sit, what precisely they mean by it or what impact it will have on the timing of the transfer to this Parliament of its welfare powers. When we sought to ask questions about it last week, we were accused of playing political football. It was only late yesterday afternoon when members of the Social Security Committee finally received an explanation of what is going on. Obtaining accurate information about the process of so-called split competence, I want to finish the point about split competence and then I'll finish the point if I may, if the member will permit me, and then of course I'll give way to the community of the Social Security Committee. Obtaining accurate information about the process of so-called split competence has been like pulling teeth, Presiding Officer, and it simply isn't good enough. Scottish ministers have an obligation to explain to this Parliament in advance of joint ministerial meetings what they are proposing to discuss at those meetings. In this case, no such advance notice was given in clear breach of the Government's written agreement with the Parliament. If the Government wishes to avoid giving the impression that it is delaying the transfer of welfare powers, perhaps it should start to explain itself in good time, rather than leave us chasing ministers for scraps of information about what they have sought covertly to arrange behind closed doors. I am very happy to give way to the community of the Social Security Committee. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As convener of the committee, I don't recollect anyone who is talking about political footballs in the actual committee meeting, perhaps in private, but not certainly in public. You mentioned Mr Tomkins in regards to letters and, apparently, the Scottish Government or the minister being in secrecy. You all have a reply bag. The answer that you were given in that committee was already written in 8 November and also in June. You did get the answer, so perhaps the political football and blaming is coming from you, Mr Tomkins, from the Tory side. I am just trying to understand exactly what the Scottish ministers mean by split competence and the expression of political football was talked about in open session between the minister and myself and quoted by the First Minister at FMQs last week. It wasn't in private session at all. I want to move on to a second area of confusion. Again, the confusion has been caused entirely by Scottish ministers. That concerns the use of conditionality in the context of devolved employability programmes. We know that it is the Scottish Government's desire that their employability programmes will operate without the use of sanctions. We think that Scottish ministers are in danger of being naive if they are really of the view that effective employment support can be run without the use of conditionality, but if that is what their mind is to do, so be it, and I wish them well. The confusion arises, however, when we think about the relationship of devolved employability programmes with reserved benefits such as jobseekers allowance and universal credit. Those will continue to be operated by the DWP, and a successful social security system will be one in which the reserved benefits for jobseekers and the Scottish Government's employability programmes operate together as smoothly and as seamlessly as possible. It was with some concern, but we read that the cabinet secretary Angela Constance said in an interview in September that, while we cannot stop the UK Government putting conditions on the work-related benefits, we are not going to be giving them any information or responding to inquiries if we think that that might lead to a sanction so much for not playing political football. No, I want to develop this point. UK ministers have made it perfectly plain that the design of Scottish employability programmes is a matter entirely for this Parliament. The Secretary of State reaffirmed this just this week in the letter to the convener of the Social Security Committee, but I should have thought that it was perfectly obvious that there is the world of difference between DWP ministers clarifying that the design of Scottish employment support programmes is a matter for us and not for them on the one hand, and DWP ministers accepting that everyone on a Scottish employment support programme will somehow be free of conditionality in respect of reserved benefits that they may continue to claim on the other. However, that elementary distinction seems to have escaped our rather confused cabinet secretary. Angela Constance has apparently interpreted the UK Government's commitment to the devolution of employment support and means that a deal has been struck with the UK Government, which would mean that Scots will not face the threat of sanctions. Similar comments appear from Jamie Hepburn in today's Herald and Guardian newspapers. I am not sure if Scottish ministers have deliberately misunderstood what the Secretary of State has said in order to stoke yet another nationalist grievance or whether the complexity of the matter is simply beyond them, but perhaps Angela Constance can answer that question now. Cabinet Secretary, please, when was it last minute? I would like to remind Mr Tomkins that I have some history in this matter, as I was previously a few portfolios ago with the Minister for Youth Employment. Sanctions have never applied to Scottish employability programmes. Our position on the UK Government's disproportionate and out-of-order and broke sanctions regime in our employability regime is well known. We were never going to have a sanctions regime in our employability, but neither were we going to do anything that was going to perpetuate it. I am pleased that Damien Greene has confirmed the position that, originally, Ian Duncan Smith articulated some years ago. I beg to differ. The confusion lies in Mr Tomkins's door and that of the UK Government, not ours. I will give you a little bit extra time to do that. That is very kind of you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful. There is a difference between that. Everybody understands that the employability support programme that will be run by the Scottish Government will be a voluntary programme, but it does not follow from that that people on those programmes who are claiming job seekers allowance under the still-reserved DWP-administered programmes will not have to prove or demonstrate that they are in seek, that they are looking for work. If you read the second page of Damien Greene's most recent letter, as well as the first page, you will find that that is confirmed. Whatever the case is, Presiding Officer, the devolution of employability programmes is yet another area of Scottish social security, where instead of clarity—which is all we are asking for—there is obfuscation from Scottish ministers. Rather than co-operation with the UK, there is belligerence and hostility, and instead of getting on with it, the SNP is dragging their feet. More enthusiastic about contrived grievance than constructive government. Six months into this session of Parliament, and the mid-year report on the future of social security in Scotland is must do better. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. I call Mark Griffin to speak to a move amendment 2651.3. Seven minutes, please. I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of social security in Scotland, and I move the amendment in my name. When it comes to the devolution of social security powers, it is important that the transition is smooth and that people do not find themselves with a gap in payments. We recognise that this is a complex process and that it will take time to get right, but it is also important that, where we can help people, now we do this. The current social security system is failing people every day, and we should not delay any opportunity that we have to improve the lives of people with low incomes. Those are not my words, but the words of the poverty alliance. The longer no action is taken, the more disabled people will suffer and die at the hands of the Tories. Not my words, Presiding Officer, but the words of the Scots filmmaker today, in the daily record, has documented the harrowing testimonies of those who have been subjected to PIPIP assessments. The devolution of welfare powers gives us the chance to restore dignity to the heart of the social security system, yet now we know that the SNP has delayed the devolution of key welfare powers that they claim to want urgently. During that time, the Tories will continue to make their cuts and the most vulnerable will continue to suffer. That is the same Scottish Government that told us that a whole new independent country could be set up in 18 months, but now it turns out that it will take years to devolve 11 benefits. I would like to make some progress. I have a specific point on the timetable in the delay that perhaps the cabinet secretary would like to address, and I will happily bring her in then. However, the Scottish Government has spent its entire time in office arguing for the powers to take different choices from the Tories. Now they are signing deals to delay the delivery of powers to choose a different path from them. The cost to Scotland of leaving those powers with the Tories is substantial. Sheffield-Hallam Calculate Scotland has already lost £1.1 billion a year in social security payments, with another £1 billion to follow. Between 2010 and 2020, Glasgow alone looks set to lose £167 million, Westlothian £38 million, Fife £74 million, and North Lanarkshire £78 million. One of the most concerning examples of how that decision could impact people in Scotland is the migration from DLA to PIP. Currently, the UK Government is moving disabled benefit recipients to the old benefit disability living allowance to personal independence payments, which could lead to Scots losing a collective £190 million a year. Leaving executive competence in the hands of the UK Government could mean that 150,000 people on the old benefit remain at risk of going through the new assessment process while the Scottish Government waits for full control over those powers. During that time, the Tories will continue to make their cuts and the most vulnerable will continue to suffer. In the minister's constituency, almost 3,000 people could have to endure a Tory PIP assessment whilst the SNP delays the transfer of powers. Another 2,260 in the cabinet secretary's constituency. In my region and the region, I represent almost 20,000 people will be at risk of going through the new assessment process, losing out because of the delay to assuming control over those benefits. Happy to let the minister address that point. Mr Griffin, who is normally very eloquent and insightful, started off by quoting the Poverty Alliance, but the Poverty Alliance also said to this Government and to everyone in this chamber that we had to proceed and conclude matters safely. I have to correct him. The minutes of the joint ministerial working group go to the Social Security Committee. The chief point that he tries to make about independence is that if Scotland had voted yes in 2014, we would have been independent this year, but the welfare state would not have fully transitioned within our grasp until 2018. We really need to set the record straight here. I said that I had a particular point to make about the delay to assuming those powers, and that was about the danger to people who are on DLA being reassessed and moved over to PIP. There has been no answer from the Scottish Government, and hopefully that will be covered in the summon-up. However, there are 20,000 people in my region and more than 2,000 people in the cabinet secretary's constituency. There are 150,000 people across Scotland on DLA who are at risk of being reassessed and moved over to PIP because the Scottish Government is leaving executive competence with the UK Government. I will happily leave that. The minister can make those points in summon-up. I have progress to make. I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of social security in Scotland, but for people who rely on it, the future is tomorrow, the future is next week, the future is next month and the future is not 2020. The constituents that we have come to us on a daily basis just cannot wait that long. In September, we called on the Government to use the social security bill to set a legal duty on its new social security agency to increase the uptake of social security benefits and maximise incomes in Scotland. Ahead of the debate, we have released new figures showing that 56,000 carers in Scotland do not receive the carers allowance that they are entitled to. That has been verified by the independent experts in space. Those new figures show that carers allowance worth £170 million has not been collected by 56,000 carers in Scotland who are entitled to it. Carers who are often the unsung heroes of our country, thousands of people who dedicate their lives to caring for others and saving the Government, particularly our NHS and social care system, billions of pounds because of their selfless care and attention. All parties in the Scottish Parliament agreed to increase carers allowance to the same rate as jobseekers allowance. That is an increase of £11 per week. Carers deserve at the very least £600 a year. To ensure that carers benefit, we want to increase the amount that they receive and make sure that every single one of them who are eligible claims it. We believe that that could be achieved by a statutory duty on the new social security agency. I will wind up there and ask members to support the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. When I move to the open debate, I call Sandra White to be followed by Liam Kerr, Ms White. A tight six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that I was looking forward to the opportunity to speak in this debate. First of all, I would like to clarify something for Mr Tomkins. If I could read out the letter that you have, also Mr Tomkins mentions, dear Sandra, as I confirmed to the committee, DWP will make referral to devolved employment programmes on a voluntary basis. For the avoidance of doubt, a voluntary referral means that a benefit sanctuary will not be applied for failure to attend or to participate in the programme. That is laid to rest now. I hope that Mr Tomkins will take that on board. I am very proud of that. I feel an exchange of quotations coming on Mr Tomkins. I will take it into mention. Presiding Officer, you have read my mind. On the very next page of the letter, the Secretary of State goes on to say that it is also worth noting that these claimants will still be required to meet other conditions to continue to receive benefit, meaning that they will need to demonstrate that they are looking for work, otherwise they will still be eligible for conditions. Ms White, do you have another quote back? No, I do not want any quote back. I would just like to perhaps say something to Mr Tomkins. He quotes that and quotes the second page. He is also very confused, but maybe if Mr Tomkins turned up at meetings and did not have two jobs to go to, he may not be so confused. I will not take any lessons from someone who actually publicly said that he could not live on an MSP salary and he had to have a second job, so I think that he will leave it there and Mr Tomkins can perhaps think about that. Maybe he is confusing what we are absolutely less. Yes, I think that we would turn to the motion. I will, as part of the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am proud of the SNP Government. We are committed to taking the new system in a very different direction to the current, as I see it, our punitive structure that is currently put in place by the Tory Government. The SNP will deliver assistance that will treat people with dignity and respect, and I welcome that commitment. I sincerely hope that others in the chamber, regardless of party, would also welcome that as well. As the minister said, there is a timetable in place for the safe, secure transfers of powers, and it is my committee's responsibility to ensure that the social security bill is thoroughly scrutinised. I was rather concerned by Mark Griffin's remarks. Here is someone whom I mentioned, and I still think that he is very highly of, but the Labour Party and the Tory Party seem to be hand in hand, not just scaring people, because that is what we are doing. Basically, we want a transition that is smooth and does not affect people falling through the net, and that will not happen if you rush the legislation through. Mark Griffin knows that. I will take it out short. Mr Griffin. Clearly, I am not working hand in hand on the Tories since we are criticising the powers remaining with the Tories, but perhaps Sandra White could address the point that there are 150,000 people in Scotland who are in danger of being reassessed, going from DLA to PIP because of the delay and executive competence remaining with the UK Government. Why does Sandra White not want to protect her constituents and mine who are at risk of reassessment? Ms White. Obviously, I do want to protect them, but Mr Griffin does not seem to grasp this. There are some people on DLA at the moment. If you are 65 years and aged and over, you will always be on DLA. There are some people going to PIP. That is complicated enough. If you, all of a sudden, say within a couple of months that it is not a delay, it is looking at it responsibly. I would have thought that, of all people, the Labour Party would have wanted that to work, not just for your constituents, but for all the people of Scotland as well. We have a golden opportunity to do something absolutely different, and yet you still cap from the sidelines and frighten people, and that is what you are doing. For that, I think that it is quite unforgivable. We have to focus and make sure that we deliver for the people the ministers have already mentioned about the initiatives that have been put forward, particularly about the experience parol. I think that that is great. That is very, very people-focused. It is a great initiative and it is a very welcome move. It will inform the initial design of the system and how we can make improvements going forward in that system. It has already been said that we have to remember that 85 per cent of the powers to stay with Westminster. We wanted 100 per cent of the powers to be in this Parliament, and that is rather sad that other Unionist parties did not want that. Let us be quite honest in that respect, and let us not confuse the people out there. We wanted 100 per cent, but we could have delivered that 100 per cent. We only have 15 per cent, but as I set out to say, we are where we are and we have to make the best of what we have got. I thank the daily record for the continued support in regards to the PIP payments. They have done a very, very good job on that. They will continue to do that as well. We cannot kick the people on that this will happen in a couple of months. Their lives depend on it, and I do not want to be responsible for that. I just wanted to go on, but I think that most people and maybe many of the people here might have seen the film Daniel Blake. I had the opportunity, along with Monica Lennon, who is not here today, and with others, and Paul Lavarty, the screenwriter, last Thursday, when we were asked to go along to see a screening of that film and also to take part in a question and answer session after it and representatives of food banks were there as well. It was absolutely heartbreaking. I have heard some people say that it is not really true to life, but I can assure you that it is true to life. Constitutions will come to us, and they are sanctioned simply because they have an illness that perhaps that morning, when they are going there, they cannot make it. They have been told by the people there, that if you do not turn up in time, it does not matter, you will be sanctioned. That is punitive, and there is nothing to do whatsoever with people's actual lives. We have to look at it in a different way. After seeing that film, I pledged to the people there that night that I would try to get a screening here in the Scottish Parliament, and that is in process, because I believe that everyone in this chamber should be able to see that film and basically be charged with ensuring that we will have no more Daniel Blake's. I do not know if you are hitting the microphone, but there is something crackling there. Perhaps it was your passion, but while I recognise passion, I remind members to speak courteously to each other in the chamber. I now move on to Liam Kerr to be followed by Ruth Maguire. In 1935, as he signed into law the Social Security Act, the first of its kind in the USA, Roosevelt said that we can never ensure 100 per cent of the population against 100 per cent of the vicissitudes and hazards of life, but we have tried to frame a law that will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty ridden old age. I would suggest that there can be no better definition of what a social security system should be, and I hope that the Scottish Government takes inspiration from it. I am grateful to the representations by SEVO, Enable Scotland and Inclusion Scotland to name, but to three of the many I was very pleased to receive, which made clear that this is not just about protection, but also to emphasise that each individual is treated with dignity and respect. Adam Tomkins was clear that when devolved the rest of the UK remains responsible for around two thirds of social security, which deserves respect, and hence the motion is wrong to ignore this and the amendment right to bring it up. Working age benefits perform two different functions. They support people with very low incomes and they support people with additional needs. Most of the former fall to be considered under universal credit, which remains reserved to the UK Parliament, most of the latter will be devolved. We agree that the priority in the design and delivery of devolved social security must be the welfare of the people in Scotland who rely on it. It should be a system that exhibits fairness, respect and responsibility. Those must be the watchwords for the Scottish Government as we move towards Scotland's first ever social security system. Fairness is two-way. Real fairness is that where people cannot work they must be supported, but where they are able to work they should. We believe that a successful system of social security is one that encourages an individual into fulfilling work for, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation tells us, work is the best route to economic security and a better standard of living. The Scottish Government must design with respect. It should acknowledge the success of the UK Government's welfare reforms and policies that are designed to help people to get back to work. I wonder if I might get something on that. Yes, of course, George Adam. Mr Adam, on cue. It would be quite obvious, because the success of the UK welfare reform does the member believe that sanctions and the process for PIP reassessment has proven to damage people's physical and mental wellbeing and some cases to lead people to commit suicide. Is that part of the success of the welfare reforms from the Tory Government? What I would say is that sanctions are an important part of the benefit system. Of course, I do not condone anything that George Adam is putting up. If there is evidence of that, then I would be very pleased to consider it, but sanctions are a part of our benefit system. So the Scottish Government will welcome. I am sure that the good parts of the UK Government's welfare reforms. It should welcome, no doubt, the announcement by Chancellor Philip Hammond just this afternoon to increase the personal allowance to 12,500, taking 113,000 people out of income tax altogether. Will I be allowed time at the end, Deputy Presiding Officer? I will give you a little, because I shame not to have interchanges. Will the member recognise that 65 per cent success rate in the appeals against PIP decisions is an advantage of the UK system that we should take into account? Does he think that the continued roll-out of universal credit, which is having its dates postponed and postponed again and causing severe difficulty in the areas of Scotland where it is being rolled out, with a peak in our applications to our Scottish welfare fund? That's enough. That's a long intervention. Sorry, minister. Does he think that those are good examples? Minister, you have to sit down, Mr Kerr. I thank Jeane Freeman for her speech. What I would like to say in response and to move on is that we do support a system that is uniquely designed for Scotland. Jeane Freeman, in her earlier speech, said that what we have to do together is to design and build a Scottish system. We agree that we will constructively engage with the Scottish Government on that. That is what a fair social security system means. That is what it should have at its core. Let's get on and build it. The Scottish National Party has complained long and bitterly about not having powers over welfare and social security. Well, Deputy Presiding Officer, they can complain no longer. Soon, this Government will have some very serious decisions to make. But it is right. Indeed, it is of the utmost importance that the Government takes possession of those powers only when it is good and ready. For those powers are, by far and away, the most important ever held by this place. That is responsibility. Perhaps uniquely, I find myself agreeing with Angela Constance and Sandra White, Mark Griffin is usually very balanced and interesting and good to listen to. But basically, by saying now to this Government, get on and do it now before you are ready, that to me is the height of responsibility, Mr Griffin. Irresponsibility. So it is crucial for the Scottish people that we all have full confidence in whatever welfare system is created by the Scottish Government for it will be the Scottish Government's system, not Westminster's. If there are faults, they will be their faults. If there are delays or hold-up to payments, they will be their delays. Any controversial or difficult decisions to be taken, they are decisions. It will take some getting used to. In conclusion, I am genuinely pleased and relieved that the Scottish Government has admitted that it is not ready to take on these immense new powers and ask for a delay. But let us all remember that the UK Government is ready to press ahead. Gene Freeman talked of the UK Government having the right attitude to transition. So let us never lose sight of the fact that, as Mrs Mundell and Green made clear, the UK Government is willing to commit to try the untested method of splitting competence, using best endeavours to work with the Scottish Government to transfer competence by June 2017. The recipients of benefits are core to considerations. So let's have less of the complaining, less of the isn't Westminster awful and maybe a bit of acknowledgement that we are all trying to do the best for the people of Scotland. We can start by voting for the Scottish Conservative amendment today. Thank you. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Neil Findlay. A very tight six minutes, Ms Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer. During the election campaign, social security was one of the main issues that people came to speak to me about. The message was clear. People were suffering, we needed to do things differently and we were able to, this Scottish Parliament, can and must do better. Better than a system condemned by the United Nations is in grave and systematic violation of disabled people's rights. Better than the UK Supreme Court, ruling that the UK Government's changes to housing benefits discriminates against disabled people. Better than people being wrongly found fit to work and driven to despair and worse. And better than the international shame of a film about the UK benefits system, whose storyline is almost too awful to believe that it is real. Colleagues across the chamber know that the horrors of the UK welfare system are all too real. We have taken disturbing evidence from groups such as the Black Triangle campaign, as well as from trusted MSP colleagues about vulnerable individuals committing suicide as a result of distressing inaccurate work capability assessments. The Secretary of State expressed his distaste at this being brought up in committee, but this is the reality, as set out in the DWP's own inquiry reports, as well as in people's personal testimonies. He levied the charge of politicising individual tragedies. Let me be clear, Presiding Officer, that became political the second the UK Government embarked on its programme of ideological austerity and made the choice to target the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society in the name of deficit reduction. It is those who are responsible, their apologists and their cheerleaders who I find distasteful. Tory welfare reform is a horror show and a shambles. If we can learn anything from it, then it's how not to do things here in Scotland. 85 per cent of welfare powers will remain under Westminster control and even those being devolved are still impacted by cuts. By the time that responsibility for personal independence payments is devolved in 2018, it is estimated that a further £190 million a year will have been taken from claimants in Scotland, and as a result, a smaller budget line will eventually be handed over. Despite that, although I would rather see 100 per cent of power and responsibility sitting with our Scottish Parliament, I am pleased that the 15 per cent being devolved includes disability benefits. Allowing us to take a different approach to one of the groups that suffered the most under the morally bankrupt welfare reform of the Tory party. Morally bankrupt is bad enough, but to add insult to injury, it does not even work. Academic research concluded that there is no evidence across Scotland that welfare reform has resulted in higher levels of employment or higher levels of labour market engagement. The Tory's work programme has been a disaster. Figures show that people were five times more likely to be sanctioned in one year alone in 2014 than to find a job from 2011 to 2014. Just one simple illustration of an abundance of research and evidence that establishes that punitive sanctions are an ineffective way to get people into work. No financial incentive will cure disability or illness, but stress and worry will exacerbate most conditions. If I might be blunt, I cannot starve people into jobs that do not exist. The more deprived the local authority, the greater the per capita financial hit from welfare reform. My own area, North Ayrshire, is the third highest hit, with claimants estimated to experience an annual financial loss of £380 per working age adult by 2020-21, penalising and alienating those already most disadvantaged in society. It also takes away money from our local economies, the economies with the greatest challenges, compounding already difficult situations and heaping more pressure on our public services. The same areas devastated by Tory deindustrialisation in the 80s are being hit again now. Interestingly, but probably of little surprise, the places least affected by welfare reforms are those from which the Tory party draws its political support. To quote Professor Steve Fothergal, there is an amazing coincidence involving the electoral geography of Britain and the impacts of welfare reforms. Social security cannot be trusted in the hands of the Tories. Their universal credit is currently five years behind schedule and has been fraught with administrative difficulties and errors, errors that cause real harm in our communities. Recent figures from the Trussell Trust show that benefit delays were the most frequent reason for referral to a food bank. Benefit changes were the third most common factor. Delays and changes resulting in families unable to eat. That is the reality of Tory welfare reform. Our priority here must be the safe and secure transfer of benefits. Our Scottish Government must not let itself be pushed into false timescales or accused of fabricated delays by a Tory party whose own benefit reform is an absolute and on-going shambles. I will conclude by saying that I could not be more conscious of the weight of responsibility upon us all to get this right for the 1.4 million people who are relying on us, to make sure that no one falls through the gap, to create a social security system that they can trust and one based on dignity and respect. I am proud to support a Government with its values at its heart, and I will do everything that I can to ensure the success of this complex and most important of undertakings as we build our Scottish social security system. Before I call Neil Findlay, I remind members, in particular Mr Liam Kerr, who left the chamber immediately after his speech, that under the Presiding Officer's guidance there is a convention that will remain for the next two speeches. I expect something back from Mr Kerr to explain that. That is not the first time that I have had to comment to the benches to my right, and I very much regret it. I am sorry, Mr Findlay, but you will get your time back. Mr Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by saying that I have probably done Ruth Maguire's career no good by saying that, in the main, I thought that it was a tremendous speech that she just made there. It is one of the best speeches on welfare that I have heard in this Parliament. This debate gets to the very heart of what we are about. Are we a society that acts as individuals where people, no matter what misfortune life deals us, have to fend for herself, left to the mercy of the market? Or are we a society that believes in the principles of collectivism, of empathy and social and economic solidarity? The minister, before she abandoned socialism for nationalism, would have been familiar with the phrase from each according to his or her ability to each according to his or her need. That phrase to me sums up what our social security system should be about. All of us, at any point in our lives, could experience a bereavement, illness, disability or lose our job. We could all be like Daniel Blake or Katie, the young woman in the film, and I absolutely concur with Sandra White that we should bring the film to Parliament as soon as possible. Presiding Officer, I would personally force every single member to watch it, whether they want it or not. I want us to take the chance to create a system based on the principles that I have set out, because what we do is critical to the 33,000 children in Scotland who receive DLA, critical to the 103,000 people of retirement age who receive it, and critical to the one in three people of working age that rely on the social security system and the 11 benefits that are to be transferred to this Parliament. I support the call from the Government Law Centre to move this debate on from, as they say, techno-speak to what is really important, and that is the eradication of poverty and inequality. I agree with the motion that is social security as an investment in the people of Scotland, and it is to live the experience of those who have experienced the system that should shape any new setup. We have to use this opportunity to end the crude dehumanising and disparating rules steeped in callous Tory ideology, and I see at this point that Mr Tomkins rightly has his head down. Last week, in a performance filled with arrogance and bravado, the minister blamed everyone and anyone for her Government's failure to bring in the new powers on time. All through the debate of the last five years, the SNP has made promises and raised the expectations that the Government would use Scotland's new powers to reduce inequality. On social protection, the white paper on independence stated that we will work to ensure that the transitional period is as short as possible and it will end in 2018. Now we are told that those timescales cannot be met for another two years extending people's misery. If the minister had a shred of humility, she would stop lashing out at others for holding the Government to account for what it said and would apologise for its previous claims. We cannot allow that. Mr Finlay, I am not lashing out at others, but I think that people need to learn to count. The white paper talked about a transition period between 2014 and 2018. That is four years. What we are talking about is introducing the social security powers in terms of the delivery as well as the legislation, but, in the lifetime of this Parliament, that is slightly over four years once the consultation is concluded. I do not really understand what the point is that he is trying to make, or maybe it is just a political goal. Neil Finlay? We would never accuse the minister of trying to use the benefits system for political gain. Oh, God forbid. We cannot allow technical barriers to get in the way of alleviating hardship. Again, the Government law centre suggests using local authorities in the interim. It has already successfully distributed the Scottish welfare fund, the discretionary housing benefit, council tax and housing benefit. Why cannot we exploit that expertise? I think that, personally, the reality is that this Government does not trust or respect local government and will do all it can to undermine it. I think that that is a big missed opportunity. The Tories are savaging our social security system now. People are suffering now. We need to implement solutions now, and even if those are only interim solutions. Some of the organisations who have sent briefings for today's debate, such as SCVO and Unison, have urged us not to use the phrase, claimants charter. I agree with them. I think that that strikes the wrong tone. Many want to see a rights-based system. Again, I agree with them and hope that that can be up front and on the face of the bill. I hope that the minister will confirm that when she sums up. I also suggest that the new system ditches the dogma of everything having to be digital. Not all people want or can choose to use digital, and they should have choice. If the new system is to be target-driven, can we have a target to ensure that all people entitled to benefit get it and that payments are delivered accurately to ensure that carers, disabled families and unemployed receive the support that they need? That is in line with the recommendation from the First Minister's independent adviser on poverty and inequality. However, if we are genuinely going to deliver ending poverty and inequality that blights our communities, we need a concerted long-term redistribution of wealth and power, scrapping not tinkering with the council tax, funding local government fully, a right to food, hard cash directed to areas of most need, and end to subsidies for companies who exploit workers and avoid paying their taxes. Adequate funding for youth employment initiatives, like bless in my region, whose budget has been slashed by SDS, and an end to cuts to health and social care budgets. I was getting a bit extra time for intervention. No, if you would close now, please, Mr Findlay. The previous Presiding Officer said that she would. Mr Findlay, if you would close now, please. Christina McKelvie, to be followed by Graham Simpson. What is the so-called reform benefit system that the Tories have been celebrating as a means of covering up its vicious cuts from the incomes of the most vulnerable? That is a Westminster culture of blame of punishment, whether it is the disabled, the mentally ill, migrants, refugees, Muslims and the Tories have successfully fanned the flames of anger away from their own failures. There are a great many of the fundamental components built into the current system that have more of a flavour of Dickensian patronage rather than the 21st century. I imagine that the just completed Scottish Government consultation on social security will contain expert and unusual reports on how the existing system has made them feel diminished, humiliated, demoralised and helpless. That message is reiterated by groups, including Inclusion Scotland, the Glasgow Disability Alliance, Engender and the Health and Social Care Alliance. They are all calling for the same main principles, guided by human rights standards and set in legislation. Engender highlights the disproportionate effect that welfare reform has had upon women. They cite those figures. Disabled women are amongst the most affected by social security policy. Over the course of the current UK Parliament alone, 4.4 billion worth of cuts will come from disabled people, a majority of whom are women. In Scotland, 55 per cent of those on personal independence payments are women and are 65 per cent in receipt of attendance allowance. It is bad enough, Presiding Officer, to be punished for being a claimant, to be doubly punished because you are a woman with a disability is frankly obscene. Our Scottish system must be more positive and support, yes, certainly. Adam Tomkins I am grateful to Christina McKelvie for giving away. Christina McKelvie is a great and passionate advocate of human rights. I wonder what her position is on the right to work and whether she will join me in celebrating the facts that there are more jobs in the British economy than ever before, more disabled people in work in Britain than ever before and more women in work than ever before. Christina McKelvie I would be more unhappy to join Mr Tomkins in celebrating that right if he signs my motion condemning the UK Government's report from the UN into the UK Government's treatment of people with disabilities through welfare reforms, so quid pro quo, Mr Tomkins. Our Scottish system must be more positive and support a culture of change around social security. Our approach needs to be inclusive, to be involved in co-production with people who access the system, and the whole package should be guided by international human rights standards, as I said, set in that legislation. Presiding Officer, as you know, I continue to campaign on behalf of motor neuron disease sufferers. The current motor neuron disease Scotland campaign, Let's Get Benefits Right for People with MND, reveals the story of Yvonne McNeill and her dad, Bill Lavery, who live in Hamilton. Sadly, Bill died as a result of MND in 2014. Yvonne says, and I quote her, I speak as the broken hearted daughter of a great man who was taken from me by this cruel illness. My dad was diagnosed in July 2014 and passed away in September 2014. I was involved in applying for benefits for my dad during this short time and he worried about the income of the application every day. This was horrible to watch and financially a terrible time as we tried to secure the best deal for our dad. MND sufferers have enough to deal with without constant fear of benefits review. Their condition will not improve. The day before he died, my dad was awarded his benefits. There are many heartbreaking stories like that one, but do we blame this man for being so inconsiderate to have had a brutal terminal illness? Then, in his dying days, do we have to have him worry about whether he will have those benefits payments? Is there some bizarre Tory rationale that generally asserts that illness and disability is something that we can control? I think that most of you will respond by saying, do not be ridiculous. Of course, you cannot blame people for having health issues, but the truth is that this is exactly what the current system does. In effect, it says, how dare you have a long-term health condition? Get on your bike. We are now going to receive the largest ever transfer of powers. Yes, it is still less than I would like to see, and it is challenging to try and redesign our social security system when you will have access to 15 per cent of the funds. This is where we can really start to make a positive change, I am positive about this, to the lives of 1.4 million people in Scotland. We need to recognise the context, the simple fact that the proportion of the Scottish social security budget that will be devolved in Scotland amounts to only £2.7 billion, of a total of £17.5 billion spent in every year. Our Government has worked hard to find out where the problems are to consult with the individuals and the organisations involved to consult with this place. We now have strong data to work from so that they can make the right decisions. We have set down five essential principles for moving forward, and we have a national social security agency that should administer those payments. Payments, rather than claims, are right rather than something that you have to scream for. It is made from within a balanced society that recognises and appreciates our diversity and all its colours, shapes, races, disabilities, gender, sexuality and much, much more. Any one of us could be reaching out for that kind of support at any point in our lives and never assume that you will not be one of those such individuals. We know that what we need to do, we need to make sure that that transition is efficient and seamless to deliver with fairness, dignity, equality and respect, and we will not be given lessons by a failed Tory policy. Graham Simpson, to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you. I was reading a document at the weekend. There were a number of mentions of welfare in Scotland. It predicted a rosy future with increased fairness and healthy handouts for all who needed it. Here are some of the claims. It said that there could be, quote, a halt to the rollout of universal credit and personal independence payments in Scotland, allowing future Scottish Governments to develop reforms to our welfare system that meet our needs. It went on, if we leave welfare in Westminster's hands, our welfare state is likely to be changed beyond recognition. The document produced before the independence referendum said, quote, following independence, the immediate priorities will be to reverse the most damaging and counterproductive of the UK welfare changes, and it concluded that if the result of the referendum is no decisions on welfare, defence and foreign policy will continue to be taken by Westminster for Scotland, whatever the views of the Scottish electorate. These were some of the 211 mentions of welfare in the SNP's independence white paper. This, remember, was when they were telling us that we could be an independent country in just 18 months. So what of that claim that decisions on welfare would be taken by Westminster? Apart from the fact that Westminster is a district of London and does not take any decisions any more than Lambeth does, it has not proved to be the case, has it? Because since September, the Scottish Parliament has had powers to create new benefits in devolved areas, top up reserved benefits, make discretionary payments and assistance, change employment support, make changes to universal credit for the costs of rented accommodation, and make changes to universal credit on the timing of payments and receipts. Unfortunately, Jeane Freeman did not want to take my intervention when I was going to ask her what she intended to do with the first tranche of powers. Perhaps she will tell us. No. Now, though, the party that told us that they could create an independent country in 18 months is saying that they do not want to take control of any more welfare powers or £2.7 billion worth until 2020, but delighted to. Mary Inns. Thank you. I just think that on your benches you need to get your story straight. So will have you saying that we are not dealing with the powers quickly enough? Will have Mark Griffin saying that we are agreeing with you? Will have Liam Kerr saying that that would be irresponsible to move too quickly? So which one is it? Do you want to work together to try and take our time and make sure that we get this right, or should we just be leaping in and taking charge right away? Graham Simpson. I'm always delighted to hear from Miss Evans. I would point out that Mr Griffin is not a member of my party, and if you wish to hear the whole speech, you'll get the answer. So, we have carers allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payments, maternity grants and winter fuel payments. At the end of this, the Scottish Government will be responsible for 17% of benefits. As Adam Tomkins has pointed out, the request to go down the route of asking the UK Government to share the load until it already came from left field. But the UK Government is helping. We should be grateful, and I hope we hear the word thank you coming from the Minister later. It does remind me a bit of the teenager who wants to flee the nest, but still wants you to do their washing for them. Let's ask what social security is for. It's a safety net. That much is obvious. Some people will need to be on welfare until the day they die, but for many people, most, it should act as a financial cushion to help you move on. The problem used to be that we had what was called the benefits trap. I'm sorry that George Adam finds this amusing. It's not. Where it simply did not pay off to come off benefits and into work. That was cruel, demeaning and bad for society. Employment must always reward people who are able to work, and the benefits system has to be simple and understandable. That's why we have both the universal credit system and the work programme. No, we now have more people in work across the UK than ever before. I'm not taking an intervention. Please sit down, Mr Adam. If you hadn't been chortling at the back, I might have done, but Scotland's employment rate remains lower than the UK's and lower than when the SNP first came into office. The employment rate in Scotland now stands at 59.2 per cent lower than the rate in May 2007, when it was 61.1. Adam Tomkins, who I've never seen play football and never wished to, rightly accuses the SNP of playing political soccer over sanctions to those who refuse to play ball. We need to get real here. If the goal is to get people off benefits and into work, the best route out of poverty, then sanctions or incentives have to be part of that system. We all need to pull together on this in a more accurate minute. All parties, all Governments, the time for game playing is over. Alison Johnstone, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. I'd like to begin by paying tribute to the manner in which the consultation has been undertaken. The devolution of responsibility over some aspects of social security is a major change in the powers of this Parliament, powers that have a huge impact on the lives of over one million Scots. A new system will have to be created from the ground up, and, accordingly, that has required a serious, wide-ranging and open-minded consultation, and that, for the most part, is what we have had in the past few months. We know that women are more likely to receive support through social security than men, with benefits comprising 20 per cent of the average women's income, compared with 10 per cent for men. Along with the gender pay gap, that means that women are more likely to experience poverty than men. Christina McKelvie, too, noted that some of the benefits to be devolved are significantly gendered—64 per cent of attendance allowance recipients are women, as are 68 per cent of carers allowance recipients. That is why I particularly welcome the increase in the value of carers allowance and the Government's efforts to administer the increase initially through DWP so that it can be paid as soon as possible. The Scottish Government's own 2013 analysis of gender impacts of welfare reform showed that the child benefit freeze impacts on women's incomes substantially as 95 per cent of child benefit claims are paid to women. It is estimated that between 2011-12 and 2015-16, a family with two children will receive 1,100 pounds less than they would have done had child benefit been operated by the Retail Price Index of Inflation. By 2020, it will have lost around 28 per cent of its previous value. However, Scotland does not have to accept that. However, as of September this year, the Scottish Parliament can top up the value of benefits even if they are reserved to Westminster. As well as easing women's poverty, a £5 top-up would make significant inroads into child poverty, decreasing relative child poverty by 14 per cent, affecting positively the lives of 30,000 children. With the Scottish Government wanting to put child poverty targets back into law, I was encouraged to hear from Jeane Freeman. She told the Parliament's social security committee that a child benefit top-up was being considered. I would ask the minister to update us on that consideration, plus any progress made on commitments to a young carers benefit. I would now like to address the devolution of benefits that assist people with costs arising from disability. Disability living allowance and the benefit that replaces it, personal independence payment, as well as the attendance allowance for older people, represents around 50 per cent of the value of benefits being devolved. Members will already be familiar with the harrowing stories of those Scots who have lost thousands of pounds in the switch to PIP. For those who are not familiar with those, I would encourage them to watch the short films that were made by the Stop PIP campaign. Will you recognise that there are many people who are transferred from DLA to PIP in a seamless way? Simply because they do not correspond with us or with MSPs, their case is not being heard, and we have to take them into account when we are discussing these issues. 30 per cent of claimants who are reassessed get no PIP award at all, and even those who qualify for a transfer of PIP, 40 per cent or 6 per cent of DLA-higher-rate claimants are being moved on to PIP at a lower rate, which is having a devastating impact. In the long term, that can result in approximately 46,000 disabled people losing automatic entitlement to concessionary travel. We have heard from Mr Tomkins and Mr Kerr that we should celebrate the right to work, but what about those people who would very much like to work but now can't get to work because of blue badge cuts, motability car cuts and leaving them isolated? For those who currently work, that is making it much more difficult for them to keep their jobs, and those figures are even worse for new claimants, 58 per cent of whom get no award. With 40 per cent of claims being changed after an internal review and 63 per cent having claims reinstated on full appeal, clearly something is deeply wrong with PIP. I very much welcome the Government's pledge to establish a disability benefits commission and to move towards long-term awards for those recipients with long-term conditions. However, that will take time, and in the meantime more claimants will be subject to those obviously flawed assessments, and those who have already been reassessed and had their awards reduced or removed entirely will continue to suffer. I therefore like the Scottish Government to consider the following three interim measures that you request to the Department of Work and Pensions that all DLA to PIP reassessments are put on hold until the relevant part of the 2016 Scotland Act is commenced. I do not believe that it is the spirit of the devolution settlement for such extensive changes being made to a policy area that is scheduled to be devolved, and that from the point of devolution new applications for PIP are made under the old DLA assessment until a new system can be developed, and that the Scottish Government seeks to compensate the worst-affected claimants until they can be reassessed under a new system. Devolution of social security is a major test for this Parliament, perhaps the biggest since 1999, creating a fairer system will not be easy, particularly with the huge cuts that have come in recent years. However, it is clear that the corrupting and warping of our social security system has not been done in the name or with the will of the Scottish people if this Parliament is to retain credibility and must challenge us. The enduring test of this Parliament is how we answered the challenge of inequality in our society, and so newly empowered with the levers necessary to build a uniquely Scottish safety net, we are to all of those 1.4 million people both on the fringes and in the mainstream of our society who will rely on us to get this right. So we must put aside our differences and seek to coalesce in the construction of a new system steeped in values of compassion, simplicity and fairness. We need to use this opportunity to build a system that is there to catch people who fall through the tears in the fabric of our society, a system that is both responsive while stignified, clear to understand and yet inviting and flexible whilst it is both swift in its application. My party leader Willie Rennie has spoken many times in support of the Government's approach to social security. Indeed, there exists an ideological symmetry across the benches of progressive parties in this chamber, which makes it easy to support the Government motion tonight. Indeed, we have in the past supported efforts by this Government to mitigate and correct the failures of our existing welfare system. I refer first to the DLA takeaway. It was aniquitous loophole accidentally created in the corridors of Whitehall under the mishap pension that if you were a parent of a disabled child who had to go into hospital for 87 days on a linked or consecutive basis, then you absolved or carrying responsibilities, yet if you ask any carrying parent in that circumstances, it was far from the truth. I congratulate the Scottish Government for in the last session taking action to remedy that. We were full-throated in our support of a fund for local authorities to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax and we were unified in our commitment matched by the SNP at the election that the carers allowance should be given parity with job-seekers allowance. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to that silent army of carers in our country, who in many ways we often exploit out of love for their family and who in some cases are just one late-night hospital dash from surrender. We must not rest on our laurels in so empowering them and giving them more money through the carers allowance. We must increase access and provision of respite, but we must also recognise the legions of young carers in our society as well. I know that the minister joined me at the young carers festival earlier in the summer and could not have failed to have been moved by the contribution that they make to our society. However, this debate now rightly shifts our collective focus to the art of the possible. That suite of powers is now afforded to this chamber and this government and how best we might put that ideological symmetry that I describe into practice. In and around the administration of the housing benefit component we need to work with the DWP to reinstate the option for rent to be paid direct to landlords because I know that many families and third sector organisations are deeply anxious about this and it may ring the dinner bell for unscrupulous elements in our society that see more disposable income in chaotic families. While our gauze is on housing, we must address existing problems that are in the power of this Parliament. Local authorities freeze the benefits payments whenever there is a dispute about that claim. Sometimes we rely on social landlords and the goodwill of social landlords not to evict people when they are not receiving payments. I refer the Parliament to my register of interests as a social landlord. The transference of powers over disability benefit offers us the opportunity to shape an empowering offer to those affected by disability in our society. A new offer, which building on that progressive approach that the Government took to the DLA takeaway, is based on evidence and the lived experience of those in our society who have faced repeated humiliation of the assessment regime that is based on suspicion and a drive to supply that qualification. Mr Cole-Hamilton accepts that his party stood hand-in-hand with the Tories as architects of the austerity, which has caused some of the worst benefit cuts in this country. Alex Cole-Hamilton I thank Clare Haughey for her intervention, but I would point to you that you now see what Tories governing unfettered, unmitigated by Liberal Democrat control can really have on disabled people in this country. In all of the 11 benefits that shall pass to this Parliament, we have the opportunity to address those aspects of the system that minister rightly described as heartless and make it far simpler for them to access the system. We do well to heed the views of those voices from the poverty alliance's briefing. We have heard throughout this debate that the transfer of these powers will be necessarily complex, and they must be transferred with a degree of safety and an understanding of what those implications will mean for those who receive them. However, I find it astonishing that nowhere in the dark vaults by the Victoria key or SNP HQ is there a position paper, blueprint or white paper for underpinning the foundations of a new system. That in the nine months, since this country might have achieved full independence in which babies have been conceived, gestated and safely delivered, yet still the canvas of our new social security system is as blank as the Parliament's web page for active legislation. If I can finish on a slightly more conciliarity note, I applaud the steps taken by the Scottish Government in addressing and mitigating the faults of our existing welfare powers. Using the levers of control that it has had at its disposal. That is why we will support the Government's motion, but with the amendment of the Labour Party. Can I say, I heard my colleague say earlier about the Presiding Officer's wish and convention that people are in the chamber for two speeches before their own and two speeches after. Can I also say to you that there are always exceptions to those things and notes of apology are grand, but it is even better if people let us know beforehand that they may have something that requires to be done. Can you also please all be assured that we are aware of people leaving and coming back into the chamber at all times and do not need to be reminded too often by members? Mr Adam, to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I can assure you that I am well aware of the rules and regulations with regard to chamber etiquette in here, but I am extremely pleased to be speaking and being part of this debate, mainly because, for two reasons in particular, I have many constituents who can explain the current horror stories that the so-called Tory welfare reforms have caused, and also the powers that this place will have in the future can and will make a difference in the lives of those constituents. For me, the first issue that we need to address is the safe and secure transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament. I say that because we are dealing with real people who are living real lives and, in many cases, are living very difficult and challenging circumstances. That is not some cold academic debate. It is far more important than that. We need to ensure that, when the day comes, the Scottish Government can ensure that everyone who gets the payment that they are due at the time that it is due. One of the bizarre rules during this whole debate has been that of the Conservatives. While their friends and colleagues and Westminster have been cutting and slashing welfare budgets, while their Westminster team has been making ordinary people's life in Scotland hell, they have the cheek to criticise the Scottish Government and not their own in London, or Westminster, or whatever Mr Simpson wants to call it. I would like to add some examples of the devastation caused by Tory Westminster welfare reform. I will explain to Mr Tomkin why I am aggrieved. I am aggrieved about an unemployed man in Paisley who is sanctioned for not turning up to his required appointment at the job centre for employability training. He never turned up, he never even phoned him, but it may have been because he was in the hospital bed in the REH after a major heart attack. The man was sanctioned. I would also be aggrieved about the young man who was sanctioned for going to a job fair in Aberdeen, even though he informed the job centre that is exactly what he was going to do. I am further aggrieved about the fact that a woman in Paisley, who has a long-term condition, went through the Tory PIP process only for the mobility part of her award to be taken away. She is giving her car up this week. My constituent was encouraged by the DWP not to appeal this decision, even though 60 per cent of appeals are reinstated. When she decided to appeal, it was too late. Those stories are the norm, but others take a more tragic turn. People taking their lives after being forced through the Tory PIP assessment made to feel as if they are nothing, a draining society and not worthy. We all know that they should not feel that way. We know that this country that we want to live in and the one that we want for the future will work towards ensuring that we can correct these many issues and the current system that has been created. However, how can they feel valued by a system that is designed to wreck their lives? A UN report, as mentioned by my colleague Christina McKelvie, published in 7 November, described the austerity policies that are introduced into welfare and social care by the UK Government as amounting to systematic violations of the rights of people with disability. Systematic violations. The UN report condemned the UK Government for bulldozing ahead with changes to social security, knowing that it would have an adverse impact on disabled people and called on the UK Government to carry out a study of the impact of all the spending cuts on those with disabilities. The UN Committee on the Rights of Disabled Persons began to investigate 2012 after there had been some reports from disabled organisations. The Tories refused to accept the findings of the report, claiming that the findings present an inaccurate picture of life for disabled people in the UK and that, while the Government continues to improve and build on the support that is available to disabled people, it stands by and is proud of its record. This is the Westminster Government that stands proud of the human devastation that it has caused. I will not, and collectively we must not, look towards the Conservatives for any lesson. That brings me to one of the types of groups that we must ensure that we create a better future for those living with long-term conditions. Many people know that my wife Stacey has multiple sclerosis, and they will know that, since 16-year-old, she has been dealing with that challenge. Stacey deals with that day-in, day-out, along with 11,000 other people in Scotland dealing with the challenges of MS. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Damian Greene, when he was at the committee, might think that he understands that condition because he employs someone with MS, but it is so much more complicated than that. At the recent evidence session, he showed how flawed the system actually is. 80 per cent of people with MS need to give up employment within 15 years of diagnosis due to their condition showing the importance of disability's benefits to people with MS. 91 per cent found the process of claiming disability benefits such as PIP, stressful and stress is one of the main key triggers of an MS attack. The current system does not work for people living with MS, and the assessment process is wholly inadequate. One respondent actually said, with conditions like MS, where there is no cure and it just cannot go away, there must be a fair way for people to be treated through the benefits process. To be assessed less than a year since my original assessment makes me feel like a benefit scrounger, a cheat, as if they are trying to catch me out. Living with MS on a day-to-day basis is hard enough without being scrutinised by DWP and ATOS. When we design our new system, we need to prove that dignity and respect are more than just words. It is an ideal and a promise to ensure that we can make life better for those living with long-term conditions. We must ensure that there is a safe and secure transfer of those powers, because 1.4 million people rely on those benefits that are being devolved, and it is vital that the transfer ensures that everyone continues to get out of the sport. We need to build on what Tresser Burke of Glasgow Disability Alliance said. I firmly believe that the Scottish Government, having control over more social security, powers offer more hope. We need to build on that trust, on that hope, and on what it was delivering for all the people of Scotland. I am having to cut the remaining open speeches to five minutes, so can I have Jeremy Balfour please, followed by Mary Evans? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I declare an interest that I am in receipt personally of PIP, and until May this year was a tribunal member who heard PIP and DLA cases. As a Scottish Conservative, I want to see three principles at the heart of any new welfare system—support for those in need, a flexible and personalised system, and a system that supports those who can and want to work. Welfare must and should be there for those who generally need support and provide a generous safety net for those who are required. However, it should not become an alternative to work, but it should include incentive structures and practical assistance programmes to help people to live independently of the state. The Scottish Government should acknowledge where there have been elements of success in the UK welfare reforms and stop to cry in everything that has happened over the past few years. We have seen a work programme that has encouraged many people back to work and who are benefiting from that. Getting people into work is the best way to help people out of poverty, not my words, but the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, who stated that those who can work represent the best route out of poverty. I know that a new social security system in Scotland will be welcomed and we as a party will play our part, but it must address some important questions. How do we ensure that the welfare system supports people into work and not stopping them from going to work? How do we ensure that the welfare system does not create low-pay traps? How do we ensure that the system is cost-effective? How do we design a social security system that would complement other anti-poverty and other work strategies? We have just over half a million people in 2014-15 in Scotland who are in receipt of attendance allowance or PIP or DLA. Social security is therefore vital for many disabled people in Scotland and any new benefit system should be designed and brought forward that will help benefits people and will help people gain dignity and respect. I fear that, with all this debate today, we are going to throw the baby out with a bathwater in our designing. Let me say very personally, when I went for my assessment, which everyone decries, I could not have been treated more respectful, better and well, and that is what I hear from many people. I went to and got my PIP increased, not decreased, because of my disability. Again, many people's experience. The danger of what we hear today is, of course, people who have had bad experiences will contact us. We should do that, and we should put that. However, there is a silent large number of people who have benefited from PIP, who have seen their award go up and who have been treated well by the system. Without acknowledging that, we missed out on the system in a second. I will do that one point quickly. The other issue is that the law is very clear. If someone has a condition that is likely to continue for a period of time, for a number of years, they should not have to be reassessed. It is meant to be an award for life unless that person is going to improve. The law is clear on that. I will give way now. The member where that does not actually happen in reality. My argument is that the whole PIP process is flawed. The previous process under DLA was a displaced exercise and 70 per cent of the time, and only under 1 per cent was found to be fraudulent. What was wrong with the system beforehand? Why did it have to change it to this system that is expensive and putting people through pain? Thirty seconds left. People still had to go through assessment under DLA. People still had to fill out forms that were stressful. People still had to come to tribunals. I benefited from that for 20 years. Suddenly, to say that DLA was perfect is simply misrepresenting the situation for many people in Scotland, as it was. PIP has improved many people's lives. Time is going, and I appreciate that. I want to touch very quickly, but when we are looking at all of this, we need to look at disabled people and getting them back into employment, because we are simply missing a trick there. The figures are going in the wrong direction, and we need to challenge that, and I will stop there. Mary Evans, to be followed by Alex Rowley. Before I begin, I mentioned for the record that the First Minister has appointed me as the parliamentary liaison officer for the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities. This is the first time as a Parliament that we have been tasked with building an entirely new public service that will deliver the 11 benefits that have been devolved to Scotland. The social security system that we set up and the benefits that we deliver in this Parliament will not only directly affect the lives of a huge number of people across Scotland, but will determine the standards by which we hold ourselves accountable and enshrine our values as a country. That is why I am proud that those standards and values that we are looking to adopt as the foundation of a new system in Scotland are the fundamental values of dignity, fairness and respect. Fundamental values that are sorely lacking from the system as it currently stands. The impact of welfare cuts and reforms, the completely abhorrent sanctions regime and the cuts to tax credits, driven by the Tory's austerity agenda, has been well outlined in the debate this afternoon. To be perfectly frank, it is hard not to feel completely outraged and angry when you examine the outcomes of what those cumulative acts have done. We see report after report published on the poverty in our country, which makes for sobering reading. The report of the independent working group on food poverty outlined the food poverty that we face in its report from June of this year. Trussel trust figures show that in Scotland, in 2012 to 2013, 14,000 referrals were made to food banks jumped to this year when 133,000 referrals were made, including 43,000 children. This month, we were given the Scottish Child Poverty Estimates by the End Child Poverty Coalition, which found that 22 per cent of our children live in poverty. Only this week, we had another study published by Policy and Practice, which found that welfare cuts have left those families patronisingly deemed jams or, as the Prime Minister likes to call them, the families just about managing £2,500 a year worse off. All of those reports highlight the severe situation that we are in with poverty in our country, and all of those point to Tory policies and having a direct hand in developing those problems and making them worse. However, it is the disabled and their families who are disproportionately affected by those cuts and changes. That is where I welcome Alison Johnstone's comments in relation to the DLA and PIP and the transfer to that, where many people have already fallen through the cracks. The starkest statistics were highlighted in the briefing paper that we received from Inclusion Scotland. Alison already mentioned that 30 per cent of DLA claimants when reassessed for PIP received no award at all. Only 42 per cent of new claimants get any sort of award at all. There is also a particular issue with the mobility component of PIP because of a change in eligibility, which has seen thousands upon thousands of people lose out on concessionary travel, the blue badge scheme and the motability schemes. That is a particularly pressing problem in rural constituencies such as mine, where people often have to depend on their own transport and where it really is a lifeline. Those who fail the new criteria can have their vehicles repossessed within a matter of weeks, leaving them little if any time to arrange alternative transport. That not only increases social isolation but prevents those who can work from getting to work and attending appointments. And if all this wasn't enough, if dealing with debilitating illness or disability wasn't enough, there's the wider impact and stress of those cuts and benefits and payments. From the sheer volume of contact that we received from different organisations, we can see how many people that this debate touches and they show in stark terms the reality that many people face. From HIV Scotland, where 39 per cent of people struggle to buy food, 45 per cent struggle to pay for their utilities, 48 per cent of those struggling with HIV had poorer physical health and 58 per cent described having poorer mental health. The MS Society in Scotland found that 30 per cent of their sufferers have had to reduce spending on food. One third do not claim any benefits because of the stigma attached. A stigma that was created and very deliberately fostered by the Tory Government to demonise those in need of help and support to justify their relentless cuts. To deliver those benefits in Scotland and to do it right will take time because it's absolutely vital that we get this right. We've seen what can happen through bad policy choices and poor delivery, the impacts on poverty, food poverty, child poverty, social isolation, stigma, the links to poor health, to increasing rates of poor mental health, the links to suicide. In Scotland we have the chance to do something different and to mitigate some of the damage that the Tories have done. I look forward to those powers becoming fully operational. Alex Rowley, followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you. In reading many of the briefings that were produced by organisations for today's debate, it is quite striking that most feel the need to keep emphasising the importance of treating people with dignity and with respect. I say striking because I was brought up in the mine and village of Kelty, where treating people with dignity and with respect was the normal thing to do. Indeed, most people today, I think, would say that treating people with dignity and respect is still the right thing to do. However, what people are referring to is the Tory welfare reforms, which far from treating fellow human beings with dignity and respect stigmatise and demonise. Very few of us can ever say that we absolutely are certain that we will never be in a position where we will need some form of help or some form of support, either for ourselves or for our family members or for friends. To drive people into despair and for the first time in almost a century bring about absolute poverty in communities up and down Scotland is what the Tory welfare reforms have achieved. Today, the message to Ruth Davidson's Tories must be in this Parliament, show some backbone, come out and oppose any further welfare reforms that create such misery in communities up and down Scotland. It is because of the Tory attacks on the most vulnerable, the disabled, the mentally ill and the poor that I say today to the Scottish Government that they must look to take control over powers being devolved as soon as possible. As the poverty alliance has said, the current social security system is failing people every day and we should not delay any opportunity that we have to improve the lives of people on low incomes. I agree. Child poverty action groups make the point that the Government needs to get the introduction of these powers right, but they go on to say that there are elements of the new social security powers that can be utilised more quickly. We should be exploring what areas could be brought forward more quickly. They argue that the Government should seek to make arrangements now with the DWP on the way that PIRP is structured and delivered to claimants in Scotland. I agree. Other areas that the Government can also act on now is the benefit take-up. We know that there is almost half a billion pounds in tax credits not being claimed, and 170 million pounds for 53,000 carers are unclaimed in Scotland. Councils and third sector welfare groups should be given the support to increase the benefit take-up work and should be given that support now. The Government should also sign up to Labour's proposal for a legal requirement that the new social security agency does all it can to make sure that people get the support that they are entitled to. I also note that Marie Curie stated that carers allowance should be a benefit on its own right and not one that is tied to a person in receipt of other benefits. There are also the top-up powers that have not really been considered within the consultation that has taken place. The Government and the Parliament are being asked by the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland to consider a top-up payment of £5 a week for child benefit. Child poverty action says that a top-up of £5 a week on child benefit is projected to reduce child poverty in Scotland by 14 per cent, meaning that 30,000 fewer children in poverty than would otherwise be the case. That is a proposal that I would suggest that it must be investigated further. Many organisations also highlight the view that the administration and delivery of benefits are not contracted out to the private sector. I agree. I also note that, in gender, we are calling for the development of pilot schemes for a citizen's basic income in Scotland over the course of the next parliamentary term. That is something that I believe that we should be looking at. A forward-looking Parliament should be willing to consider. I am aware that, this weekend, there is a meeting taking place in Government to set up an association to look at this. There is a meeting this weekend to take place in Fife, where the fairer Fife commission said that this was something that Fife council would support. I am keen to look at those proposals, which are not in the consultation, but I think that we should be looking at them. Ultimately, the Tories need to show some backbone. Ruth Davidson's Tories in Scotland reject welfare that is causing such damage in our communities across Scotland. We move to the last of the open speeches with Ben Macpherson. I echo the minister's statement that we all have a direct stake in this issue. It is a collective Government responsibility to provide security and a responsibility to all our constituents. In doing that, we should consider what is security in this sense. It is about human solidarity. It is about creating a society where less of our fellow citizens suffer from fear and distress and unnecessary pressure and negative circumstances. It is a system where we believe in it together, where we see social security payments as payments, as Christina McKelvie very powerfully said, rather than claims. In that context, we think about the current system and the insecurity around it and how people are treated within it. There have been several mentions already in the debate today about the film I, Daniel Blake, and I do not know in terms of other members in the room who saw that film, but for me, when I was watching that film, so many faces of constituents that have sat in front of me in surgeries came forward. Constituents that have been really badly treated by the approach and suspicion in the culture of judgment in the current assessment process. Constituents that have had to go through six-week waiting periods as they were reassessed for ASA. Constituents who have really suffered, as Alison Johnstone very appropriately put around, cuts to their mobility capacity in terms of a transition from DLA to PIP. As I watched that film as well, I thought about the outcomes that are taking place within the current system. The fact that the UN has concluded that disabled people are suffering a systematic abuse of their human rights due to UK Government benefit cuts. The fact that statistics by the DWP revealed that during the period of December 2011 to 2014, more than 2,000 people died after their claim for employment and support allowance because of work-capability assessments finding them fit for work. The fact that there has been so much suffering for those with mental health and fluctuating conditions. As we think about that failure in the status quo and with the current system, we must look forward to everything that we can do in this Parliament and through the powers that we are taking forward in this new stage with a huge sense of responsibility around what the Scottish Government is proposing and what will come after that in years ahead. There is also an important emphasis that needs to be placed on the environment that we are in here. The wider problem of austerity and the social and economic damage that it is doing, the ideological austerity and the fact that there are going to be cumulative cuts in the welfare system of £2 billion a year by 2020, as Sheffield-Hallum research illuminated. The effect that that will have not only socially but economically, as Ruth Maguire very powerfully articulated. Neil Findlay, I must not carefully to the member that he is making a number of good points, but could I ask him if he agrees with me that there is so much more that this Parliament can do with the powers that it has? For example, we could tax the wealthy using the new tax powers, we could scrap the council tax and make it much fairer and there is a whole host of others. Does he support even those two initiatives? The wider point around the fiscal situation of course is correlated to the current system of welfare provision. However, as we look forward into how we evaluate the implementation of the new social security powers, we also need to think about how we creatively think going forward, as Alex Rowley rightly raised, there is a really interesting debate going on around how we could potentially provide a universal citizen income in the years ahead. I am very proud that the social security committee will be looking at that issue in the course of this parliamentary term. I think that we also need to think very clearly and carefully about delivery and making sure that our focus right now is on what we can deliver within the constraints that are here just now and also about how we implement and create an effective system for that delivery. That is why I welcome the statements from Inclusion Scotland and also the child poverty action group within the evidence that they submitted to us. They also agree that setting up the various systems and the agency will take time and we should be responsible in that. Time is coming to a close, so I will finish by saying that this is a collective investment in ourselves and each other as MSPs and individuals and we should work together to get this right and get it right for all of Scotland. I move to the closing speeches and I call on Pauline McNeill. No more than six minutes please, Ms McNeill. It may be the most significant thing that this Parliament has ever done if we get it right. 11 new benefits and 1.4 million people could have a new experience with the new Scottish social security system. As many have said this afternoon, we have the opportunity to design something completely different with a different ethos from the UK system that we have talked about. A system that has made people feel a certain shame in claiming has put people off because of its complexities and, as Neil Findlay says, a system that sometimes you are unable to speak to a human being and you can actually get access to a computer for your benefits. Those are the factors that have characterised the current welfare system. It makes people feel stressful about claiming that they feel it is so onerous that they have felt that, for the most part, there is anything but a right. SCVO says that we must get away from the current de-factual culture that you are almost guilty before proven innocent. Scotland has the chance to create a new system. Many of us agree that it must be based on trying to insist that people get their benefits. That is one of the issues in the Labour amendment that we believe that to get your entitlements should be a basic right enshrined in law and that the system should work to get you those benefits. However, we need a system based on advocacy. I know that the minister has talked about this in the past, so having some face-to-face contact—a good quote from the Poverty Alliance, where he says that people need people to help them in their time of need and not just machines. We know from the briefings that we have already that there are literally thousands of unclined benefits. 100,000 Scots do not claim working tax credit and child credit to the tune of £428 million. There are 56,000 carers in Scotland who do not receive the benefits that they are entitled to. However, as well as having a legal duty for claimants, there is another reason to do that. That is about maximising the benefits that people get prior to whatever the day is of which those powers are transferred over. To be clear, in other words, the amount spent in the previous year determines the budget that the Scottish Government will get to administer its welfare system, so it is another very good reason to ensure that we maximise the entitlement of those claimants who are going to have their benefits administered by the new Scottish system. As many of the witnesses said to the Social Security Committee last week, we inherit a lump sum on the evolution with those new powers. We are not bound to replicate all the benefits that we have now. In fact, we can design new ones if it makes sense. Professor Christine Rumerie said that it is only 15 per cent of the budget—I have heard this in many debates—but, importantly, the Parliament, the Government will have control of the administration of how that 15 per cent budget is delivered. It is potentially far more powerful than we realise, but it is the administration of the scheme and not the sums of money involved as causing most of the damage to claimants. However, I want to say a word or two on why Labour thinks it is important to take those powers sooner than 2020. The Government motion makes no particular reference to this. It has not asked us to vote in this position tonight, but that is the decision that it has arrived at. I would like to comment on the joint ministerial minute, the working group, the minute that the committee received some weeks ago. I think that it would be helpful in future if we had a formal letter, as Adam Tomkins said, highlighting the fact that I believe that it is a Government decision that the committee should have drawn attention to. I would like that to be the format that we have in the future, so that we are clear when the Government makes decisions. It is not something that is contained in the minute, but that is just a side point. Alison Johnstone directly asked the minister, Damien Greene, on the question of whether or not the Government's devolution of employability programmes would be a voluntary decision for claimants. I am clear that I heard him say that it would be. I fully support the Scottish Government in pursuing that once again, so that we are clear that they are voluntary and not compulsory, however that is on the official record. Sandra White accused Labour of frightening people by asking the Government to reconsider its position. I would like to respond to that point, because you might not agree with it, but we have a rationale for saying this, because many people have talked about the migration of PIP—DLA to PIP—but we know that at least 150,000 people will be reassessed in that period, and those people will be exposed to the UK welfare system, and it will not be administered by any new Scottish Social Security System. We feel that there is a sense of responsibility to raise that point in the debate. Ryan Whittle, although he makes a point that there are many cases where there are no problems, does not seem to recognise, as has been said by many of the witnesses that we have heard in this committee in a wind-up on this point. At time and again, some of the decisions are deliberate decisions to reduce public expenditure by taking people of DLA and putting them on to PIP. I close with that point, and I hope that that point is taken. I now call in Annie Wells. No more than seven minutes, please, Ms Wells. I absolutely understand and appreciate the need for a structured period of transition, and, with that, after last week's revelation, the slight tone of the defensiveness in the Scottish Government's motion, I recognise that Scotland needs to take time with its new legislative competencies. Scotland needs to set up new mechanisms and agencies bespoke to its social security needs, something that we all encourage. However, if we are to accept this, I sincerely hope that the SNP will also accept that this time period should be used in a constructive way. Looking at what the Scottish Government can do, rather than a continued assessment of what it perceives the UK Government to be getting wrong. As Liam Kerr referenced in his speech, the SNP's white paper, whether intended as a transitional platform document or not, was incredibly ambitious in its aims, and what we saw last week just goes to show the SNP's own admission that governing is not always as plain sailing as they think. The SNP-led Government cannot blame us, therefore, for being just a little suspicious of revelations last week that I had requested split competence over a number of new welfare powers until 2020. I welcome Adam Tomkins' amendment, which rightly acknowledges that social security is now the shared responsibility of both the UK and Scottish Governments. The novelty and complexity that arises from this means that politicians should be very weary of creating confusion over how benefits and conditionality will work. New powers nevertheless are coming to the Scottish Parliament and extensive ones, too. Once the devolution of power is complete, the SNP-led Government will have complete responsibility for a third of all working-age social security expenditure, equating to around £3 billion. The Scottish Parliament will have complete control over a number of benefits, including DLA, PIP, attendance allowance and carers allowance, to name not all. It will have the ability to create new welfare powers and devolved areas, and most importantly, the ability to top up any reserved benefit that it sees fit. That includes universal credit, tax credits and child benefit. Should the onus therefore not be on the Scottish Government today, how will the new system alleviate poverty in a way that is sustainable in the long term? How will voluntary employment programmes that are delivered on a voluntary basis be balanced with the need to genuinely help the long-term unemployed and still provide a cost-effective system for the taxpayer? Of course, I believe that a new system should have fairness at its heart. Any new system should protect the most vulnerable in our society. It should be flexible and tailored to the needs of the Scottish people. Importantly, as I will talk about later, it should support those who can and want to work. The Scottish Conservatives have championed the use of new devolved benefit powers in Scotland. In our manifesto earlier this year, we proposed that carers allowance be aligned with jobseekers allowance to support the hard work of the 60,000 carers in Scotland, and I very much welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to that policy. We have not proposed any changes to the social security payment that has been paid to the largest number of people in Scotland, the winter fuel payment. Neil Findlay. Stop this act that the Tory party is coming away with, where it is the new cuddly Tory party and that they are the benefits claimants friend. You have supported every single cut that has been come down the line over the last five years and you should be ashamed of yourself. Annie Wells. I thought this debate we are speaking about is the future of social security in Scotland, and I want to make sure that myself and my party actually look at what we can get right for the people of Scotland. That is where I am coming from and I am taking the debate to the future of social security in Scotland and being constructive. We have the payment to the largest number of people in Scotland, the winter fuel payment, other than that, only to reconsider what time of the year it was paid. When it comes to reserved benefits, the works and pensions Minister Damien Greene spoke of taking a hard-headed rather than a hard-hearted approach. The Government announced last month that it was to bring an end to the health assessments for the chronically ill, something that will benefit over 100,000 people across the UK, and the move that was praised by charities. In the autumn statement only today, Chancellor Philip Hammond announced a change to taper the rate for universal credit, benefiting 3 million households across the UK. Positive announcements however will not stop the SNP's charge against even the mention of conditionality when it comes to social security. As Adam Tomkins points out, when it comes to conditionality, the Scottish Government has created confusion over how conditions attach to reserved benefits such as GSA and universal credit and how it will operate within Scotland's newly devolved employment services. The UK Government has been fair on the issue, and Damien Greene stated explicitly in a letter addressed to the convener of the Social Security Committee that the UK Government would not stand in the way of new employment programmes being voluntary in their operation. The UK Government, despite the SNP's open admission to potentially blocking the passing of claimant information on to the DWP on this issue, rightly maintains however that claimants will still need to demonstrate that they are looking for work, and that is only fair. As Jenny McBall points out, it is right that we create financial cushions and not welfare traps, work for those that can and will always provide the better out of poverty, and I cannot stress that enough. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government's announcement of £14 million work for Scotland programme in order to assist those with disabilities into work. I urge, however, upon the future announcements of the Scotland equivalent of the work programme to reflect on the chancellor's announcement today of the devolution of the employment services to London and think about whether a similar deal could be struck in cities in Scotland like Glasgow. After all, devolution should not stop at Holyrood. I call Angela Constance to close the debate up to eight minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have had some substantial contributions this afternoon, and I would want to single out Ruth Maguire and also Alec Rowley for the heft that they both added to precedence. Jeane Freeman, when she opened this debate this afternoon, said that we all have a stake in the future of social security in Scotland. That was something that was reiterated by many speakers, including Jeremy Balfour, who spoke of his own experience and his positive experience of that migration process from DLA to PIP. I am not going to detract from Mr Balfour's own personal experience, but I just want to draw some parallels. I am a woman in politics. I have the privilege of holding one of the most senior positions in Scottish politics. That does not mean that we do not have an issue with the underrepresentation of women in this Parliament. I have to say to Mr Balfour and others that this is not about me, this is not about you. We have to look outside this place and to look at society and that more broader experience and always to remember that lived experience. It is not about you and it is not about me. Jeane Freeman also said that it is no exaggeration that the safe and secure transfer of new devolved benefits represents the biggest and most complex programme of change in the history of devolution. I did not hear anyone in this chamber this afternoon detract from that, because this is a unique journey. We are indeed taking some unique approaches and it gives us some unique opportunities. It gives us the opportunity to build a new system from the ground up, not from the top down, in that spirit of co-production with Parliament, with Civic Scotland and most of all with those who have that lived experience of the current benefit system. We have to learn from the mistakes of the UK Government. We look at universal credit, it was meant to take four years to roll out, it is now taking 12, it will take a minimum of 12 and we do indeed, Mr Griffin, look at the calamity of that migration process between DLA to PIP and this government has repeatedly called upon the UK Government to stop the roll-out, but the difference between you and I is that I want to do more, I want to have more power than just to be able to write letters to call on them to stop something that is iniquitous. Pauline McNeill has never rested for a minute in calling on the UK Government to change their position and how they deal with those claimants, but she has not really expressed any concerns so far that we could bring those powers before 2020 and at least have those claimants assessed not by the UK welfare system but by the social security system that we all want to see here. Angela Constance is unfortunate that Ms McNeill and others along with the Tories perhaps haven't paid enough attention to committee proceedings as they should have, because we have repeatedly said that in terms of the transfer of those powers that this isn't an event, it's a process. I am on record as saying that we are not going for very good reasons, we are not going for a big bang approach that at some point in the near future we will go into a building and switch on the lights and deliver all 11 benefits at once. That this has to be a safely managed process and we have repeatedly explained to committee and indeed to this chamber that there are three broad processes to this. There is the commencement of the powers along with the very important consultation and then there is the legislative competence and bringing forward our legislation which I am quite sure will be debated and tested to the point of destruction and then we move to a delivery phrase and we have also on record as saying that some of those benefits we can indeed look to deliver sooner but some of those benefits particularly the most complex ones we will have to take considerable care with because I am not playing fast and loose with the lives and the livelihoods of those who rely on these benefits. Can I say to Alison Johnstone and indeed others that it is absolutely imperative that we work together to turn words into actions and specifically on the point of the young carers allowance we are indeed looking at bringing forward a package of measures including financial support and we are discussing that with the various young carers organisations and can I also say to Alex Cole-Hamilton that we are designing an assessment process which prioritises the need of the disabled person and not the needs of those delivering the assessment and it was also a point out to Mr Cole-Hamilton that Alex Neil my predecessor far back in March this year published a new future for social security in Scotland and that is the start and that was the blueprint and if I can say to my friend and colleague Christina McKelvie in terms of long-term conditions and lifetime awards that we will look at that very closely and are on record as having commitments towards those with long-term conditions and lifetime conditions because we want to stop that revolving door and we want to replace the inhumane and expensive error ridden regime. We are supporting the Labour Party's amendment tonight unlike Westminster. We don't see social security as a source of easy cuts and we do very much see it as an investment and it is very much to be regretted that the UK Government have not taken the opportunity afforded to them in the autumn budget statement to reverse the highly damaging cuts to ESA and other things. I reiterate to all members across the chamber who spoke of the powers that we have to top up reserved benefits to create new benefits and there is indeed a debate to be had about how we use our new powers to full effect and I for one will not at this important time be closing down that debate but chamber will have to recognise that we have a manifesto to deliver, I'm sure we're going to be held to account on our manifesto. We also agree with the Labour Party that we have to increase take-up rates of benefits and that will indeed have a financial impact but can I just be quite clear to the likes of Graham Simpson and others who globly talk about this Government topping up reserved benefits or creating new benefits and then having the audacity to accuse Gene Freeman and I of acting like teenagers, oh I wish, but he quite clearly seems to expect that it will be the women in this Government that will be running after his Tory pals in the UK Government clearing up their mess, clearing up their mistakes for all their broken promises and disastrous cuts on the poorest because I think at the end of the day people will end up well and truly showing the Tories the door and of course there is only one way to do that. Presiding Officer, I want to end where I started. We all have a stake in the future of social security in Scotland, we all want to build a system that we can all be proud of, we all want to turn words into actions and as we travel this journey together we will indeed all need a challenge and indeed to work together to build that consensus and yes we in this Government want to do as much as we can as fast as we can but can I reiterate Presiding Officer that this Government will not be blown off course, we will not be bullied into timescales because we will not compromise on the need to get this absolutely right and I repeat that I for one will not be playing fast and loose with the lives and the livelihoods of the sick and the disabled or indeed the dying and if I can end on a quote from Tressa Burke of Glasgow Disability Alliance when she said, I firmly believe that the Scottish Government having control over more social security powers offers more hope and I think Presiding Officer although some of the contributions this afternoon have varied in content and tone I actually do firmly believe that in our own way that we all actually believe that in these new powers offer hope to Scotland and I want to end by saying that Scotland is indeed leading the way and creating a fairer system and that is something that we can all be proud of and if we work together to make it happen that indeed will represent the Scotland we seek and the country that we truly want to be thank you very much thank you that concludes our debate on the future of social security in Scotland the next item of business is consideration of business motion 2680 in the name of Josephus Patrick I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now and I call on Josephus Patrick to move motion 2680 formally moved thank you no member has asked to speak I'll therefore put the question to the chamber the question is that motion 2680 on behalf of the business bureau in the name of Josephus Patrick be agreed are we all agreed we are all agreed there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business the first question is that amendment 2651.2 in the name of Adam Tomkins who seeks to amend motion 2651 in the name of Gene Freeman on the future of social social security in Scotland be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment 2651.2 in the name of Adam Tomkins is yes 30 no 92 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed the next question is that amendment 2651.3 in the name of Mark Griffin who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Gene Freeman be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on the amendment to the name of Mark Griffin is yes 92 no 30 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore agreed and the final question is that motion 2651 in the name of Gene Freeman as amended on the future of social security in Scotland be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on motion 2651 as a man in the name of Gene Freeman as amended is yes 92 no 30 there were no abstentions the motion as amended is therefore agreed and that concludes decision time we'll now move to members business in the name of Bob Dorris we'll just take a few moments for members to change seats