 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the second meeting of the Social Security Committee of 2017. Can you remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones as it does interfere with the recording system? Our first item today in agenda item 1 is that we take item 3 and 4 in private. Is that agreed by the committee? Yes. Thank you very much. Agenda item 2 is the main item on the agenda today, and it's looking at an evidence session on employability and sanctions. I welcome Minister Jamie Hepburn, Minister for Employability and Training. I first visit this year to the committee and welcome once again. Along with the minister is Michael McHenry. I hope that I've pronounced that properly. Thank you. Employability programme lead and Julie Bellotti, policy manager and employability policy team in the Scottish Government. Minister, do you want to make an opening statement up to the committee? Yes, indeed, convener. Of course, as ever, I'll be happy to feel any questions that the committee wants to throw at me. I begin by thanking you for the invitation to come along today. I very much welcome the interest that the committee has shown in our employability programme, particularly how it will not now interact with the UK Government's sanctions system. We'll just perhaps set out some of the background as to where we are with the employability programme, and then, as I say, I'll be happy to take any questions that you want to pose with me. At the beginning, I'd like to assure the committee that we are building the employability programme on a solid foundation, informed by significant consultation that has taken place already, and indeed an on-going process of consultation and discussion with those with expertise in the field of employability. At a wide range of stakeholders, there are those who have provided similar services in the past and those who may provide services in the future. Above all, and I think most importantly of all, as I'm sure the committee would agree, convener, are those who have been customers of the predecessor programmes and those who are likely to be customers of our programme as it goes live from April 2017. We are very much on track for delivery from that juncture. We undertook, as I said, a full consultation, a formal consultation in 2015. The response to that highlighted a clear sense of ambition and significant consensus on the future of employment support in Scotland. There was a clear and consistent view that Scotland can improve on the services that have been in place before and that the UK Government has provided to better provide support that helps people into work, while operating in an environment that respects the dignity of those who engage with that service and respect between customer and provider. In responding to the consultation, we set out the key values and principles of our approach to employability. Those are, I believe, aligned with our wider ambitions for a fairer Scotland, underpinned by the fair work framework that has been published by the Fair Work Convention and our commitment to fair work more broadly. The labour market strategy that I published in August of last year, which, again, was imbued with an approach to worse fairer work and our determination to achieve more inclusive growth across Scotland tackling inequality by supporting those who really need our help. Of course, there is also a commitment to continually seek to review, learn from the programmes that we put in place and improve them in the future. As a basis of the work under way, we have set out key strategic objectives. Those are about establishing a distinctly Scottish employability service, designing and delivering a high-quality, high-performing service that helps people into sustained jobs, treating them with, as I have said, fairness, dignity and respect. Of course, focusing on those furthest from the labour market but for whom work remains a realistic prospect. Having a nationally consistent service but one delivered locally using a variety of providers across the public third sector and the private sector capabilities and trying to integrate and align services to both maximise value for money but also and critically importantly as part of the person-centred approach, make sure that we get it right for those who engage with our programme. As we move towards implementation, we continue to consult closely with a wide range of people on those matters so that we have effective transfer, development and design and delivery of those new powers. I remind the committee, of course, of course, of the first from the Scotland Act to go live, as it were. Those we have engaged with include members of our stakeholder advisory group, customers, as I have mentioned, and, of course, the representative bodies that the potential customers may engage with, particularly on matters around disability. Third sector organisations and local government have also been important as part of that process of consultation. The context that we operate in is, of course, important. Between 2011, when the UK Government implemented the work programme, there is much that has changed. Our employment rates are up, which is, of course, welcome, but there are many who are still removed from the labour market who want and need help to get into work and many of whom probably feel that that help has not been properly forthcoming. At the same time, the committee will be well aware of the funding challenges that we have been set by the significant cut in funding for contracted employment support from the UK Government. Those factors combined mean that it is incumbent on us to have a new approach to that area. We are, of course, moving quickly to the operational phase of the service from April 2017. That is an important step. It is an exciting time, during which I am very much committed to taking the opportunity to make employment services work differently here and more effectively here in Scotland. In order that we ensure that support continued for customers who needed it, while developing the longer-term service that we seek to implement, we have put in place a transitional service for one year from April. The contracts for those are now in place, looking ahead to 2018. After that transitional year, I am also confident that we are on track to ensure that new services are in place from that juncture. As I have already mentioned, setting out the broad principles for such is critical from my estimation. As I was very clear with the committee's correspondence, it is in common with the other employability and training initiatives that we offer. That is a voluntary service. That will build a greater sense of confidence for those who engage with that programme. There will be various levels of support to those who engage with the programme. We recognise that some people might need less than others. There will be specialist support for those who are disabled. We have also heard very clearly that one of the perhaps unintended consequences of there not being a service fee in previous programmes was that there was a perverse disincentive to reach out to those furthest removed from the labour market. The term, picking the long-hanging fruit, was utilised. We think that a service fee should remove that disincentive. It should also allow for some of the smaller providers to feel more confident to come in and tender for our services. Of course, there will still be payments for job outcomes at various junctures, which I can touch on later if members are interested. I should say—this is something that I am announcing today, convener—under my responsibility to announce those things to Parliament, first of all, so that I am accountable to Parliament. I thought that I would use this committee appearance to make this public. We have determined that there will be nine contract package areas across Scotland for the services due to commence in 2018. That very much recognises the fact that the type of service that people may require will differ from area to area. It will also again mean that the contract package areas are smaller than have hitherto been the case and its speculation—I suppose that if the service had not been devolved given the way that we see the contract package areas going in the rest of the United Kingdom, my suspicion is that Scotland would have been a contract package area as a whole. I freely admit that speculation is informed by what is happening south of the border and in Wales. However, with smaller contract package areas, I think that we will again embed confidence for smaller providers to feel confident to be able to come forward. In terms of the area that I know is of utmost interest to this committee around the area of sanctions, we have—this will be a voluntary service. The committee is aware that, following your recent dialogue, you had Damien Greene before you and then you corresponded with him that our approach will be respected by the DWP. Indeed, I should say that Damien Greene confirmed that in writing to you as a committee before he did to me, but I was very glad that he did because I did happen to notice his letter to you, but I should say that I have now myself had written confirmation from the DWP. It is important, of course, to emphasise, convener, that that is not to say that those who engage with our programmes will not be necessarily subject to sanctions through the rest of their interaction with the DWP. That remains the preserve of the UK Government. We do not set that to policy area, but we did have clear confirmation from the UK Government that the extent of conditionality and criteria in our devolve programme was ours. From my mind, that meant being able to say that that programme should not interact with sanctions and that it has been respected, which I am very much welcome. The one other area that I should touch on, or two other areas that you do not mind me touch on quickly, convener, is the wider agenda of trying to integrate this service. We have a there are challenges, as I have mentioned, around funding, but there is an opportunity here as well, convener. We can seek to better integrate this employment programme with some of the other devolved functions that we have, such as health and justice. Indeed, with other partners, with local government, we know that they provide a range of employability initiatives. They have departments for economic development and social work. We can try and seek to better align this employment programme with that. Indeed, our own employability and training offer right up to modern apprenticeships. We can seek to try and better align those services. That will be a longer term ambition. I readily concede that it is easier said than done, but I am determined that we seek to do it. That is why, last month, I announced a £1 million innovation fund that we can utilise to support testing of new models of integration in different areas, so that we can very much learn from that experience. We have also formed an integration and alignment advisory group that will help to develop an integration and alignment action plan that we plan to publish in, I should say here in my speaker note. Spring 2016, that is a type of spring 2017. We have not missed any deadline. We will be publishing that in spring of this year. The last thing that I wanted to touch on, and this is very much relevant at this moment in time. I recall that you had witnesses from Jobcentre Plus about their programme of closures at that stage for Glasgow specifically. I should say, convener, that I very much welcome the fact that Damien Greene came to this committee. I used to be the deputy convener of the welfare reform committee. They are probably the predecessor committee to this one. We had significant challenges in getting any UK Government minister to come to speak to us publicly on the record, so at least you have managed to achieve that, and I think that that is welcome. What has been less welcome has been the process in which the Jobcentre Plus closures have been announced. I have been dissatisfied with that for a number of reasons, primarily, of course, the impact on those that will be affected in the various communities that those closures will take place in, but of course it is relevant to this programme because Jobcentre Plus is going to be a key conduit for referral into our employment programme. If Jobcentre Plus branches are closing, that could have an impact on the ease with which people are referred into that programme. There is also an issue around the Smith agreement, paragraph 58, of the agreement that was set out. I can specifically quote from it that we should identify ways to further link services through methods such as co-location wherever possible and establish more formal mechanisms to govern the Jobcentre Plus network in Scotland. There have been discussions at official level, and there have been discussions between Skills Development Scotland and the DWP. I acknowledge that, but what I can say is that I think that that dialogue really has to be more meaningful. If we are to establish what is set out in paragraph 58, more formal mechanisms to govern the Jobcentre Plus in Scotland between us as an administration and the UK Government, I, as the Minister for Employability and Training in the Scottish Government, will find out about Jobcentre Plus closures through the pages of the daily record that speaks of the need shall I be generous to say more significant work to be done in that regard. It will be something that I will continue to pursue with the UK Government. That said, there are issues around that particular element of interaction, but I do not want to detract from where we are, convener. There are challenges, there are challenges around funding, there are challenges around the long-term integration agenda, there are opportunities. The integration agenda, as much as it is a challenge, is also a huge opportunity. We also have the opportunity to create a very much a person-centred approach here and better support those who are furthest removed from the labour market. That is my ambition for this employment programme going forward. We are very much on track to deliver the transition arrangements from April 2017. I also believe that we are on track to deliver a longer-term approach from 2018 as well and, of course, at any stage, the committee wants further updates. I will be happy to provide them. Thank you very much, minister. You have covered a number of areas, obviously, and there are a number of questions to be asked, too. You are quite rightly saying that the committee would share your concerns, particularly the fact that we did have Damien Green here, but two weeks later we were told that there were other job centres closing, and we only found that out through the newspapers. Although we are very grateful that we managed to get Government ministers here, it would be nice to have been told in advance that they were going to close. As we need to look at the job centre closures, we should be looking at them in the committee. If I could just raise a couple of issues that have been raised with us with evidence session, and you touched on a number of them in regard to providers, and also the fact that you were looking at the different contract areas, those were certainly raised with us, particularly with local authority, with the slayed economic development. I just wondered if you could perhaps expand more on what you mentioned there. You said that people would be contracting. There will be nine contract areas, and you will be working with integrated services and services that are already there, but the term, how long that would take, you weren't quite so sure. Perhaps you could expand on that particular one. The agencies that are working just now in economic development or the automatic will be part of the people who bid for the contracts. Another issue that we should raise with us was the costing of the contracts, services and providers. At the moment, it is 30 per cent, 70 per cent, and it was raised with us with a number of voluntary organisations that they would like to see at a 50 per cent split. I just wondered if you could perhaps elaborate on that, too. Just picking up on what was an opening march on part of the question, but just in terms of you welcoming the UK Government Minister attending, but not similarly to my own experience learning about the specific closures through the newspapers. I suppose that I would observe that it is very much similar to our interaction. It is welcome that we have the interaction, but it has to be meaningful. Words are easy, so when I meet face-to-face with UK Government ministers, I want it to be meaningful interaction. Hitherto, it is questionable how, around certain aspects of this process, it is how meaningful it has been. I am sure that the committee might want to reflect on how meaningful your interaction might have been with the UK Government. I should say that I omitted to mention some elements in the nine contract package areas, one of which is of particular importance. I should announce today that we are going to reserve one of the contract package areas for supported business to tender for. That is an important thing to do, because it is an important area for us to support. That is something else that I can announce today. We have not finalised yet which of the specific areas it will be. I can run through the nine contract package areas if people would like to do that, and I am sure that they will, but we will make a further announcement about which one of the nine areas that reservation will apply to. In terms of the process of tendering, there will be no automatic process. It will be very much incumbent on those who seek to tender for our services to build a tender and then bid for them. I already set out that that can be across a range of sectors, so there is no automatic switch for anyone to say that they will be part of the process for tendering. We have engaged extensively with the sector in setting out our high-level ambitions and speaking to them about how that could be practically applied. They have been hugely instructive. We have done that across a range of locations across the country to make sure that we are trying to meet as many of those organisations as possible and making it as convenient as possible. They have been hugely instructive in terms of shaping the final nature of the contract package areas and instructive in informing what are the final tender documents that we expect to go to tender in March and will publish at that stage what they will look like. In terms of the issue around the service fee, I would say that we will continue to speak to folk and hear what they have to say. I think that I would ask people to reflect on the fact that the predecessor to the programme had no service fee, so this is literally an infinite increase in terms of the level of service fee that it went before. This will continue to be a learning process for us, so this will not be the only time in the future that we tender for services, so we will need to learn from the first set of contracts that we put in place, and we will continue to hear what those who are our providers say about that. Broadly speaking, we have got it right. I think that there would be an expectation that there should be some form of payment by outcome, because at the end of the day we want there to be positive outcomes through this programme, and ultimately an employment programme. The positive outcome for an employment programme is people getting into sustained employment, so there will be other trigger points whereby people will receive further payments at three months, six months and 12 months, which again is a fairly generous approach. At three months contractors will get a further payment, six months they will get a further payment, and if they can sustain someone into employment for 12 months and beyond, they will get that final payment. The service fee that we are embedding has been welcomed across the board, and from the sector, I should say, has been our decision to disaggregate the employment programme from facilitating the sanctions regime, but this will be a constant process of learning. Right now, I think that 30 per cent sounds about right. Thank you for being up front and honest in answering that particular question. It did come from some of the voluntary services there. Adam Tomkins, you wanted to come around the back of that one. Thank you, minister, and thank you for your very full opening statement. There are a couple of areas of that statement that I wanted to pick up with you, if I may. First about local authorities. One of the things that we heard in evidence last week that I think struck a lot of us, certainly struck me, was the statement from one of our witnesses that this is a very cluttered landscape. One of the things that we would be interested in is knowing how it might be decluttered. As you know, minister, devolution complicates things further and clutters things further. That is not to imply that I am opposed to it because I am not, but I wondered if you had any reflections first on that general statement that this is a very cluttered landscape and whether the Scottish Government has any proposals that you could share with us as to how it might be decluttered? I think that I would concede at the point that there is already what we could use the terminology cluttered landscape. There are a lot of different initiatives and programmes in place. I think that all of them and of themselves, for good reason, the specific programmes are in place. I think that we should be relaxed about there being different programmes and approaches to suit local needs and local purposes. That is why we have gone to more localised contract package areas for this programme. I think that the issue—this is where I would agree with the perspective—is that for providers and above all for those who seek to interact with those services, the landscape cannot always be that clear. That exists as much in terms of some of the—let me be further candid still. When I came into office as the minister for employability and training in May, I was immediately beset with a range of new programmes and it took me a little while to get my head around them. I have, hopefully, done so more successfully now a few months down the line. I think that that speaks of—and that is why I think that the integration agenda is so important—integration with other services such as the health service, the justice system, as I say through local government social work, but also for the entire gamut of employability training initiatives. We need to try and integrate them rather better than one another. That is not to put flags in the ground and say that we want to reclaim things back from local government. There is no ambition to do that, but I did meet with Harry McGwigan, who is the relevant spokesperson for Mr Griffin. We will know very well, as I do, with him being a North Lanarkshire councillor. I met Councillor McGwigan some months ago, and he is the relevant spokesperson for this policy area. He shared the perspective and there was a willingness for us to get round the table to try and engage in further dialogue to make sure that we can make it a more seamless process, ultimately for the person on the ground seeking to interact with all those services. That has got to be the fundamental thing, the most important thing. It is a lot easier said than done, and I will concede that at the outset. It will not be in place from April 2017. It is probably not likely to be entirely in place by April 2018. It will be an on-going process. It is one that is of the utmost importance to me and to the success that we will have or otherwise in getting people into sustained employment through the various programmes, including the employment programme and the long run. I have already mentioned £1 million of funding for alignment and integration to test things out, and that will help inform our thinking. I hope that that is a fulsome enough answer for you at this stage, Mr Thomas. I can drill down on one aspect of it, which is the relationship between your new Employability programmes Minister and Skills Development Scotland and the relationship generally between Employability programmes and Skills. You said in your opening remarks that aligning Employability with, for example, modern apprenticeships is a longer term ambition. Aligning, decluttering are, I think, quite closely related to one another. Can you just help us to understand a little bit how Skills Development Scotland will work with the organisations that win the nine contracts or contract areas that you are going to put out to tender in the next few weeks? Of course, some of that might emerge in the tenders themselves, because there is a nationally consistent service, but it can be delivered differently in local areas, so that could emerge in the tender for those bidding as to how they may themselves set out how they would seek to interact with a variety of organisations, including Skills Development Scotland. Before I expand on that, I can just go back to say that it is a longer term agenda. I am being quite candid about that in terms of integration and alignment. It is a longer term agenda because, if we are going to get it right, we do not want to rush it and get it wrong. That is not to say that it is an immediate priority, so it is something that we are already determined to take forward and will start taking forward as quickly as we can. Indeed, we are already on that agenda through the dialogue that we are engaging in. When I say that it is a long term agenda, I do not want to give the sense that that means that it is in the long grass. It is more of a sense of realism about the approach that we need to take to getting it right. On Skills Development Scotland, again, it is part of that wider alignment agenda. It delivers a variety of initiatives that could be called part of the family of employability and training. We asked them to tender and contract for the employability fund for modern apprenticeships. They are engaging in that already. They have a critical role to play in our wider agenda of upskilling the population and getting them ready for the world of work. They are part of that agenda of alignment. The budget has been cut by £6.8 million in the current proposed budget. Can you guarantee the minister that there will be no closures at all of any Skills Development Scotland premises or offices or services, given that their budget has been cut by nearly £7 million? Ultimately, for Skills Development Scotland to look at their estate, I think that I can see where you are going with that one, Mr Tomkins, and I am sure that we will pick up on that in due course. However, I know that Skills Development Scotland has a clear commitment whether or not they have a physical office on the ground to engage with every community in Scotland by comparison to other organisations. I think that it remains to be seen whether they share that commitment. Of course, Skills Development Scotland might be able to help them to do that. Mark Griffin has some questions about conditionality and sanctions. First, I welcome the Government's approach that the programmes would be of a voluntary nature and there would be no conditionality. You touched on the issue in your opening statement about the interaction between the devolved programmes and the reserve benefits and any conditionality sanctions attached with them. Is it possible, through the tender, for the Government to design the programmes in such a way so that people who attend those programmes meet the commitments that were set down by other reserve benefits in terms of their commitment to seek work or other commitments that they would make? The difficulty with that, Mr Griffin, is that, if we did that, it becomes a mechanism by which a person could be sanctioned if they were not participating. That analysed the difficulty for us because that would become facilitating the sanctions system. My comments at the outset were to remind people to make clear, because there could be a danger or a tendency for people to think that there are not any sanctions in Scotland anymore. I cannot commit to altering the UK Government's system of sanctions because it is for the UK Government to do what I could commit to do and what I sought to do. Of course, it was not just the Scottish Government's perspective, it was the Parliament's perspective—not unanimously, I accept, but overwhelmingly—that that devolved employment programme should not facilitate the UK Government's sanctions system. Incidentally, I will always seek to secure the support of Parliament. That was because of executive prerogative, but I thought that it was very important that I was able to go to Damien Greene and say that that is not just the Scottish Government's perspective, it is the perspective of the Scottish Parliament as well. We managed to successfully get the DWP into a position where they have stuck to the principles that they set out over a significant period of time, where they said that the conditions in the devolved employment programme were for us Scottish Government to determine. I took that to include interaction with the sanctions system for some time. It was not entirely clear whether that would be respected, but I have to take Damien Greene and Damien Hines, who was the UK minister who confirmed to me, Damien Greene confirming to this committee. I have to take them at their word and say that we will respect our view that our programme should be voluntary. I accept what the minister is saying in terms of not wanting to facilitate any sanctions, but there could be a person who would be sanctioned for not seeking work or whether they attend the Scottish Government programme or not, they could be sanctioned. I was just wondering if there is any way of almost an automatic fulfilment, an agreement between the DWP and yourself that anyone who is attending is automatically under no threat of sanctions or in reserved areas? We could certainly explore that further. We just need to be very cautious about that, because the flip side of that could then be argued to be that if they do not attend, then they are subject to sanction. I see the point that you are driving at. We can explore that further with the DWP, but I cannot leave here with the commitment to say that the DWP will agree to that. Minister, I welcome some of the things that you have been saying and, as you have said, that may come as no surprise. You mentioned this being a learning process and so forth in respect to certain areas. What I am interested in, you have clearly decided, as you say, on the voluntary approach rather than sanctions or conditionality or approach to matters. My question is what plans do you have for evaluating how that approach is working and also a reassessment of the approach itself and the mechanisms that are employed? Clearly, if we are going to learn from our programme on going evaluation, it has to be part of that process. We are developing a monitoring and evaluation plan to set out how we will do that fully, but I would not want anyone on the committee to have the feeling that we are not going to continuously assess the efficacy of the approach that we take. It also occurs to me that any committee of Parliament could call for me to come before them to answer questions about how our approach is working. It also involves the dispersement of the public purse, so Audit Scotland will probably take an interest in that, and that will cast further light on it, but we will have our own independent evaluation of the approach that we take. In terms of the principle that is involved with our determination that we have managed to get successful agreement from the DWP that they will respect to take a voluntary approach, that is consistent with the other programmes that we offer. I think that they have good outcomes. I think that they allow for people to engage with them with greater confidence. I certainly know through the customer feedback sessions that we took forward that there was a significant concern about the potential for being sanctioned through engaging with the predecessor programmes around the rigidity of them. I just don't think that we are going to get the best out of people if they are engaging in a programme with that level of anxiety. I don't think that we are going to get as good an outcome at the end of it, but of course it will be incumbent on us to evaluate if we want to continue to learn from the approach that we are taking. I will readily commit to this committee right now that that will be part of the process that we take forward. I suppose that there are two things. One is the particular principle that you are committed to, which may be a political decision or based on a particular view of evidence. The other issue is how that principle is applied and how it works within the system. There are two aspects to it. I would have thought that you would certainly be able to commit to reviewing how it is working in tandem with other matters. I am just wondering if there is a timescale in terms of when we will get some comment on how it is considered to be working and what might be able to be adjusted or improved in how it works. Once we have agreed a contract, there will be terms in that contract that we will expect providers to meet. That is not to say that I want a rigid and inflexible system. There should be flexibility in it to identify where approaches that are not being as effective as might first have been felt. There can be some adjustment or where something is working particularly well that can be enhanced. To go back to your point about the decision whether it was political or evidence-based, it was evidence-based. For example, we have seen the Joseph Rowntree Foundation publish evidence that suggests the evidence for those who have been sanctioned across a range of jurisdictions, particularly where they are, particularly punitive sanctions. The evidence for those individuals getting into long-term sustained employment is limited. I know that there has also been evidence. I think that I am right in saying—I could be wrong, convener—that this committee has commissioned to certainly know those plenty of evidence that the welfare reform committee commissioned to suggest that the efficacy of the particular elements of conditionality, the particular sanction system that the UK Government is implementing, is not as effective as the UK Government might think it is. That is why we are taking the approach that we are taking, Mr Lindhurst. On my commitment to evaluation, it is absolute. On my commitment to—well, it is not even my commitment—if this committee or any committee of this Parliament wants me to attend, I have to attend and answer questions about any concerns that they have. If this committee has concerns in the future, I will be happy to come back and respond to those concerns and either say, yes, they are legitimate or no, I think that you are wrong and here is why you are wrong. I understood correctly that the contracts that you will be entering into will allow for flexibility to review methods and procedures and approaches. Yes, I would not want to get the sense that the latitude that they are in is so flexible that it would not be, because that in itself would make it pretty hard to evaluate. I do not think that the committee or anyone else would want me to see the implementation of a system that is so rigid that, if something is not working, we just stick by it anyway. I am certainly correct about the various reports, particularly with disabled people in the last six years about the sanctions as well. We certainly have Sheffield, Hallow and other reports. Alison Johnstone, do you want to come in on this particular issue? I am not entirely sure that the convener will accept that it is connected to this particular issue, but I can begin. I know that Ben Macpherson—sorry, Alison. Ben Macpherson. Well, we all are. Of course. That could lift the regret. Just try to keep control of the committee with people. As any good convener does. Thanks, convener. Good morning, minister. To build on the themes that were raised by my colleagues in the last two questions, just to supplement what you said there at this committee last week, Rhianon Sims from Citizen Advice Scotland said that we have not seen previous employability support provided by the work programmes being particularly helpful in supporting people into work. In fact, sanctions and conditionality are more likely to hinder people's efforts to get into employment, so even just last week we were hearing evidence to that effect. Really warmly welcome in the letter of 15 January about the shift on the issue of benefit conditionality and a move culturally away from a system that creates fear around losing benefits to a system where that word support in the descriptor of those programmes actually means something. I would just be really interested on a philosophical basis and on a human basis to hear what you think will be the impact on people having the employability support programmes on a voluntary basis and that change of culture to a culture of encouragement and support rather than judgment and suspicion. Well, I mean that hopefully I've set out that I think inherent within Mr McPherson's question is that he would concur with the evidence that he has gathered. Some of it is, by its nature, anecdotal. I've been out and engaged directly with a range of organisations on the day I publicly announced that we would be taking this approach. I want to meet one parent family Scotland in Edinburgh, and there was a clear indication from those I spoke with about the significant concern about the sanctions system that we have in the UK and the rigidity of some of the requirements that are expected of them around their wider circumstances. It did not speak of a very person-centred approach and it did not speak of an approach that sought to give people confidence in themselves and their own ability to get into work through a programme that is fundamentally designed to that end. That is where the philosophical element comes around, because it is informed by my experience of speaking to people and very much from my constituency postbag in terms of those who have come to me from time to time, too frequently, sadly, if I'm candid with you, who have themselves been subject to sanctions or other concerns about the social security system. Above all, it is informed, I have to say, by the academic analysis of which we've referred to in question and answer already. Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Sheffield Hallam, who did good work for the Welsh Reform Committee—I'm sure that we'll continue to do good work, I've asked for this committee—presenting lots of evidence about the lack of effectiveness of the particular system of conditionality that we have here in the UK and the Scotland and getting people into long-term sustained employment. From the philosophical and the principled analysis to the practical, another issue that was touched on last week was how much time is taken out of both those who are engaged in the programmes and the third sector support infrastructure around that, how much time conditionality in sanctions and capacity is engaged in dealing with those suffering sanctions. Has there been any analysis or consideration around how that extra capacity that will be created by the alleviation of needing to deal with conditionality in sanctions will help to provide that extra time and capacity for support instead? It's really important for me again to emphasise, convener, that those who are engaging in our programme will still remain subject to conditionality and the potential for sanctions through their interaction with the reserved social security system. What we have achieved here is that our devolved employment programme will not facilitate such, so I think it's important to emphasise that again, Mr McPherson, because people need to be cognisant of that. You are correct, of course, though, to say that no longer will a provider have to go through the process of going back to the job centre plus DWP to talk about compliance, and that will free up some capacity potentially. However, more fundamentally, it's about the ability to remove the fear of being sanctioned through engaging in our particular programme that will liberate people to feel confident that this is a programme that is not about trying to get them off of benefit but about trying to get them into work, and that is my clear determination through this programme. Good morning, minister. Just since you mentioned specifically the issue of lone parents, one-parent families, this was raised with us last week specifically, where it was said that the work programmes in the past have not been beneficial for lone parents, and some are seeking a specific package. I know that the employment programmes from April 2018 onwards where other vulnerable groups will be looked at. Some of the evidence that I'm sure you've heard yourself from lone parents is the ability of a single parent to meet some of the conditions but also because the regime that is forced upon them by the DWP is that the child has to be very, very young, I mean I think, under one years old. Otherwise, you're still expected to seek full-time employment. It doesn't seem to be any specific ways of dealing with that, but I know that that's for the DWP, but in relation to the employment programmes, I wondered if you'd given any thought to that? Yes, we have. Again, you've accepted yourself, deputy convener, in terms of the point that you make about it, for the DWP to determine the extent of their conditionality. I can't alter that in terms of the expectations of their lone parents or anyone else. I think that what you're driving at—and I saw the evidence that was provided to you by one parent, Family Scotland, who I've just mentioned and won't go over the organisation—I went to see when I made the public announcement about interaction of the programme with the sanctions regime. I think that what you're alluding to there is that they would provide evidence that there should be a specific strand for lone parents. I can understand why they're calling for that. I think that that's informed very much by their experience of the previous programme. Let me say that I'm not in principle against such an approach, and I've gone back to the point that we will continually learn from what we put in place. I hope that we'll reassure that lone parents are indeed anyone who takes part in our programme, because every individual will have unique circumstances around their own lives. It won't just be lone parents, people will have caring responsibilities, people will have certain health conditions that can be episodic, which might curb their ability to interact with the programme at certain junctures. That's why my clear ambition is for a person-centred approach. If a person is a lone parent, then that very much needs to be taken into account by the providers that we provide a contract to for the provision of this service when they set out how they will support that individual into employment. That, I think, will lessen the requirement for a specific strand for lone parents, because we are seeking a person-centred approach for each and every person who interacts with the programme. Bruce McLeod, you wanted to come in on that, then you had a question as well. Sure. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Committee heard from Damian Greene about the UK Government's work, health and disability green paper improving lives. It's just interested to know if the Scottish Government intends to respond to that paper, and if so, what are the points that you'll be making about it? Yes, we do intend to respond. It will be a joint response between myself and Jeane Freeman as a Minister for Social Security and Aileen Campbell as a Minister for Public Health and Sport, because the areas within that green paper touch on all of our portfolios. We will all be responding to it, because there are clear implications, not least through the amount being expended on that programme by the UK Government for what we will receive as a consequence for our employment programme here. I have referred to the cut in funding. What's driven that is the move towards the new programme that the UK Government is seeking to put in place for England and Wales, with a significant funding cut for programmes there. Yes, we will be responding. I should say as much as I have concerns, and there are real concerns about the implications for funding in terms of what's been set out in our green paper. Much of it I actually welcome, because much of it is about the same agenda that we are determined to pursue around integration and alignment. Of course, and I equally recognise that this is as true of myself and the Scottish Government as it is of Damien Greene and the UK Government, the proof will be in the pudding and, while inevitably, integration and alignment might mean one thing here in Scotland for us and another for the UK Government in terms of their ambitions, but in terms of the high-level principle of integrating and aligning services, in particular in this instance with health, I think that that's a sensible thing for the UK Government to be seeking to do. I think that when he was at committee I did welcome, I think that the words would be hard pushed to argue with what's being said. I suppose I'm just interested to hear a little bit more. It's an 87 per cent cut to employability, so for all, we can welcome the tone and the warmth of the intentions in it. What impact is that going to have on disabled people and long-term unemployed and both gaining the skills and support to not just get a job but to sustain a job, which is what we want for folk. There is a practical impact. We have taken a decision to try and mitigate the effects of that reduction in spending by leveraging an additional resource from existing Scottish Government resources, but even allowing for that, it's hard to escape that there is a practical effect in so far as there is a reduced amount to expend on this new employment programme. That's a challenge. To be fair, there's been widespread acceptance from the sector that there is a challenge. That's not to say that there aren't opportunities and by necessity. It strikes me as a sensible thing to do, so even if we'd had the same level of funding, which we don't, it's a substantial reduction in funding, as you alluded to in Ms Maguire. Even if there wasn't a reduction in funding, it would be a sensible thing to do to align and integrate services, but with that reduction in finance, that speaks even more of the necessity to do so. However, there is a substantial challenge as a consequence of that reduction in funding. George Adams I'd like to ask about the DWP office closures, because you have mentioned it both in your evidence here today and your letter of January 25. However, there are two points in particular that I'd like to ask you initially. The two points being the shocking lack of communication from the UK Government on the situation and the impact that that would have on how you are going to deliver the programmes that you have set out here today. If that communication issue continued and things kept going the way they were, would that cause you problems and programme distribution? Again, it poses a challenge. I think that we would find ways to surmount that challenge, but, yes, it doesn't make it easier. The real concern that we have here is the impact of people on the ground—primarily service users through the front-facing job centres that will be closed, but I'm aware that this will be of concern to you, Mr Adam, in terms of backhouse function, which supports the front-facing element for the staff that we are on at a certain time. It certainly doesn't make it easier. There are challenges that we can overcome, but we will be able to overcome it more readily and more easily if the terms of paragraph 58 of the Smith agreement, which I have already quoted from, become more meaningful. I—this has been raised directly with Damien Greene at the last meeting of the joint ministerial working group on welfare, which was held in London last year, which I attended along with Angela Constance. I have very much pressed the point that we needed to make significant progress towards making the set-out in that paragraph real and meaningful. There was a commitment for discussions between our officials to do so. There have been those discussions, but, clearly, the process, the way in which the job centre closures have been announced, says clearly to me that we need to make further progress still. Greater joint governance arrangements are to be laid out. I think that that has to involve—let me say that I recognise that paragraph 58—I am sure that that would be a perspective that Mr Adam would share—I think that job centre plus should be a devolved function and we should have full discretion over how it is managed here in Scotland. I recognise that that is not where we are, so I recognise that paragraph 58 remains a reserved function, but it talks about co-location of services and it talks about that greater role for joint governance. If that is to be meaningful, where the department of work and pensions have proposals in mind, they should speak to us about them first. We can raise concerns about the likely impact of closures so that we can say, if you are determined to press ahead with them, how can we mitigate the effect of those closures by co-locating services? Skills Development Scotland is one that I have posited local authorities would probably want to have a role to play in that regard as well through the local services that they provide. We can only engage in that type of dialogue if we know that those proposals are coming. It might be that we still hold to position that we think that the proposals are wrong and they should not go ahead, and in that instance, I think that the case has definitively not been made the case for these job centre closures. It seems to be entirely predicated on the fact that existing lease arrangements are coming to an end, so we are going to close the particular job centre. That seems to me to be a peculiar way of determining where a specific job centre should be located. Undoubtedly, as the case convener, we do it as well as the administration. You will review your estate and you will say, is that specific office the specific one that we want to continue running a service from? Surely, when you are running a service such as job centre plus, you will say, what community should be served? It might not be that specific set of bricks and mortar, but it is a community that we want to serve. We might have to move office, but somewhere nearby. That would be my starting assumption. That would be why I would like to see devolved so that we could take a more common sense approach. Can I just say that we are supposed to finish this session at 10.30. If the minister has minded that it is an important subject, and obviously there is lots of questions being forward, we would run it another five minutes. Would that be acceptable for the minister to do so? As long as I can get away from my dinner at some point, can be that I am happy to say. Obviously, we have a private session as well, but I just wanted to say that, thank you very much for running on the extra five minutes, a couple of people want to come in. There is no problem. But in certain, you know, the backroom offices, as you call it, in my particular constituency, Port Carlos House and Cadogan Street is huge, and it does not just serve the Kelvin constituency, it serves outwith Glasgow and Glasgow as well. I think that it is really important that, when you were saying that you are having a conversation, you raise those issues, because if you are closing the job centres and you are closing where people go to be assessed for DLA and PIP, where are they going to go? I think that that is a huge issue, which obviously Mr Adam and others will probably raise. Can I just get a supplementary on the back of that? Sorry, I was not stopping you, Mr Adam, I am just letting you in. Okay, okay, on you go. Basically, I was going, you have already mentioned, I just want to go on about what you said at the end there. You mentioned about the Paisley loan end call centre, where, effectively, 300 jobs are getting ripped out of the community by the right-wing Tory Government. That is effectively a short sighted move, in my opinion, because, as you quite rightly said, they are taking all those people who are local to that area, and, at best, they may be redistributed somewhere else within the DWP, or at worst, there could be threats. That is a concern as well, but one of the things that you mentioned is really, really important. I am led to believe that it is not just some of the leases that are coming up with the DWP, it is all of them, that are coming up. Are we at a stage here where this is actually the small end of it, and there could be more yet to come from this Tory Government? I cannot answer that, Mr Adam, because I think that the process thus far indicates that some of the specific closures were not known to me in advance of being announced. I have no indication that there will be further, but it would be wrong of me to definitively say here and now that there will not be more. Can I also just say the fact that we were told that, when Damian Greene was here, that there should be on-going dialogue with absolutely everything, and him and I had a robust conversation and discussion. I was expecting nothing less from Mr Adam. Well, it was. We got to the stage where he said that he would try to be open, but we are here at a situation where myself, 300 jobs, yourself as the minister, involved in the process, have not been communicated. That is absolutely shocking. Well, yes indeed, it is disappointing to say the least. It also is, I think, will lead to poorer outcomes. If we engage in meaningful dialogue, we can, as I say, seek to we would continue to raise concerns if we fundamentally disagree with a particular proposition. I do not think that the case has been made here. There has been no equality impact assessments undertaken in those proposals for example. We will debate that issue next week, and those might be matters that are germane and pertinent to the debate that we will have. However, yes, I think that certainly early dialogue would allow us to say, here is how we can continue to have some form of provision in communities to help people into work. That can only happen if we have meaningful dialogue. I use the term meaningful dialogue deliberately because I have watched from afar the response of DWP ministers to some of our colleagues, Mr Adam, who are members of the UK Parliament who similarly have concerns about the impact of closures in their areas. The response will come back and say that there has been dialogue between Scottish Government officials and UK Government officials about co-location. That is true, but it still resulted in a set of circumstances where my officials, Skills Development Scotland and myself, as a minister with responsibility for employability and training, were first finding out about the closures in Glasgow through the newspapers the day that was revealed to the rest of the world. With the subsequent raft of closures, I should say again that there was some prior notification. What happened was that we had a phone call the night before Damien Hynes phoned one of my colleagues, Ms Constance, and said that there will be an announcement tomorrow. That was it. My officials tried to explore further what areas and communities they were talking about. We were told what the House of Commons live feed at 1 o'clock. That is really helpful. We can do whatever anyone else can do. I am still waiting for communication from the DWP regarding it. I am led to believe that my parliamentary colleagues, down in Westminster, had to chase the ministers themselves to get something and write from them. However, I would say that this is something that we could look into at the inquiry of the committee with the idea of the DWP office closures. It is an important issue and it is one that will go on and on, and it could possibly get worse. As I said, I am led to believe by the union that we could have all the state as effectively coming to the end of its lease, so who knows what could be next. I just wanted to give the minister the opportunity to correct the record in response to Ruth Maguire's question, which was about an 87 per cent budget cut. Of course, the case is not minister of that. This year's budget for the Scottish Government is the biggest since the dawn of devolution and is £500 million greater than last year's budget, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to recognise that those facts are indeed true. You have given me the opportunity to put on record that we have still not come to conclusion through the fiscal framework negotiations as to what the final settlement for this specific programme will be. However, every indication that we have had is that the amount of money that will come to us as a consequence. It is a very interesting approach, Mr Tomkins, because I regularly hear from Conservative MSPs that this is the amount of funding that is coming for a specific purpose. Will you disperse it for that specific purpose? Here, we still await the final settlement for this specific purpose, but every indication that we have had thus far indicates that it will be an unprecedented and substantial reduction in funding. I very much welcome Mr Tomkins taking up with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Government's A New Future for Employability Support in Scotland document says that support will be offered through a flexible, tailored, whole-person approach. I appreciate that and your comments this morning referring to how sanctions were not the best way to get the best out of people. I agree with that entirely, but it is fair to say that there are groups of people who face particular challenges. Have you considered that part of the solution for those who are getting? What might be considered by many too little support at the moment might be a set of minimum standards that they can lay claim to. Has there been any discussion of that rights-based approach? Work programme providers, for example, issue minimum standards, but it seems that they are frequently ignored. I wonder whether Workable Scotland, Work First Scotland and future programmes would have a set of rights for services. If that is something that is being considered, how would they be enforced? Yes, they will be because there will be contractual obligations on service providers. If they fail to meet that collectively, or for an individual, then that is clearly something that we will take an interest in. There will be rights in that sense for service users. We will also have embedded in the system a process whereby anyone interacting with us, they will understand what the provider has to provide for them and what is expected of them as well. We will want people to engage. If they are there, they are engaging willingly, but they have to maintain that commitment to engage willingly with our service. I believe that people will do that, but people have to agree to that. However, people will have rights that should be respected in that process. On your point about differing needs, that is going to be embedded in the system as well. As far as we recognise, some people will need lower levels of support and can probably proceed quicker into the labour market. We recognise that some people will require more intensive support, and our scheme will be designed to allow for that, again speaking of the need for a very person-centred approach. There is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that too often work programmes do not result in a long-term career path or that people are often almost forced into work in the short-term, which does not last as perhaps it is insecure. Within three to six months, there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that two thirds of people are unemployed once more. There is an opportunity to use employment programmes to promote social justice. How are the Government connecting up existing Scottish Government priorities with the opportunity that we have here through the employment programme? That goes back to our agenda of integration alignment. We have got the specific pot of money to try and test out ways that we will do that. We will continue to engage in dialogue to do that. Ms Johnson hits on a fundamentally important point, because it is important to try and support people to be in sustained employment, and there will be an element of in-work support in our programme. It is not like you have hit the 12-month mark and you get your final payment, and that is it. For those who require it, it will continue in work support as well. Thank you very much, minister, for taking the extra time for the questions. We will now close the meeting and move into private session.