 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Social Security Committee 2017. Can I remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones as it does interfere with the recording system? The main item today is an update on forthcoming legislation on social security from Gene Freeman, Minister for Social Security. I welcome the minister here today. Thank you very much for coming along to update us on the issues. Obviously, the accompanying Scottish Government officials, David Signorini—I think that I pronounced that right, hopefully—head of communities and analytical services and Chris Boydland, the legislation delivery team leader of the Scottish Government. Minister, I'll hand it over to you. I believe that you want to make an opening statement, 10 minutes or so. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to you and to members. I'm grateful to you for the opportunity to come back to the committee and provide you with this update. I'd like to start, if I may, with the issues that were raised around the parliamentary statement that I made last week when I highlighted areas of disagreement in our current negotiations with the UK Government. The first of those concerns is the housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds. Since June of last year, at both official and ministerial levels, we have been pursuing a means by which both Governments could meet their specific objectives. As members will recall, the UK Government's objective is to remove eligibility to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds and ours is to retain that eligibility. Our solution is to use section 11.4 of the welfare reformat 2012, which allows the DWP to vary the calculation of the housing element of universal credit, rather than section 11.5, which allows DWP to change eligibility and is the section that they intend to use and, in fact, have produced draft regulations on. The reason for our position is that, under the Scotland Act, Scottish ministers have no power to restore eligibility, but we do have powers under 11.4. Not only, I'm afraid, with the UK Government not considering our approach, it has, so far, refused to commit to our alternative solution, which is to add 18 to 21-year-olds living in Scotland to what is already a long list of exceptions that it has put to its own policy. The second area concerns the UK Government's intention to apply its benefit cap to individuals who, as a result of our abolition of the bedroom tax at source—which members will recall is a clear manifesto commitment for this Government—those individuals who are considered, as a consequence of that, to have income above the benefit cap level. I think that our position is very clear and is well founded on the Smith commission, the fiscal framework and the enduring settlement, which all state explicitly, as at paragraph 989 of the fiscal framework, that any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Government must provide additional income for a recipient and not result in an automatic offsetting reduction by the UK Government in their entitlement elsewhere in the UK benefits system. As I've said, both Ms Constance and I have raised those issues on a number of occasions. In addition to the work of our officials, we've raised them at ministerial level with Caroline Knox, Damian Hines and David Mundell in the hope that agreement could be reached. We've finally raised them at last week's joint ministerial working group, the appropriate place and process, where we specifically challenged both David Mundell and David Hines to explain to us why DWP could not simply flag people in Scotland for whom the bedroom tax was abolished and disapply the UK Government's benefit cap from their universal credit award. The answer remains no, although, as I said in the chamber, we still do not have a clear explanation as to why not. The solution that is being offered to us is for the Scottish Government to provide any capped individuals with a discretionary housing payment equal to the amount of universal credit that they've lost. I am very clear that we can't agree to that. It would involve additional DHP expenditure by the Scottish Government, effectively resulting in us paying twice to abolish the bedroom tax, because, of course, we would need to pay DWP also for the bedroom tax income that they had not received as a consequence of our abolition. It is a cumbersome approach that's being suggested. It relies on the individual self-identifying at a local authority office after the cap is applied, and it doesn't support the person-centred social security system that we intend to see. We think that what we have proposed is simple, straightforward and a better use of public funds, and we will continue to pursue a satisfactory outcome as a matter of some urgency. We will continue to press UK ministers to honour what has been our shared stated intent to work together to ensure the smooth transfer of powers, but to recognise that the reality of that is to engage in genuine discussion and not simply listen to a case but say no as you intended to say before the case was presented to you in the first place. These issues matter a great deal, but it is also the case, and I am pleased to say that we are making progress in other areas. We have reached the important milestone of an agreed timetable for the commencement of the remaining welfare sections of the 2016 Scotland Act. DWP Secretary of State has written to Ms Constance confirming that the UK Government's regulations are being finalised to be laid at Westminster. I now fully expect those regulations to be published in time for us to meet our commitment to introduce our bill to this Parliament before the end of June. I will make sure that the committee sees a copy of that letter and our Cabinet Secretary's response. The Secretary of State's letter also confirms that the way that DWP has drafted their regulations will, as we hoped, allow for executive competence for most of the individual existing benefits to transfer to the Scottish Government as we commence our Scottish arrangements to deliver those benefits, in other words, transferring incrementally. That is important because it means that we will be able to take the sensible, carefully managed and staged approach to the delivery of the new benefits by switching them on at intervals over the next few years. Of course, the next step between the DWP's regulations and switching on, as it were, our own benefits is, of course, our social security bill. The bill will set out more of our approach, not just to the individual benefits, but also to the legislative machinery that will operate the benefits. My officials have provided members with a note that sets out our approach in more detail, so I will just address the cardinal points. In terms of an overall structure, we expect the bill to have three main parts. In the first, we will enshine our core social security principles, including the principle that social security is itself a human right and essential to the realisation of other human rights, which I covered in my statement last week. In the second part of the bill, we will lay down key pillars that will hold good for devolved assistance provided under a social security system. Our assumption is that the legislative machinery will, at a high level, be more or less the same across the 11 benefits. The rules for determining an individual's entitlement and calculating the amount of any payment will vary, but we expect the basic points of application, consideration, decision and so on to be similar across the board. In the third part, there will be sections specific to each of the areas of responsibility that are being devolved, such as disability benefits, industrial injuries, funeral payment and so on. There will also be a schedule attached to each area that will set out how the powers conferred by each section will be exercised. Finally, we will publish some illustrative drafts of regulations during stage 1 of the bill's parliamentary scrutiny and look to involve people and representative groups in their further development to make sure that our regulations are fit for purpose and will operate in the best interests of those who will rely on our system for help and support so that people can see how we plan in detail to use our powers. During my statement last week, I said in relation to the evidence provided through the consultation that what has emerged is a rich seam of evidence, a solid foundation that we will use as we build each step of this new public service. I would like to spend the rest of my opening remarks setting out some of the ways in which we will do that. Last week, I talked about the experience panels that we will set up to design and develop better models for delivery. Recruitment for those panels will be through two routes. The first open recruitment will be at our own hand as Scottish Government in partnership with our key partners. I am pleased to tell the committee that we will launch that exercise tomorrow. The second route, launching on 14 March and in partnership with the DWP, will use randomly selected mail shots to individuals in Scotland on one or more than one of the 11 benefits that will receive our recruitment pack. The recruitment exercise in total will run for 10 weeks and we will be asking MSPs and others to help us to publicise this and encourage involvement. Last week, I also announced that Jim McCormick had agreed to chair our expert advisory group on disability and carers benefits. Since then, we have made some progress in terms of the members of that group. Today, I can advise members that Tressa Burke, chief executive of Glasgow Disability Alliance, Chris Cregan, chief executive of the Scottish commission for learning disability, Lucinda Godfrey, chief executive of Dundee Carers Centre and Professor Carol Tannahill, chief social policy adviser to government, have all agreed to serve on that committee. Other members are being approached now and, as soon as we have their confirmation, I will make sure that the committee is aware of that. I also know, convener, that members and others have shared our concern to increase awareness of benefit entitlement and encourage individuals to seek the financial support that they are entitled to. We have been working to understand the best way to do this and have devised an approach that targets individuals where they are and works in phases. The first phase that we will launch in the next 10 days will promote a level of general awareness of benefit support and entitlement, a trigger, if you like, to get people across Scotland to ask the question and to seek advice on what they might be entitled to in terms of the full range of current UK benefits. Thereafter, we will run targeted campaigns starting with those benefits where current take-up levels are known to be low. In addition, convener, before this summer, we will make our decision on the shape of the social security agency and advise Parliament of that. Advise Parliament of the first suite of benefits that we will deliver by 2019 and continue our active discussions with health and social care professionals to ensure that we can both simplify and speed up decision making for those entitled to disability benefits using the quality evidence at first decision making, significantly reducing the number of assessments required and reducing the delay and anxiety experienced by too many people in the current system. Overall, I hope that the update has been of interest and useful to members and, of course, I am more than happy to take questions. Thank you very much minister for your statement there. Apologies to members. I will let you in a second, but one of the issues that you raised at the very beginning, minister, was the fact about housing benefit for 18 to 25-year-olds and the bedroom tax. That is very concerning. What effect will that have on the social security agency bill going forward? Will that delay it or will we still have to liaise? Just a clarification. Of course. It is housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds and the imposition of the bedroom tax on those individuals whose income level is taken above that benefit cap level as a consequence of our abolition of the bedroom tax. Those are the two main issues, neither of which will delay the introduction of the bill because my point was although those areas of disagreement with UK Government are serious and frustrating and important, there was a major piece of good news, if you like, from that joint ministerial working group, which was confirmation that the preparation of the order that the UK Government has to lay at Westminster to trigger the transfer of all the benefits remaining is on time and on track to be completed in order to allow us to bring our bill to this Parliament before June or by June. We are still on track to do that. The current issues around the benefit cap in the bedroom tax and 18 to 21-year-old housing benefits will not delay that exercise. Thank you very much for the clarification. Adam Tomkins. Good morning, minister. Thank you for coming to speak with the committee again this morning. Can I ask a bit about part 1 of the bill and the principles that you envisage legislating for in part 1? In particular, I wonder if we could drill down a little bit more deeply into exactly what is in your mind and in the Government's mind when you talk about a rights-based approach to social security. Are those rights intended to be declaratory in the form of political or moral principles, or are they rights that are intended to be legally enforceable? That is similar to the question that you asked me in the chamber, Mr Tomkins. The intention is that, on the face of the bill, we will set out our intention that social security is a human right. The key principles that members are very familiar with will underpin the system that we intend to introduce. We also will place a statutory duty on ministers to devise a charter in conjunction with our experience panels and others, which will enshrine those principles and that right. Ministers will then be accountable to Parliament for the delivery of a social security system against that charter. That then therefore allows Parliament and indeed this committee or a successor committee to hold ministers directly to account. I am sure that you are more conscious than I am that in terms of courts being able to make a determination as to whether or not rights have been met, they deal in individual cases, of course, and they do not deal in whole systems. However, should the Scottish ministers not fulfil their duties in terms of what the bill says and an individual believes that they have not been accorded a treatment that accords with the principles of the bill and the charter in particular, then they will have recourse to the court. Is it your intention, minister, that the charter will not be produced at the same time as the bill? The charter will not appear until after the bill has been enacted. That is right, because it is the bill that requires the charter to be produced. Now, when we recruit the experience panels and we expect them to begin work from the summer, we need to take a view in conjunction with Jim McCormick about which areas we need them to be working on first. With 2,000 volunteers, it is probable that we will be able to have more than one workstream running with the experience panels, although there is a lot of work for them to do. We will look to begin the work with them on what the charter might say. In parallel to how the bill goes through scrutiny in this Parliament, because I imagine that members will have views on what they believe should be in the charter and what it should say, and that is part of the proper scrutiny going through the various stages of this committee. I am sure that we will have views based on evidence that you have heard and otherwise. We need to make all that dovetail and flow smoothly together. The final question on this, if I may, is in the Government's very helpful analysis of the written responses to the social security consultation. There is an extract from the evidence from Engender, which says that unless accompanied by a mechanism via which claimants could contest a breach of rights—I assume that means contest in the court of law—a breach of rights, such a document as the charter could have only limited value. You seem to be pointing in a direction that is a little bit different from the direction that Engender wanted you to be pointing in. Is that right? I am not entirely clear whether what I have said would satisfy Engender or not. Of course, we will be talking with all the various stakeholder groups, and I am sure that Engender will be encouraging people to volunteer for the experience panels. We will be having discussions with Engender and others around the split payment flexibility on universal credit. I am sure that we will raise that then. I do not know if I am pointing in a different direction from Engender. I am very conscious that it can be the case that charters are simply warm words. I am keen. I hope through the route that I have described to you to ensure that ours is more than that. It is one that ministers are directly accountable to this Parliament for delivering on, but it is also a route for individuals should they believe that they have not been treated according to the principles of the charter to have them right and forced. Ben Macpherson, do you want to come in at that particular point? A small supplementary question. As well as there needs to be effort to make sure that it is not warm words and that there is true accountability, as Mr Tomkins was asking for analysis on. I think that it would be interesting in your thoughts on the role that you envisage that the charter can play in terms of shifting consciousness around social security and moving towards a different sort of system based on dignity and respect. I think that it has a big role, potentially a big role to play in that, because remember that, although ministers are accountable for the agency delivering its business according to the charter, the agency itself has a big responsibility in delivering its service and in its day-to-day business in a way that exemplifies the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. The charter is a useful tool in the cultural change that we require that our new agency and for social security adopt and demonstrate in how it treats the people who work for it, as well as those who come seeking the financial support and help that they are entitled to. Potentially the charter has a number of positive roles, but that, as always, at the end of the day is down to how meaningful we can make it in terms of what it says and how well we can then collectively, individually and collectively in our respective roles make active use of it. I do not intend that we have a charter that looks nice presentationally but is in a plaque somewhere, but everybody walks past and nobody notices. Thank you minister for joining us this morning. In the Scottish Government response to submissions on the consultation, you mentioned human rights being at the centre of the new system, and I warmly welcome that, because UK benefits, including cuts to benefits being devolved such as DLA, have been criticised by the UN and others as abuse of human rights, and you mentioned that in the response. If we agree that these cuts have abused human rights and a human rights-based approach is going to underpin the new system, would it be a reasonable, if not inevitable, conclusion to reach that these cuts to these benefits must be reversed upon devolution? It is an understandable approach to take, but it has to be an approach that is balanced with the reality of what is possible in terms of the financial resources that the Scottish Government has and also that not all of the benefits system is being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. For example, there are cuts in areas of reserve benefits not being devolved where it would not be within the power of this Parliament, even should it wish it, to overturn those. I completely understand the reasoning that you are putting forward, but I think that that reasoning has to be set against what is possible in terms of our powers, but also what is possible in terms of the overall resourcing that the Scottish Government has to deploy and the various pressures and demands that are all legitimate and all well-argued that are placed on that. I appreciate the minister's comments, but I hope that we will be able to explore all possibilities with the new powers and use taxes progressively, as we might. Mr McPherson introduced the very welcome language that we are hearing about dignity, respect and fairness. Respect and dignity can only be delivered with adequacy of income. You will know that the UK Government has frozen the rates of some benefits in recent years. Child benefit, for example, I believe, will be worth 28 per cent of its value by 2020. I would like to know if you have given any thought to how rates of benefits in the Scottish system would be decided, would that be by automatic upgrading, according to inflation? How would you provide protection to benefit cuts in the way that we have seen previously? How would you fix that in primary legislation so that any future Government could not cut benefits in this way? We have already said in a debate in response to an amendment put forward by Mr Griffin that we would operate benefits in line with inflation using the CPI, if I recall that correctly. I also think that Mr Griffin asked a further question, if I recall, and we made it clear that we were talking about benefits. In terms of primary legislation, it is an interesting point. I am happy that we would consider everything that we might have in primary legislation. We will take that on board. Obviously, when the bill comes back, you will be able to see whether we have considered and concluded that that is the right place to do that. However, we will have a look at that. Thank you minister for coming in today. A couple of points that perhaps more of clarification than anything else. You have mentioned parliamentary scrutiny and also the appointment of Dr Jim McCormack. That is to the expert advisory group on disability and carers benefits. Looking at your ministerial statement on the consultation on social security, you talked about independent scrutiny in that. In particular, we will enlist the support of objective experts to advise us on the most appropriate arrangement for the independent scrutiny of our new systems overall performance. Am I correct in reading that as there will be objective experts to advise on the most appropriate form of scrutiny and then whatever form that takes will be separate from that group? That group of experts is a different one than Dr McCormack's one. In terms of scrutiny, clearly, one of the key scrutiny bodies is in fact this Parliament and this committee, but the wider Parliament and any successor committee to this one. I wanted to make sure that the Parliament and the committees were given their proper place in scrutiny, not just of what we do over the next four years but of what a future Government does in delivering social security. There is another key scrutiny body, if you like, in terms of Audit Scotland, which will have a role in how the social security agency performs and makes the best use of the funds that are given to it. However, I was also keen that, going forward, we have an additional level of what I would describe as independent scrutiny, not only how Government performs but how the social security agency performs as we evolve and develop our benefits and the delivery of them. Particularly because what we are setting out to do is to create another public service in Scotland that has a very specific culture and approach from the outset, as I spoke about earlier in terms of the principles and the charter and not wanting simply to have a set of one words. So, the expert advisory group that Mr McCormick will chair has a lifespan at the moment of four years. Its job is to provide expert advice to ministers over that four-year period to work with the experience panels and with others and look in particular at disability benefits and the carers benefit. My starting point is to look at what we might have over the longer term in terms of independent scrutiny is to speak first of all with Dr McCormick about that. When, as you know, at the UK level, there is a social security advisory committee that operates at UK level and provides advice to the DWP on regulations and so on, and there is an industrial injuries body too. The UK Government took a view that when those benefits are devolved to Scotland, those committees would no longer apply to the work in Scotland. I am looking to see what might we do here that provides advice and scrutiny in an independent fashion, but not just to us but more widely and therefore more publicly. I will also turn my attention in due course to what we need to do in terms of industrial injuries and severe disability benefit. The starting point on the independent scrutiny is to begin the discussion with Jim McCormick to take his views and then to scan more widely to see how we might establish such a body. To follow up on that, perhaps it can be viewed in general terms as an equivalent of the UK body although it will not necessarily be the same thing because you are looking at it afresh, is that right? Yes, I do not want it to be like the UK body, if I may say so, because the UK body confines itself largely to regulations and provides advice to the DWP, so it is a bit circular. I want ours to be more open than that, to have a wider role than simply about our regulations or any amendments or changes that a future Government might want to bring in terms of the devolved benefits. Obviously, it would have a role and a voice in that, but critically so would Parliament and a successor committee to this one. I also want to look more widely at how the 11 benefits that we are delivering can be continuously improved in terms of their scope, their criteria and their delivery, so a bit wider than the current UK body does. Just one final follow-up point, if I may, convener. Are you able to say at this stage whether the Scottish Government commits to following the advice of this advisory panel to be set up or not? No, I cannot say that at this point because we need to devise what the remit is and how it might sit alongside this Parliament's role and this committee's role, but we will look at the nature of the relationship between such a body and a Scottish Government bearing in mind comparators, as you say, with what currently exists in the UK, although I want to change the way we do it compared to how they do it. Rasmussen, do you want to come in the back of that one or just to this? Not initially, but yes, where Gordon ended up going, so it kind of connects, so... Right, Mr Radd, and Ruth Maguire. Basically, obviously myself, Minister, is all about real-world scenarios and actual delivery, you know, what we do here affects people's lives, obviously, and it's the delivery mechanisms that you'll be using to actually, I'd like to ask about, you know, the Scottish Social Security Service, what kind of, what will it look like and how will it work, you know, just so I want to get down to the kind of brass tags of the whole scenario. Right, so members will know that the Parliament decided, or the Government decided before the Holyrood elections that we will have a social security agency. Since then, we have gone through part of the consultation, asked for views around what that might look like and what were the key things that people were hoping to see in the actual delivery of social security in Scotland. We have gone through, first of all, stage 1, option appraisal, so there is a accepted and agreed and treasury approved, if I'm right, Mr Sinyrwney will correct me if I'm wrong here, approach to how you work out these matters, how you come to robust choices in that exercise. We have gone through stage 1, option appraisal, and we are nearing the end of the stage 2 option appraisal, which will lead to the production of an outline business case, all of which will allow Scottish Government, myself and Ms Constance to reach a clear decision about the shape and structure of the social security agency in Scotland, which we then intend to make this committee and Parliament aware of that decision around Easter time. I can't be more specific on that because there are still matters to bottom out and determined. Certainly, before the summer, we will have made a decision on exactly what it will look like—you quite rightly put it, Mr Adams—exactly what it will look like. Where will it be? How will it deliver its services? Where will decisions be made and so on? In reaching that final view, we will take account of what the consultation exercise has told us. I think that it is clear from the consultation exercise, and I am sure from evidence that the committee has heard that people are saying very clearly to us that they want a human face to that exercise. They do not want the social security agency in Scotland to operate an approach that is digital by default. They want a range of communication platforms available so that people can choose the communication that best meets their needs. They want speedier decision making, more transparent decision making, speedier appeals process, where decisions are disagreed with, and the provision of comprehensive information and advice, regardless of where you live in the country. Without pre-empting our final decision, it is entirely fair to say to members that I am absolutely mindful of all that, and we are looking to reach a decision on the nature of the shape of the social security agency in Scotland and what it will look like and how people will encounter it that encapsulates many of those, if not all, clear demands and needs that people have expressed to us. I previously asked that on the idea of delivery mechanism again, we are aware of the complex scenario of the living benefits that we are delivering. They are all in different databases, whether they be analog or digital. I have asked before that there is not this big mythical red button, so where are we at with the IT systems that you will need to deliver that? Sorry, Mr Adams. I let you in on a supplementary. It is basely based on the same part. Sorry, Mr Adams. Four people are still waiting to ask a question. You could come in on that after the other people have asked the question. You did come in on a supplementary, Ruth Maguire. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. You mentioned in your statement that you thought application across the 11 benefits would be similar. Obviously, the committee has heard and you will be well aware of the stress and upset caused by some of the complexity around applying. Can you just say a bit more about how you can simplify and speed up decisions? If you would be able to reduce the need for the face-to-face assessments and paperwork involved for people who are specifically entitled to the disability payments. If it is helpful, I will focus particularly on the disability benefits, if I may, because I think that that is the current system in which people find the most stressful and the lengthiest, in fact. The disability benefits that will be devolved are benefits that are there to assist people with their additional financial demands placed on them as a consequence of their ill health or their disability. It seems clear to me that, therefore, the information that you require to reach a decision on eligibility and level of impact is information that is largely already exists in two of our key other public services, our health service and our social care service. That is what I referred to at the end of my opening remarks. We have begun discussions with colleagues and professional bodies in those areas to look at whether or not this third public service, social security service, could, with the individual's permission, access that information in order to do a number of things. First of all, get the quality of information that they are at first decision making. That information is evidence that is objective, if you like, and professionally based. It comes from health or it comes from social care. The speed of decision making could be increased because you have it all to hand. Therefore, for many of the conditions that folks come forward and are eligible for disability benefits, you significantly reduce the number of face-to-face assessments that are required. You increase your opportunity to award lifetime awards or genuine long-term awards. That is the end result that I want. However, it requires considerably more discussion. There are legitimate areas and difficulties and issues to work through in terms of the nature of individual records, confidentiality, data protection and, of course, there is no point in recruiting 2,000 individuals to experience panels if we do not then ask for their views on that particular approach. However, it seems to me to be a logic in what I am wanting to achieve. We have already begun the discussions to try to tease out what might be the barriers and the difficulties to achieving that. I am not a health professional and I am not in social care, so I would not necessarily know those. Can we overcome them? How might we set up that system so that the evidence that is needed as opposed to a general look at things is flagged and easily delivered? Does that, as I believe it might do, free up our health professionals, for example, to concentrate on the job that they want to concentrate on, which is the health of their patients and not in helping them to fill in appeal forms and so on and so forth? That is the route that we want to go down. It is not straightforward and it is not without issues to be discussed, but I am very heartened by the willingness of colleagues in the Scottish Government, but most importantly professionals elsewhere in health and in social care, to actively apply their thinking and their experience to working out how we might be able to do that. At this stage, we are not there, but it is a good road to go down. I think that GPs, for example, who are providing healthcare are best placed to assess whether someone has a long-term condition. I recognise the complexities there around data protection. Following on from that, and this will apply to some of the different benefits, I wanted to ask a bit more about increasing awareness of eligibility for benefits. How does the Scottish Government intend to do that? You spoke about, in your statement, targeting people where they are. Can you say a little bit more about that? Just clarify, if I may before I answer your question, the decision making on an individual application for any benefit will sit with the social security agency and the staff of that agency. We are not going to be asking healthcare professionals or others to make decisions about whether or not someone is entitled to that benefit. That is an absolute assurance that I have given and will continue to give to those individuals, but they hold evidence that can help the decision making. That is the key point. How do we properly and inappropriately access that? In terms of benefits and benefit entitlement and take-up, one of the things that I think is clear is that if you just do a general advertising campaign, whilst it might make you feel better and it might win an award, it does not necessarily actually hit the mark. What we have decided to do is to phase our benefit take-up campaign. The first part of which, as I indicated, is basically focused around raising awareness that there is a possibility that, even though you may be in employment, for example, you may nonetheless be entitled to additional support. It is a phase of the campaign that will be a lot through local radio, local print, using case studies of real folk for whom this has applied, to begin to get folk to think, well, I wonder if I might be. It points them towards a citizen's advice telephone line to begin—which we have supported specifically for this purpose—to begin to find out more information. Thereafter, we get to the target people where they are. For example, one of the areas of low-benefit take-up is the Sure Start grant. There is not really a lot of point in a general advert to all the expectant mothers about Sure Start grant, in the hope that they hear it on the radio or whatever. The place to go is where is the most important place for them. That is in their booking with their health professional, in their antenatal work and in the postnatal, immediate postnatal work. That is where you target it. As well as all the other things, because you are primarily focused at that point, of course, as an expectant mother, is about your health, the health of your child, the arrangements for the birth, and so on and so forth. Into that conversation, you can inject a, did you know that additional financial support is available? You might be entitled to it. Here is what you need to do. That is what I mean about working with people where they are. What is the point of contact that they have initiated? That is on a subject that they are focused on. Can we weave into that information about benefits that they might be entitled to and encourage them to look at that and point them towards where they can get specific advice on how to apply and so on and so forth? Just very quickly. Yes, please, because you have another two, because it was to come in. It was just to ask—you mentioned your start there—which other benefits have particularly low take-up? Did the funeral payment—was that? Yes, the funeral payment is another. We do not have—there is not information across them all to be fair, but we do know that the sure start and paternity grant has low take-up, funeral payments, carers allowance and particularly carers allowance for the younger age group. Pauline McNeill, you wanted to come in on the back of the first point that Ruth Maguire made in regard to assessments. That was about the appeals. I think that what you have been outlining is a really exciting prospect of a new agency that has dignity and respect, title to benefits, timely, simple and all of that. I wanted to ask you about the—you should have given any thought to the appeals process, but I also thought that it is just worth asking you to comment. If you get the decision right first time, then there is less need for a system of appeals, but we obviously do need a system of appeals. I would put it to you that it is probably worth advertising and marketing that point, too, that when people come, there is an obligation on them to provide the right kind of information, and that has got to come across as well because we create a new system with dignity and respect and people see a change, they come forward, but we also need to get across their own responsibility for that, too. One way is to promote the idea of getting the decision right first time and that you have an obligation to give the Department of Social Security as much information, but there are going to be cases where people want to appeal that and a human rights-based approach that will be in appeals process. The one that we know of, we have been hearing about, the DWP currently administers a disaster. People are unclear about it for long periods of time, so I just wondered if you could comment on that. You are right. I agree with you in terms of, in any system, we all have responsibilities in that system, so individuals coming forward to our social security system, of course, have a responsibility to provide us with accurate information. What I am looking to do is minimise the amount of work that the individual has to do in the evidence and information that they provide by a speedy access of one public service to another. There will need to be, of course, an appeals system and process. The consultation exercise also asked about that. Key points coming through are around the appeals process being clearly explained, more transparent in how it operates and quicker in its undertakings. I think that we can deliver on all of those and we will be devising what our appeals process will look like. I am sure that members are aware that part of the devolution of powers is also the devolution of a number of tribunals to Scotland and the social security appeals tribunals are one of those. There are obviously time issues and questions, but I do not at this point foresee any difficulty in that they will not have been transferred in time for us. I am sure that that will work its way through, as best I understand it at the minute. We will aim to devise an appeals process that people know about from the outset and are clear about what they need to do is quicker and transparent in how it makes its decisions. People are clear about the evidence that they need to take to the appeals tribunal and the basis on which the tribunal has made its decision, whatever that decision might be. You said before that it would be easier to have had all the welfare powers rather than the lift and shift that is going to be required for this 15 per cent to make the changes, and that there is a large degree of complexity around a new system and making it work in tandem with the existing one. I wonder if you could highlight and update the committee on where you see the biggest risks going forward as we proceed over the next few months in terms of the challenges ahead for delivering the new system. I think that one of the key challenges—and it is not a reflection in terms of intent on DWP, but a key challenge for me is to make sure that the data that is transferred to us is complete and accurate. By that, I mean that I do not want it to be the case that when we take over and begin to deliver directly payments for benefit X that we miss some people who are eligible and due that support because the data was incomplete when it transferred to us. I am very specifically saying that I am not suggesting an intent not to transfer complete data, but I am reflecting fairly the difficulties that DWP faces with the way that it has evolved. We have touched on that before. The number of IT systems that it requires to operate together in order to produce information, the fact that industrial injuries and severe disabling benefit are paper-based. In all that, there is room for gaps that folks fall down. We have, as you would expect, officials in social security director and the programme board work very closely to a detailed risk register, which is a very live document. For that, for me, it is an important risk that we need to take actions to try to make sure that we mitigate against that risk and minimise it on a consistent basis as we work our way through. I think that there are other areas of potential difficulty. I started this morning by mentioning two. We have not resolved those. We cannot step away from them as the Scottish Government and just throw our hands up and say, well, you said no and we will just go away and no bother. We have to keep pursuing that and find other ways to discuss these matters with our colleagues at UK level, press and influence and pursue those as best we can. I am sure that the very first committee appearance chair said that I was confident of our shared intent between the Scottish and UK Governments to secure the smooth transfer of those benefits and powers, but it would be foolish to deny that we do not come at this exercise from different political standpoints and there will be disagreements. We have reached two. That may be all, but there may be more. Those are frustrating and there are risks, but we just need to keep pursuing it and find ways to resolve the matters as best we can. I know that George Adam was trying to come in earlier about IT, so I will leave that point for him. Mark Griffin has been patiently waiting for Mark, and then Mr Tomkins and George Adams have wanted to come back in again. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions around the balance between primary and secondary legislation. The minister and the Government are doing a lot of work setting up a new system, talking about the human rights-based approach to the charter, talking about entitlement, assessment and the level of payments. All that work is a massive amount of work. Just how comfortable is the minister and the Government in doing all that work to then leave it to secondary legislation for an incoming Government to then tear it all up in four years' time? I cannot imagine that possibility, Mr Griffin, but you are right that we should always plan for the unexpected. That is why we are putting the principles and the foundation that we believe are really critical to the social security service in Scotland into primary legislation. We deliberately saw the principles on the face of the bill, embodied in the charter, the responsibility on ministers and what I referred to as the key pillars that apply across all the benefits. The regulations will be specific to individual benefits. The reason for that separation is to allow future Governments to make changes should they wish to, to levels of payment, eligibility criteria and so on around a particular benefit without recourse to primary legislation and opening the door to arguments around some of those founding principles. If a future Government wishes to do that, it will need to do it as primary legislation. I think that we are aiming to embed some key aspects of the social security system that we want in Scotland. I believe that the consultation responses have shown that people want us to have in Scotland in primary legislation. That does not stop a future Government changing that, but it means that it has to go through a very clear stage process through this Parliament, and it would be a parliamentary decision to do it. However, a future Government, should it wish to alter, for example, eligibility criteria around any one of those benefits or change any other specifics around it, should be able to do that through amendment to secondary legislation rather than primary. It makes it quicker for them. Can I ask if a change to regulations will be by affirmative or negative procedure? That is for individual Governments to determine? No, it would be in the bill. It will be in the bill. I am not very keen on negative. I cannot give you an absolute definite on that, because we are still to finalise what the bill will say, but I will say that I am not very keen on negative. I am reassured and I hope that it will be the affirmative procedure. I see the point on relying on secondary legislation making things clearer for people who are applying and looking at eligibility. You mentioned regular consolidation to ensure that people are not looking at bits of information all over the place. Can I ask just how regularly the Government will consolidate to make sure that there is a continuous one source of information for people who are looking at entitlement? We would expect that there would not be a set interval. I think that the answer would be that we would want it to be consolidated as regularly as the changes require. The whole idea is to have regulations that can respond to systemic or to other changes. You would not want a set two-year, four-year interval for consolidation. What you would want to do is consolidate at the point at which it is needed. I want to go back to the question of the Scottish Social Security Agency. You said in response to one of George Adam's questions—perhaps George Adam's only question—that you were going to use the responses to the consultation to help to shape your views about the Social Security Agency. I was reading your analysis of those responses and I wondered if you agreed with me that there is an inconsistency between the answer to the question, should the Social Security Agency administer all social security benefits in Scotland? That question had 84 per cent yes on the one hand and on the other the question, should we as much as possible aim to deliver social security through already available public sector services and organisations, which had a answer 72 per cent yes? If you think that that is an inconsistency, how will you navigate your way through it? I think that on the surface it can appear an inconsistency. What I think that reflects from the consultation exercise itself and the very many meetings and discussions that I was party to is people's desire to have an efficient system, but one that has, as I said, that human face, that accessible, relatively local presence, and one that can accommodate, albeit where a relatively small country of just over five million people, but there are differences across our country in terms of local issues and so on. What I have said to others who have asked a question about what would the Social Security Agency look like is essentially to say that there is a circle that we have to square here. I believe that when we get to the point of making our decision, we will have squared it, others will undoubtedly judge, but that circle is between the best use of the funds available, which means that we do not want to spend unnecessarily on the delivery, because that takes away from what you might have available for individuals who need and are entitled to our financial support, efficiency and value for money in how you go about running your system, but also a system that is able, by its everyday business, to address the concerns that people have raised about the current system. Those concerns are around, as I said, the digital by default approach, the lack of human face to your inquiries and your decision making, the speed with which matters are done, the feeling that the benefit system is inhuman and distant. That is the circle that I have to try to square with the decisions that we make on the shape of the agency. I am confident that we can do that. It will not be perfect. I do not think that there is a single decision on this matter that we could reach that would be perfect that will not have niggles and issues around it, but I am confident that we will be able to have a good go at squaring the circle. I am going to shock you, minister. I asked you a very similar question to the one that I asked about 10 minutes ago, giving you extra time to actually think about it. The whole idea for me is the real kind of people scenario where, on the day that we have all the powers, they need to get the money in their bank account. Where are we at with that at the moment? Will the committee get the opportunity to scrutinise where we are at with the process that we are going through? Government, in general, throughout the world, does not have a great track record on IT systems, so how are you going to make sure that you do not have the same pitfalls that have happened in the past with IT systems in particular? There are a number of points to answer in answer to that question. Our whole approach to everything is about design, test, build and deliver. Design involves using the expertise that is available, including those who are in receipt of the current benefits. We have taken exactly that approach to IT and have also factored into that the key lessons learned that are there for everyone to see from previous IT programmes, both those that worked and those that didn't. That work has begun in terms of IT. I am very happy that we have made the offer before and again. I am very happy for colleagues who are involved in that to come and present to this committee and show you what they have done so far and the approach that they are taking and why they are taking that. I have seen a presentation that I hope will provide members with some assurance but also the opportunity to ask detailed questions to those with the expertise to answer that. However, that approach also factors into how we will incrementally take over delivery of the benefits. In my opening statement, I said that it was welcome that, in introducing the commencement order to Westminster, UK ministers had agreed with what we wanted, which was that the executive power is transferred incrementally, too, because what that allows us to do is to manage the staged takeover of those 11 benefits on that incremental basis. However, it also allows us to consistently and consistently, as we do, benefit by benefit, to repeat that design, build, test, deliver, learn lessons and do the next one, so that there is no big bang here, there is no point where a switch is flicked and 1.4 million people are depending on that switch being flicked in the right way. You do it step by step, including how you are applying your IT. As I said, convener, I am very happy indeed if members of the committee as a whole want to take up that offer, then we will simply make those arrangements and members can ask more detailed questions around the IT system and also around how lessons learned are being applied to that work. The final point that I should make is that, behind the scenes, there is a clear programme of project management governance and a programme board that brings in others from outside of government to that exercise, as we have brought in a wide range of stakeholders to the whole option appraisal exercise around the agency. Obviously, when we get to the decision on that, I will cover it in more detail. However, that whole system of project management, governance and programme board are other layers of assurance around the risks that Mr McPherson mentioned and the staged process, so that you do not proceed just because you are impelled to proceed. You proceed because you know that you are ready to move to the next step. I am very pleased that George Asim got in with his question, because we have the offer, obviously, of being able to dig deep in and see exactly how it works. I am sure that the committee will have a small question, because there will be one small question in 10 minutes. There was a discussion around carers allowance feasibility study at the joint ministerial working group to ask whether you could share that with the committee. As members know, we are keen to introduce the additional financial element for carers as soon as we can, if at all possible, on an interim basis, whilst the legislation is going through and the regulations are then applied. We are asked at the DWP to undertake a feasibility study as to whether or not they could deliver that for us and what the costs of that would be. They have only recently completed that and given us it. Officials are now in discussions with them around the detail of it and the costs. At the same time, we are also looking at other options that might allow us to deliver the top-up for carers allowance, an additional amount in advance of the legislation that is being completed. Precisely because I share colleagues' desire that we do that as quickly as possible and that we are actively pursuing all the options alongside the DWP that might allow us to do that. Thank you very much, minister, and thank you for giving us the extra time. We will formally close the session and we will consider the other items in private.