 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 17th meeting of the Social Security Committee. Can I remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones as it does interfere with the sound system? First agenda is agenda item 1, subordinate legislation. The committee will have seen the papers that came from previous committee. I would wonder if the committee is content to note the instrument, but also to write to the Scottish Government seeking responses to the issues that were raised in the evidence session of 7 September. Are the committee content? Yes. Thank you very much. I will now go on to agenda item 2, and that is the further evidence of the Social Security Bill. It is a continuation of our evidence, and we have two panels of witnesses today. Can I welcome our first panel? Thank you very much for managing to get here so early and on such a miserable day, basically. Can I welcome Jessica Burns, regional tribunal of judge Social Security and child support, John Dickie, child poverty action group in Scotland, Peter Kelly, poverty alliance, and Dr Jim McCormack, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Welcome, everyone. I will start off by asking the general question that covers most of the bill. Can I ask the panel what are your thoughts on including principles in the bill and on the seven principles that are set out and intended to underpin the new social security system? Who would like to kick off first? Peter Kelly. I will have a go. Thank you for the invitation to come along and give evidence. The poverty alliance has obviously been working on issues around social security for many years. It has advocated the devolution of further powers to the Scottish Parliament, so we are really pleased and welcome the process that this committee is part of. I guess that there are a number of areas where, like others on this panel and others in the voluntary sector, we have broadly welcomed the bill and the content of the bill. With the principles, we have again broadly welcomed those. Over many years, we have talked about issues around dignity and respect. It is important that those are reflected on the face of the bill and that human rights approach is given real meaning. I guess that one area where we think that perhaps there is a gap in the principles is around the role of social security. It is setting out the role of social security as preventing and tackling poverty and that that could perhaps be included as one of the principles in the bill as well. Thank you very much. John Dickie. Yes. I mean, I think that we have very much welcomed the principles that the Government has set out and the overall approach that is taken in terms of the language and the approach that it is wanting to take to social security, support the idea of embedding the principles that have been laid out in legislation. I think that the key challenge now is to ensure that those principles and the policy intentions and ambitions that have been put around social security policy are now translated into the detail of the bill throughout the bill. The principles are not just a section at the front of the bill but the intent and the principles set out are reflected in the detail of the legislation and the rules for social security throughout the bill. I suppose that that is why we are particularly keen to explore in more detail how we can ensure that those principles and the wider policy intent that the Government has taken to social security are reflected in the detail of the rules for social security. Dr McCormick. Thank you. I very much welcome the bill as well and I agree with the comments so far. In terms of principles, I think that the bill could say more about genuine accessibility. Government has made important pledges already about take-up. We saw this week some figures from DWP on take-up and there are huge variations in legacy GB benefits around take-up. There is a commitment in Scotland to try and do something about that, to perform better. To do that, I think that we need to be talking more about accessibility and that would lead us to a conversation around the different channels that people can use but also around rights to independent advocacy and advice and understanding what the landscape across Scotland looks like in order to make sure that we can realise that principle of accessibility. There is a lot more to say about the balance between primary legislation and subordinate and so forth but we may come on to that. I think that we will. Jessica Burns. Right. Thank you very much for inviting me. I suppose I do support what my other witnesses have said but my reservation about this is that obviously the control of social security will not be entirely within Hollywood's grasp and I think that there might be issues of how the public perceive the two parallel systems that are going to exist. I think that that is something that has to be quite a lot of detail within the regulations. I know that there is the top-up powers but it is not at all clear how that will work and how things will work cross-border either. I just perhaps put out a few warning concerns about that. Absolutely. I know that people are going to come in with various principles and subordinate legislation but Jessica Burns mentioned the fact that there might be a bit of difficulty there. Would that be similar to what Dr McCormick said about accessibility, although accessibility for people being able to reach their benefits but also being told what benefits they are entitled to under the devolved powers that fit in with the accessibility that Dr McCormick is talking about? Well it is all about accessibility and I think it really depends a lot on the provision of advice and assistance and I know that the plan seems to be that the Social Security Agency will be very enabling in that role but there will still be a role for independent advice workers to help people to navigate through the system and I am not quite sure how those hand-offs will take place because clearly there will still be the conditionality around universal credit and assessments under that and it is not clear whether there will be any sharing of information in relation to those sorts of assessments if we are going on to look at issues to do with the disability criteria. Thank you. John Dickie, you want to come in and talk. It is just on this issue of accessibility, I suppose, just to suggest a couple of specific ways in which the bill could be strengthened to try and ensure that people are able to access and get the assistance that they are entitled to. One is that there is a principle set out in the bill that the Scottish Government has a role in making sure that people are given the social security assistance that they are eligible for and that that should be strengthened so that it has a duty to ensure that people are given the social security assistance that they are entitled to. We have suggested an additional duty on ministers to devise and implement and regularly review a strategy on reducing under-claiming of devolved social security payments. There is a big issue particularly in relation to disability benefits in terms of under-claiming. A duty to regularly review that strategy to ensure that we are maximising up-take-up of the devolved benefits would be a way of strengthening that duty and that principle of accessibility. Does any other panel want to come back on that before I bring in Mr Tomkins? Adam Tomkins. Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone. I want to take us to sections 1 and 2 of the bill, the general principles and the charter. I wonder if I could ask for your reflections on the written evidence that we have received on this from my colleague at Glasgow Law School, Tom Mullen, who says, and I quote that it is difficult to work out the intention behind section 1 of the bill. If its legal status is not clarified, citizens and their advisers may be unsure what their rights are. The Parliament, he says, should press ministers to make clear precisely what their intentions are as to the legal status and effect of the principles and to present amendments which clearly give effect to that intention. Do you agree with what Professor Mullen has said? Who wants to kick off in that particular one? Well, the test of any legislation is when it's in operation to see what the levels of satisfaction and delivery are. I don't think that means there shouldn't be principles to start off with because it does provide a kind of road map where the regulations can pick up and can deliver. It's not uncommon. In tribunal rules, there's an overriding objective which is very altruistic and perhaps not always delivered, but it's still trying to underpin some sort of principle. I don't necessarily share his concerns at the moment because any legislation is always capable of amendment to try and meet those principles. Anyone else in the panel wants to come back in that particular one? Dr McCormick? To be honest, it's well outside my expertise, but I suppose a comment would be... With something as complex as this, even within the limits of the person's budgets coming to Scotland, there's going to be an element of testing out the various provisions through the regulations and through the practice. I think that ministers should absolutely be pressed by you and others to give an account of their thinking around the balance between principles, values and broad direction in the bill, how much should be set in primary legislation and how much can safely be left to secondary regs and guidance. I think that the balance currently is not right, so I think that pressing on that would be helpful. Making sure that the provisions for admin justice, redress complaints and recourse to law at the end of the process, making sure that that looks as safe and deliverable as possible at this stage and I think that in the next session the work that Ulster University has done for EHRC Scotland may be helpful in a comparative sense in that regard. Can I just press you a little bit on one particular aspect of this? The Scottish Government has said many times and this has been warmly welcomed by a number of parties that they want to pursue a human rights-based approach to devolved social security. One of our human rights, according to our most important human rights instrument, the European Convention on Human Rights in article 13 is the right to effective judicial protection of our human rights. Do any members of the panel think that if we are serious about having a human rights approach to devolved social security, then one of the elements of that approach must be the ability to take human rights-based claims to court where claimants or others are of the view that their rights to dignity, fairness and respect have not been satisfied? If you do think that, do you think that the bill should reflect that on its face? In any social security system there's going to be conditionality and there's going to be a sense of grievance by people who are found not to meet that conditionality. They may think that because they haven't met the criteria for the benefit that somehow they've been disrespected and their dignity has not been promoted, if you like, by that legislation. So there are a lot of people who make claims whose own perception of their disability just doesn't meet the criteria and I think it would be naive to think that the social security bill can always meet the criteria of everybody who would like to come within its terms. The financial benefits, if you like, of meeting that conditionality are very, very significant and obviously people may make claims that can't be allowed and that's why I think it's not practical to say that there would be a right to make a claim because my human rights have been infringed because the social security conditionality doesn't meet what I think should be my human right. Anyone else wants to come in? Peter Kelly? If we're to have principles and if we're to have any meaning and if we're to have a charter and it's to have any meaning then people need to understand what their ability to seek redress when they feel as though they haven't had those rights respected. I think we have probably all of us a long experience of various charters that have been set up by public bodies that individuals either have no knowledge of or feel as though they have no ability to enforce when levels of standards, levels of service don't meet the charter. So I think there needs to be some form in which people can seek redress with respect to the charter. John Dickie, do you want to come in on that? Two things. I think that your second patel of witnesses will have more expertise in terms of how you ensure that the principles relating to a human rights-based approach are actually grounded in law. I think that it is important that they are, that this is meaningful and one way of doing that is to ensure that the bill makes explicit reference to article 9 of the international covenant on economic, social and agricultural rights so that that's clearly based in international law. There may be other mechanisms for doing that as well. In terms of the charter, certainly it needs to be, there needs to be some mechanism for ensuring that there are clear avenues for people to take if they feel that their experience of the system isn't matching up to what the charter sets out. I suppose that I would just repeat again our expertise and where I'm quite keen to get into the detail on how these principles are translated throughout the specific rules set out in the bill for social security in Scotland and that in many ways is what's going to really make the difference as to whether people's rights to social security in Scotland are enhanced by this bill. That's very helpful. I think that other members of the committee want to ask you about it. Exactly that. I'll leave it there. Thank you very much. I don't know if you want to come in, Dr McCormack, on that particular one. Ben Macpherson. Thank you. Thank you, convener. I'd actually like to come back to the principles and have a number of questions based on what's been said already. The points that were raised about accessibility, that's certainly something that's come back in terms of the feedback that we've received from current claimants. So if there's anything more you'd like to expand on that, I'd be interested. Jessica Burns, your warnings really resonated with me and your concerns about the realism of this and that there's only a portion of powers that are being devolved as part of this legislation and that in terms of the principles that always needs to be borne in mind. On two things, in terms of the independent advocacy as a potential principle, I have some remarkable advocacy organisations in my constituency and I know the important work that they do. But a lot of the work that they do is based around the fact that they're dealing with the current DWP system and the lack of support that there is within that system at present in my view and many views of others. Do we need to think in a nuanced way about the idea of independent advocacy within this in terms of if we are going to think about including a principle orientated around that? Doesn't need to be much more specific and concentrated on the specific benefits that are being devolved and are covered within this bill. Also, with the hope and aspiration in mind that the way that this new social security system is delivered will be comprehensively different to the status quo with the DWP. That's my first question. My second one, if you don't mind, is to do with similar concerns around the scope of the devolved powers. Peter Kelly suggested to include another principle that social security has a role in the eradication of poverty in Scotland. If we had a social security bill that had the full comprehensive powers of social security, I would be supportive, but while my heart believes that social security in the round does have a role in tackling poverty in Scotland, absolutely, this bill can't deliver all the social security powers necessary to tackle poverty in Scotland. I'm just slightly concerned about your proposal because of that nuance and that complexity around the powers that are coming. I'd be really interested in your thoughts on those concerns that I have. Thank you. Peter Kelly, would you like to come back first? I'll come back on your second point first and then maybe come back to the other one later. I think you could make the claim that the social security system in its pre-1999 state before anything was devolved at all only had a role in the prevention and eradication of poverty. The social security system, I'm sure John would say this and others, cannot tackle poverty on its own. When we're talking about the principles, as you said, we want to set a different direction with the powers that are coming to Scotland. If we want to set out what that different direction is, we need to be clearer on the very positive role that social security and the powers that we will have, which are not insubstantial, can have in preventing some people going into poverty and in supporting people to move out of poverty as well. I think that there's no question that the powers that the Parliament will have with respect to social security cannot solve poverty on its own. We know that many of the people who are in poverty now are in in-work poverty, so we require a much broader approach to tackle poverty. I think that that is a recognition of the critical role that social security plays. I'd be interested in thoughts on my other points. Who wants to come in? Jessica Bunton? Perhaps I should just talk a little bit about representation and advocacy and what that means for people navigating quite a complex system. I would be probably not supportive of representation and advocacy that only looked at benefits covered by the Social Security Scotland Bill. I think that it's going to be equally important to have a holistic approach for people who are claiming benefit with universal credit. At the moment, a lot of representative organisations are putting a lot of energy into that aspect. It has to be support that covers the whole benefits package that might apply to that individual and that family. In Scotland, we are really blessed by the fact that there is such a good availability of representation. I'm not saying that it's complete and I know that there are shortages in certain areas, but it's substantially greater than it is south of the border. For instance, we have more than 80% representation in tribunals in Scotland compared to about 20% south of the border. I had experience of working in Birmingham where it was almost impossible for appellants to access representation. I do think that that's very, very important. I think that there's different levels of that and that's a more complex issue. There's the claiming, there's the challenging, there's the going along to tribunal. There might be different approaches to those, but I still think that these are mostly people in poverty or with disabilities are vulnerable and they certainly feel disempowered in terms of the process and the complexity of that. I think that it's part of the respect and dignity agenda that they can access that support. I'm interested in whether the view is that there should be a principle of a right effectively to independent advocacy support in a bill that is orientated on the devolved benefits. There's perhaps a suggestion being put forward to us that there should be a right to advocacy across the full range of the social security system and all encompassing right effectively and whether that's appropriate in this bill is the question that I'm asking and that nuanced complexity is what I'm probing. It's a very special meaning, providing a mouthpiece for somebody who's not confident or not able to articulate their own position very clearly. Now, I think there's a bit of a conflict here because in some ways it's sometimes patronising to someone to say, pardon me, you don't have your own voice, it has to be fed through someone else and I would be a bit apprehensive if there was a suggestion that the system required someone to access advocacy as widespread as you're perhaps suggesting. I'm actually just interested in what other suggestions are in listening right now so that that's very helpful. I think that the principle of choice here is really important because it's so tied to realising the principle of dignity. My understanding is that a great deal of advocacy is quite light touch, self-arranged, so it's family and friends and neighbours, someone to come along with you and when there is representation even at that level outcomes are better in terms of success rates at appeal. I think that what this bill can say more about is that much more specialised, if you like, higher level independent advocacy, where even if we are successful as I'm sure I hope we will be in setting a different culture with our agency and our system in Scotland, there will still be people who for lots of reasons to do with language, learning disability, mental health difficulties, traumatic experience in the past with the best will in the world will struggle to achieve from the system what they ought to achieve. I think that the choice to be able to draw upon that kind of support in this context is really important. Without being starry eyed, we have this right enshrine through devolved mental health legislation and we know that there is a great deal of unmet demanding system already. So probably demand is rising, resources are falling. So I think we should start by looking at what's happening currently with mental health rights to advocacy and working from there to understand what kind of provision we're going to need. I mean I think Jessica is right that even if we embed this within the provisions of the bill and the benefits that will flow in reality, that resource will be stretched in use for other needs, both reserved for social security and perhaps other things too, like social care. John Dickie. Thank you very much, echo and endorse what Jim said and said that we would support those that are calling for a right to independent advocacy. And we'd be very careful about that, that isn't just related to that we don't develop a system of advocacy support that's purely around the devolved system. We need to look at this holistically, as Jessica has said. I think there's another issue in terms of access to independent advice and information and the potential to build something into the bill to put a duty on ministers to ensure the provision of independent advice and advocacy to support people in accessing and challenging decisions in relation to social security, both devolved and at UK level. We currently have a system where housing advice, money advice are underpinned by legislative backing, which means that they're to some extent protected when difficult budget decisions are being made at national and local level. There isn't any equivalent for social security benefits advice, so there's an opportunity here to ensure a duty on ministers to ensure the provision of independent advice as well as looking at the independent advocacy issues. There are two separate but related forms of support that are needed in a well-functioning social security system. That's the final point, just to echo what Jim was saying. We don't just need advocacy or advice because when social security systems are failing or not, they're actually an integral part of a well-functioning social security system that there will be people for whatever reason need additional assistance to navigate a system and need advocacy, whether that's formal or informal. There's always going to be need for independent advice to ensure that people are able to understand their entitlements and can seek independent support where they feel that decisions have been made that are wrong. Peter Kelly wants to go back on that one. I think that we're part of the Scottish campaign welfare reform. I think that they've submitted very clear evidence on the importance of independent advocacy. We've also had representations from the independent advocacy alliance as well, who again have reinforced the importance of independent advocacy. I don't think that anywhere have we sought to distinguish between advocacy that's related specifically to the new powers and other wider social security powers. I think that if we make the comparison to benefit uptake, whilst benefit uptake campaigns may well target specific benefits, we would hope that there would be a knock-on impact that people would understand their entitlements to other areas. I think that we also need to relate the issue of independent advocacy, as others have done, back to equalities issues that some people may be less likely to be able to claim their entitlements and may need additional support. On that basis, there's an important role for independent advocacy in the system. I have a question about the balance of legislation, but I could just continue on the point of advocacy briefly. There seems to be a view within Government policy makers. I think that that was restated at the ministerial statement on Tuesday that independent advocacy is needed for people accessing reserved benefits because the DWP are so important. The new agency is going to be so sensitive and caring and welcoming that independent advocacy isn't as needed. That seems to be the view from Government, but I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting them. Do members of the panel think that that is a view that we should guard against, given that, regardless of how the new agency is set up, there is a potential for a change in Government. There is a potential for a change in attitude. There may be a new Government that comes in and sets a tougher assessment regime or starts to set targets to reduce the social security bill. There will always be a need for independent advocacy in the system, regardless of how well the agency is set up initially. Does anyone want to come back on that one? Short answers, because we'll always get a lot of... I was trying to say that access to independent advocacy is an integral part of our well-functioning system. It's not just something that's needed in a system that's not working or failing. There will always be people with particular vulnerabilities, with communication barriers, for whom the support, either informal or formal, of somebody advocating with them and on their behalf, is necessary to help to navigate even a well-designed, well-functioning system. I mean just similar to John, independent advocacy goes to addressing power imbalances, and those power imbalances will exist no matter what the intention behind the system is, so just as John says, it's an important function that needs to be there. Any other panel want to come back on that particular one? My next question is on the balance of the legislation, whether principles are in primary, secondary or guidance. Some members of the panel have talked about some of the Government commitments that some members have worked hard to secure those commitments. Whether that's an operating of benefits in line with inflation, whether that's a ban on private sector contractors, or whether that's something like income maximisation that's been mentioned already. Where do you think the balance lies between making sure that those principles that have been fought for in one, where do you feel that they should sit and how secure do you feel with those not being on the face of the bill? We want to come in first. John Dickie. We can make a more general point about the balance between what's on the face of the bill, what's in primary legislation and what's been left to regulation, and perhaps even more left to guidance. There's no question that there is a balance to be struck in terms of what level of detail you put into primary legislation in relation to social security and what you leave to regulations. There does need to be an element of flexibility to be able to change regulations as policy changes, as people's needs change. As it stands, we don't feel the bill does get that balance right between what's in primary and what's been left to secondary legislation. In big picture terms, as it stands, the bill would enable future Governments to make fundamental changes to disability and carers assistance, for example, without the need for primary legislation, potentially to create entirely new forms of assistance or to change fundamentally the assistance that's already in place, without that consultation and parliamentary scrutiny that primary legislation requires. We think that more does need to be put where there is more policy developed around the types of assistance that are being devolved, then put those on the face of the bill where it isn't there, then further down the line as that policy develops and as we have a clear idea of what we want to do with those powers to bring forward further legislation. There are also issues for individual rights and people's individual rights to social security that result from leaving so much to secondary legislation and in some cases not even making provision for secondary legislation. There are issues for individuals in terms of it, which mean that benefits can change at relatively short notice. Security of income is of real importance to people and the idea that those benefits can be fundamentally changed without adequate scrutiny, consultation and the period of time to consider that is worrying. There is also an issue in terms of people not having that level of primary legislation to refer to in terms of being able to challenge decisions if things don't go wrong. In relation to the types of assistance, where there is policy developed, for example, around best start grants, let's see more of that policy on the face of the bill, where it hasn't been developed, let's ensure that further primary legislation is brought forward in due course. It might also be helpful to talk in relation to the administration of devolved assistance and to give a couple of examples where we think that leaving so much out of primary legislation would reduce people's rights rather than enhance them under the new system. Clearly, that's not the policy intent, so I think that this is about making sure that the bill, as it's drafted and as it's worded and as it's been introduced, matches the policy intent of government. The first example, perhaps I'll be able to give in terms of it. Sorry, Mr Dickey. Obviously, we've got other questions now. OK, we'll very quickly move. People can come back to it. The first example was relating to applications, for example. The bill says that applications for assistance are to be made in a way that ministers require, and these will be publicised. The problem is that there can be disputes about whether an application has been made valid. We see that validly in the current system. Without any provision to make regulations as to what a valid application is, there will be no grounds for people to be able to challenge a decision about whether an application has been made validly. That can cause delay in people's payments, call it a loss of money. So there's an issue here about making sure more is in the provision made to ensure that there's regulations in place that actually set out what would be a valid application. The other example would be about recovery of overpayments. As the bill stands at the moment, overpayments can be recovered. The thing to say is that there are always situations where, as a result of individual error or agency error, overpayments are made and it's reasonable to set out where those can be recoverable. However, that needs to be done in a way that doesn't cause hardship. As it stands in this bill, there's no power to make regulations on what circumstances it would or would not be reasonable to recover overpayments or no power to set maximum deductions that could be made to future benefits to make that recovery. That means that, without any regulations, without any legislation, there's no grounds to appeal those decisions, potentially leaving people on very real hardship because we've left so much to discretion and to guidance. Dr McCormack, did you want to come in? I think that the examples of right to cash or alternative assistance and overpayments are two very, very good examples of looking at where the balance is not right. Broadly, I think how we answer this question on the balance depends on at least two parts of the system, two moving parts where we don't yet know what's going to be put in place. One is the charter, so how robust, how enforceable is the charter going to be? The other is scrutiny, how much assurance can we take from whatever scrutiny arrangements we put in place to look at secondary legislation and guidance? Will that be independent? You heard a lot about this last week from Professor McKeever, the need for revisions and independent scrutiny. Answering your question depends on understanding where the bill sits with those other parts of the jigsaw, but I think that John is absolutely right with the examples that he's chosen. Peter Kellers, do you want to come back on that one? Very briefly, because I echo John's response already. You mentioned uprating, and that's very clearly something that's missing from the bill, as it is at the moment. It goes to the issue of adequacy, which again comes back to the principle of how these new powers are going to be used to address poverty. So I think that something around the uprating mechanism for benefits would be really important to be in there as well. I think that I would echo just the comments already in terms of the balance. The balance is too much towards regulations. Do you want to come back in? Ruth Maguire, you want to come in? Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I wanted to ask you a bit about scrutiny. What role would you see the Adelected Scottish Parliament playing in the scrutiny? Do you have a model in mind that you want to see? I suppose that going back to that bit where we're only having part of the benefits system come here, are there any international examples of scrutiny, of best practice, that we could learn from or follow? Dr McCormack, I know that you're an expert in this particular field. Certainly you're an expert group anyway, so Dr McCormack. Just to say a word, I hope that we'll be by the end of the calendar year. You'll know that the Minister for Social Security has asked the advisory group that I chair to establish a short-life workstream to look into scrutiny, so there will be a process but not yet an answer. Our intention is that that workstream will engage with yourselves and with the public audit and post scrutiny committee. I think that those are the two appropriate places at this stage to position the parliamentary engagement around that. You'll also know that a role for the existing UK scrutiny bodies covering the bulk of social security but also industrial injuries benefit. Both of those are important bodies. A role for them has been ruled out by the Scotland Act. There's absolutely a question to answer in Scotland. What do we want to put into that place? Bearing in mind that a lot of the secondary regulations and the guidance will be of a complex and quite technical nature. Bearing in mind that this is a substantial start-up activity. As an example, in the last year, SAC looked at 44 regulations, most of which were of a technical nature. We don't have a revising chamber in Scotland. I think that, in principle, it's only a personal view. It wouldn't be the workstream's view yet. I think that, in principle, there's a very strong case for having an independent body. It may be constituted differently from SAC because that was set up over 30 years ago. It would need to have a different relationship with Parliament than is true at Westminster. There would need to be a thorough look at what kind of functions that should take on. I think that there's a very strong case for quite quickly beefing up what should be in that scrutiny space, alongside but separate from Parliament. Thank you very much. International examples of this kind of set-up where devolved administration has a section of a system? Hopefully, we will be able to do a bit of digging around that. The places that we would start to look at, I think that most helpfully would be, as an example, would be Canada, possibly Belgium, possibly Switzerland. I don't know what we will find from those competitive examples, because I genuinely don't have expertise in what those lessons will tell us. I think that now is the time to look at a bit of depth and also look outwards at what we can learn and do it quite quickly. Anyone else wants to come in? John Dickie, did you want to come in? I echo everything that Jim said, and we really do believe that it is vital that there is some form of independent, expert statutory scrutiny of devolved social security regulations. That will play a role that complements the role of Parliament and the importance of Parliament continuing to play its role in terms of democratic accountability and scrutiny of regulations. Is there something about that kind of expert independent, non-politically aligned role that, in large part, has played at the moment in the UK Social Security Advisory Committee? I think that it is important that we take elements of that and ensure that we have similarly robust statutory scrutiny in place here in Scotland as well. I'm afraid that I don't. I might be interested to see what comes out of looking at what the international comparisons are about what you put in place to deal with that relationship between devolved and UK social security. There is an issue. There is a need there for something to look at how UK social security will interact with devolved social security as well. We mentioned that in our evidence to the committee. Again, we've had a long-standing proposal that there should be some form of scrutiny similar to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think that I would echo John in Jim's comments about the precise nature of that. I think that there is clearly a role for the Parliament and any independent scrutiny at the Scottish level would need to complement what the Parliament is doing. We are also in a period where we are moving towards a poverty and inequality commission that will have some kind of statutory basis, perhaps, but unclear at the moment. There could be an overview that the new commission could have with respect to social security as well, perhaps. That's a little bit unclear, but I think that there may be a role there. Briefly, just to link back to your previous question, it really does underline the importance of having the appropriate amount of scrutiny at the primary stage. It makes the case for this committee and the whole Parliament being able to scrutinise as much of the primary intent as possible. We also recognise that there is a timescale here. There is a need to get going, which we saw this week in announcements about the agency. A lot of skill will be involved in getting the right balance between a safe and long-standing, far-sighted bill, but also ensuring that there is enough at the primary scrutiny stage to not leave an unfair or unsafe burden to the committee. That's a good question. I thank you for all four individuals. Some of what I was going to ask about how much of my bill has already been covered. I'll leave that for another day. My question is aimed at Jessica Burns. I should declare again that I sat on tribunals for 20 years. I think that what has been interesting for us is that we hear that over 60 per cent of cases that go-to tribunals are successful. I suppose that the question behind that is, is that because DWP is getting it so wrong or the tribunals are getting it so right? Why are so many people successful in regard to that? As someone who has done a lot of these, perhaps you have been interested in getting your views. The other area that we've been asked to look at is what is the best evidence for someone to get an award and not get an award. Again, you will have a lot of experience in regard to GP records and other professionals' medical evidence. From your perspective, what is the best evidence outwith a claimant that would help you to reach the best decision possible? Do we need to look at doing that differently than we do at the moment? My final question is a bit of a nimbism question, but it has gone forward. The tribunal make-up for PIP is different from that for EIS. Do you think that we should still keep a free person tribunal or is it better to go down to have a lawyer and a doctor? There are a lot of questions that are embodied in that one question. Just going back to why so many appeals are successful, there are elements of success, as you know, because there are different grades or different awards. So, not everyone is entirely satisfied even where their appeal is allowed. Essentially, what you are looking at is a snapshot of the healthcare professional on a particular day with a particular person and their assessment of their abilities on that day. The tribunal is looking at what the person is like over a longer period, even if you are looking at one date of decision. It is very functionally based and a lot of people with mental health problems find it very difficult to convey those problems to healthcare professionals who may not have any expertise in that particular area. I think that this has been quite well documented. I do not know that tribunals always get it right, because you have to say that this is a very complex area. The number of appeals that come are very finely balanced. I think that tribunals are very conscious of the fact that the implications for someone who is not successful at appeal financially can be quite devastating. As I think that you are aware, we do get letters from GPs expressing concern, perhaps not so much about the health of the individual, but the impact of the loss of that income to the household and the added stress that would follow. Indeed, a lot of people have been traumatised by the loss of their transport, their ability to interact with other people, their ability to pay their bills because they got used to that additional income. You are talking about awards up to about £600 a month, which attacks free, and to go from that kind of benefit to nothing, you can imagine how devastating that is for the individual. Sometimes the process itself can impact on the mental health of the people involved. There is a very complex association between mental and physical disabilities that impact too. Looking to the evidence that we get, as I think that you are aware, quite often the tribunals adjourn or preview cases and decide that it would be a good idea to get medical case notes perhaps for the last year or two years, just to get some primary evidence about the diagnosis, the treatment, the reasonable range of expectation that you would have around that. It is one way of perhaps assessing how reliable the individual's own perception is of their condition. We very rarely now ask the GP to write a report to say basically, do you think somebody meets that criteria? We know that it can impact on the patient-doctor relationship and I am aware that there might be difficulties around involving GPs more in that assessment process. I understand that there are ways of getting an extract of GP computer records, which might set a baseline for somebody's entitlement, which might mean that it is not necessary to call them in for any face-to-face assessment. Ultimately, it will depend on the secondary legislation and what kind of criteria are applied because sometimes in terms of someone's function you cannot make a direct correlation between their contact with their GP and their treatment and their loss of function. Some people particularly with drug abuse, alcohol abuse issues, mental health, they may not want to engage with their GP, they may not feel able to engage with their GP and they become very heavily dependent on support from family, which might not be reflected in medical records. It's such a complex area that really I would like to see perhaps some more research, factual base information coming before the Parliament at least at the stage of the secondary legislation and the regulations that could perhaps capture some of those issues a bit more accurately. Thank you very much for that. Anyone else in the panel wants to come back on that particular one before I bring in Pauline McNeill? To add, the best way to reduce the number of appeals that are being made is to get more of the decision making right from the start. We certainly urge, given that there is a creation of a new agency, to create a whole new culture and a whole new approach to evidence-gathering and decision making. The new agency takes a more proactive and cosittorial approach to gathering evidence and that decision makers are able to make decisions based on the evidence that they have, rather than ruling applications out because of evidence that they don't have. A more proactive, positive approach to gathering evidence and then being able to make decisions based on the evidence that they have gathered go a long way to ensuring that better decision making is made in the first place. I think that in the vast majority of cases, the best evidence is from the claimants and most claimants are reliable in the evidence that they give, but not entirely so. The credibility of any system has to recognise that sometimes statements that individuals may not be entirely correct. If we could just pick up on that particular point about statements and even the appearance of claimants when they are going forward, we certainly heard evidence from round table discussions, basically notes from when they went to appeal or before they went to appeal that they are looking well, they dress well, they look after themselves, so therefore they are not ill in that respect. That is what people have been facing. It is important that we get it right from the very beginning to make sure that those claimants are looked at properly. Does anybody else want to come in before I bring in Pauline McNeill? I think that it is self-evident that getting this part of the system right and having the best possible approach to assessment is probably the single biggest challenge facing any social security system in Scotland. It is important that we do not mix together illness and disability—sometimes they overlap, but often they are quite distinct. Drawing upon a medical approach, GP records or others—sally to health professionals or specialist nurses—may work well for the bulk of people with long-term conditions, stable or fluctuating, but it certainly is not going to work well for lots of people with other disabilities, mental and physical. I think that we have to understand the limitations as well as the importance of, for example, GP records and make sure that we are building our system from self-assessment evidence, other routine evidence that is in the system already that we can just do a better job of sharing with patient consent, for example, and then asking what else is needed and build it up in that way. Can I just come back on one issue? I think that a real challenge in the system is people who dip in and out of qualifying for the benefits. Those transitions are extremely difficult because it is almost a disincentive for somebody to ever acknowledge that there has been an improvement in their condition because they might be locked in to the dependence on that benefit. It can be very personal. It would represent quite a reduction in their standard of living if they were to lose that benefit. I know that some of the submissions on that did look again at the introduction of a lower level of daily living component in PIP as acknowledging that perhaps it is just too broad brush when you look at PIP. And what the Scottish Government could perhaps consider making something more graded and also if a benefit was to end having a tapering so it wasn't just suddenly falling off a cliff and people would have the opportunity to adjust to that lower income and I think that would go some way to taking some of the pain away from someone whose condition had palpably improved. John Dickies, do you want to give a little talk on that? Sorry, Peter Kelly. Good morning. First, I apologise to the panel for being late. I'm interested to further explore what should be in the primary legislation in relation to supporting the claimant. We've discussed a framework that would be based on dignity and human rights. Secondly, of course, there's a question of the people who administer the system and they're the face-to-face front line of the agency. First, the panel thought that there should be a duty in the primary legislation of all officials representing ministers to ensure that they are maximising all benefits and beyond benefits in terms of what support could be given to the claimants, whether that might be a duty that could be enforced in law. Thirdly, a continuation of Ben Macpherson's question about advocacy. It seems to me that the committee is going to have to spend a bit of time thinking about what it really means. As the panel rightly pointed out, it is a specific measure for people who may have specific issues that they need a professional advocate for. Perhaps there needs to be a distinction between that and people who just ordinarily need a bit of support. I thought that, separately from the question of advocacy, it is right to have someone accompany you throughout the process, support you through the process. Even if you do not have a language barrier or a disability barrier, it is such a daunting process to go through. It seems to me to get it right that pretty much all of this would be helpful to have in the primary legislation. Who wants to kick off first? It is up to the choice of the individual. When you say that there is a right to have someone support you, it is not something that is excluded at the moment. It might give people the sense that they really ought to have somebody else with them. It is something that could be incorporated in the literature that enables people to access the system. Some people ultimately want to deal with that process on their own. You have to respect that right as well. They feel that they are dealing with very personal issues that they do not necessarily want to share even with family. They might want to protect them for all sorts of reasons and they find it just easier, however difficult it is to access that themselves. In terms of the other issue that you raised about the right or the obligation of any social security agency to ensure that that person's entitlement has been maximised, I am not sure how enforceable that could be. One thing that I have jotted down is the issue of backdating. It used to be quite well enshrined in social security that if there was a good reason that someone had not made a claim earlier, it could be looked at to see if that should have been backdated. It might well be that some consideration should be given to that in explicit circumstances and that would possibly ameliorate hardships of people who have been totally unaware of the benefit and then caught up with it at some later stage. I know that it is difficult with retrospective assessments but sometimes it is a very straightforward issue. Dr McCormack, do you want to come in? Just to draw a distinction with the current system, we know that within DWP services there is some good, some bad and some ugly stuff happening. You can go to one part of Scotland and find a neighbouring job centre. It is very different operational approaches to whether someone can cross the threshold with you in that office. One thing that we can change, both with the new agency, its premises and its workforce but also with co-location arrangements, which might be in local government, housing offices or the NHS, is a welcoming of people arranging their own support if they can do that. That is the choice that they can and want to make. An absolute sharing of information about what people can do before they cross the threshold if they need to access support, even if that is informal support or more formalised advocacy. I think that cultural signal that we welcome you to bring support because we want to get it right first time. The system is then taking responsibility and bearing some of the responsibility of trying to get it right first time and achieve good decision making upstream rather than leaving things to appeals and complaints and whatnot. I am not sure what that looks like in terms of a duty for the agency and the workforce but I am clear that we can ensure that people feel that they are embarking upon a journey, whether they are successful or not in the end, that the experience will be a much higher quality one. I think that Jim used that phrase, a cultural signal. I think that there is no sort of clearer signal than to have that right in the face of the bill to be accompanied and we have already discussed advocacy and I think that it is linked. I would expect that if the bill has principles of dignity and respect, then throughout the guidance that will eventually come and throughout the operational procedures for the new agency, we would want to see those principles reflected but I think that there is no greater signal than having it on the face of the bill. The other issue that you raised was about ensuring that benefits are maximised. I think that we called for the principle around having a role to play in ensuring that everyone had their full entitlement to a duty and I think that that duty then made real would be about ensuring that everyone had access to their full entitlement. I think that Jim and Peter have said that a duty to ensure that people are given the social security assistance area eligible for as one of the principles makes a lot of sense. I made earlier on the potential for a duty on ministers to have to produce and review and report on a strategy for maximising take-up and reducing underclaiming of benefits. We have also helped to ensure that there is a real focus on making sure that people are getting the financial support that they are entitled to and that the system is reviewing and looking at why that is not happening. I am reporting on that and then taking action to improve access and improve take-up. I have a quick question about the issue of overpayment. The committee needs to do a little bit more work on the principle. For example, in some of the sessions that we have done, the question was asked whether the claimant was wrongly assessed and it was not their fault. It seems to be a view that the bill or should or is. It would not call back the overpayment and I wondered if you had any thoughts about whether there needs to be more work around the question. I do not want to repeat the answer because I think that it was right, but I think that the answer is yes. The bill feels like it is based on quite similar terms to the way in which HMRC operates, tax credits and specifically overpayments there, which has recourse to guidance rather than statutes. It means, as was said, there is a lot of discretion, there is a lot of variability across the country in what happens. This is distinct from points that might be made in the bill around fraud and error. Error is overlaps here, but overpayment is due to inaccurate assessment by the agency, for example. The point is about incentives for good decision making upstream. It is really important that we have a fuller appraisal of the options around how they should be dealt with, both to minimise and then deal with differently than the current tax credits that we would be dealt with is one of the highest priorities for revision in the bill as it stands. To echo that, I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but I suppose to flag up that this is a key example of where the policy intent and what the policy memorandum and ministers have said is not matched by the actual detail of what the legislation says. It is clearly stated that the policy intent is not to recover overpayments where that is the result of agency error, apart from particular circumstances. There is nothing in the bill that prevents that. The bill enables automatic recovery of overpayments, whatever, without creating any provision for setting out in what circumstances that would be reasonable to recover overpayment or how that overpayment might be recovered. Did you want to come in on that one? All I would say is I think the issue about the duty to notify of a change of circumstance and the offence of failing to notify in terms of people with disabilities or disabling illnesses, that recovery period is very difficult sometimes for the individual to say at what point they have crossed back over the threshold. To not qualifying for the benefit, it is quite an intimidating issue for them, I think, also people that have had very severe mental health problems who then recover and they feel, well, am I defrauding the system because I haven't told someone. It is a very stressful period for someone in that position. I was slightly surprised about the offence of failing to notify, potentially resulting in a criminal approach. I think that this is something that could be looked at again to create perhaps a more supportive system whereby people are invited to resubmit under circumstances, but told that if they do so again there might be a taper to their entitlement to the benefit. Alison Johnstone, what's going on? Earlier there was discussion about the balance between primary and secondary legislation. I think that future proofing is a concern to myself and many others who have been in touch. A good example of when this goes wrong, I believe, is the way that the UK Government changed the rules around PIP assessments because it didn't particularly welcome the ruling of a tribunal. If the bill is going to work well into the future, I think that it has to address adequacy, and I think that Peter Kelly in particular touched upon the issue of operating. Just for clarity, I would like to understand if, particularly John Dickie, Peter Kelly and Dr McCormack think that an operating mechanism should be on the face of the bill so that it can't be so easily pushed aside in the future. John Dickie? The next question should be provision for annual operating of the devolved types of assistance. That's all mechanism for how that operating might work, might be left to regulation, but it should be on the face of the bill provision for annual operating. In relation to disability and carers' benefits currently, in primary legislation, there is annual operating unless Government does something to James Law to stop that happening. That's protected disability and carers benefits in a way that other forms of other benefits haven't been protected over the last few years. It's actually a really important thing to ensure that there is that annual operating. You'd like to see that apply to all benefits, because obviously we've seen what's happened to trial benefit. Yes, in terms of this bill, the key thing is to ensure that it applies to those types of assistance that are set out in the bill as being devolved and covered by this bit of legislation to ensure that there is provision for annual operating. Peter Kelly? I echo John's points. We would like to see it on the face of the bill. I think that the evidence is very clear that when we don't have processes for annual operating then the value of benefits falls behind and we've seen that over the course of 20, 30 years with jobseekers allowance where the value in relation to average earnings has declined year on year. Further ensuring that people find it difficult to work themselves out of poverty and just to get by on those benefits. I think that it's important that it's there in the face of the bill. There are three tests that come together for us with this bill. One is about take-up, which we've talked about. One is about operating. I agree with what's been said. If you consider that, the cluster of benefits that come to Scotland are taken up by population groups with typically much lower employment rates and with higher costs, it's even more important that we are very clear about the commitment to uprating. The third point is about adequacy, which I think is separate from uprating, because even with I'm not rating, we know for example that especially older people with complex disabilities are supported in a very inadequate way by the current benefit system compared to the costs they face. You can make a similar case for some people who live in very remote and rural areas. So adequacy is a longer term issue, which I think is best dealt with through the pledges that the parties make, through the committees and through the Parliament and through debate with the publics. It's also a really important public interest issue here, a public stake, so it's great that the experience panels will be trying to, in collaboration, design and improve over time the system. But there's a risk that we're all dancing in the middle of the ice here and we're not taking the public with us on these issues. So it's really important also that we have that long-term debate about adequacy and about, as Peter said, what is the contribution of Social Security in Scotland and the UK to a more adequate living standard for the whole population. So there are three points that need to be dealt with, but I agree with your question. I think that it ought to be clearly enshrined in primary legislation. To follow up Jim's point, I think that it's really important to make that distinction between annual operating and the process and a mechanism for doing that and adequacy. Jim's organisation has been at the forefront of developing methodology around trying to understand what we mean by adequacy and I think that we do need to move towards looking at how we implement things around the minimum income standard. We've seen it in relation to the living wage, which is based on the minimum income standard, so it's possible to start moving and shifting the discussion in terms of debate. I would maybe link that back if we can't have something on the face of the bill that discusses adequacy, then perhaps we link it back to that issue of scrutiny and this goes beyond the technical scrutiny that Jim and John were talking about and maybe to that broader scrutiny around the overall impact of our new powers around social security, which is perhaps within the domain of the Poverty and Inequality Commission, so we're just trying to link those things together. One more question. Just very quickly, one area that we haven't really discussed this morning is mandatory reconsideration. I think that many of the submissions that the committee has received refer to this process. I just wondered if your view is that the system of appeals laid out in the bill differs markedly from the UK process. I appreciate that there are improvements around you will still receive benefits when you're appealing and there's the time limit difference too, but is it different enough? There are differences. I suppose that there is a very real concern that, in a very important respect, the redetermination process set out in the bill recreates one of the key barriers to independent appeal that exists within mandatory reconsideration, and that's really the requirement to make two applications to apply in the first instance for redetermination. If that's not an internal redetermination by the agency, if that's then not successful, then we have to make another application in order to go to independent appeal. Our key thing, and we've proposed a mechanism for doing that, is to remove that second barrier, that second gateway, that second requirement for another application. It's at that point that we've seen so many people fall away in a real reduction in people accessing independent appeals, so removing that barrier, ensuring that people still have a choice to withdraw from the process if they're satisfied that their case has been looked into, but not requiring an additional application, an additional hurdle to overcome in order to reach that independent appeal. Again, just very briefly to Echo John's points. You asked, is it markedly different? It is different, but in the important respect that John's highlighted, it's not sufficiently different, and it does repeat some of the problems that currently exist. I think that it goes to some of the questions that we've discussed this morning. Is it the policy intent, then it's not, I don't think, to deny people access to justice in that way. So I think that it is an issue that does need to be considered again. Just briefly, mandatory reconsideration, the mandatory and the mandatory redetermination aspect, should be taken away. I think people could have an option of asking the agency to think again about the decision, but it shouldn't prevent them making a direct appeal. There would be nothing to prevent the agency revising their decision in the period before the appeal was actually heard. Quite a number of appeals do lapse. I mean, not as many as you might imagine, but at any point DWP can make a decision in favour of the appellant, and that appeal doesn't go ahead. So, in some ways, it would just impose another month of waiting time before someone gets a decision. Sorry, I'll get too sucked for that one, and that has to be the last, because we are running pretty much over time. We have another panel, we're very patiently waiting there. Adam Tomkins, do you want a quick supp? Ruth, you wanted a quick supp. Very quick question for me. There's a provision in the bill, a bespoke provision in the bill about the power to provide for top ups section 45, but there's no provision in the bill that enables the Scottish Government to create new benefits, should there be? Straight, yes or no. If that's okay. If you haven't got time to answer that fully, then perhaps if you could come back to us and writing about that, because we are out of time, but I think it is an important question. The power to create new benefits is an important part of the devolved social security system. There's no provision for that in the bill, and we've been talking about emissions from the bill, and I wonder if you think that that's a significant emission, and if it is a significant emission, whether we should do something about it, that's probably too long a question for you to answer in 30 seconds. If you can't answer it in 30 seconds, then perhaps if you wouldn't mind writing just about it, that would be really helpful. Is that agreeable to the witnesses you'll come back to us and writing? Thank you. Ruth, you wanted a very quick question. Is there a danger that if we remove the opportunity for the agency to sort something that's gone wrong, that it actually delays things for claimants? I was interested in what Jessica said in terms of it not necessarily being mandatory but optional. Obviously, what we're interested in is folk getting money that they're entitled to, and if it has to go straight to a formal tribunal, can that just delay things? I don't think anyone's suggesting... There should always be the option, and there's nothing to stop the agency from undertaking internal redetermination, looking at the claim, and changing its decision. There should be nothing to prevent that happening, and that's right that that's a partner system, and ideally that's where things get sorted. But neither should there be any barrier or additional hurdle that if that doesn't sort the issue out, people then have to make another application, another hurdle in order to reach independent appeal. Peter. Just echo in again what John said. Thank you. Dr McCormick. Wherever we get to with this part of the system, I think what's really important is that people are crystal clear on what's expected of them in terms of timescales, but also what they can expect from the agency. Currently, we have very strict requirements around lodging and MR, but it's a black box as to when you'll hear. No similar commitment from Governments to conclude. I think that we have to have a two-way street, because I think that that's part of a dignified culture. If we're going to have expectations responsibilities one way, it has to be two ways. Thank you. Jessica Budd, do you want to... I don't think there's anything I've come out of. Thank you so much. I know that I was hoping to ask Dr McCormick more about scrutiny, but you have certainly answered some of what we're going to ask. I just want to thank you very much, and we will be speaking to yourself and your group in the future, Dr McCormick, to explore the scrutiny more. I just thank the witnesses, and we move on to a next set of witnesses. We'll suspend for a minute until we have a next set of witnesses. Thank you very much. I just welcome the second panel of witnesses, and thank you so much for your patience. I think that this committee has complained numerous occasions that a Thursday morning is not ideal for this committee to be meeting. I think that general agreement as we will raise it again with the Presiding Officer in that respect. I welcome the panel of witnesses, Jackson Harrier, Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, Chris Oswald, Equality and Human Rights Commission, Emma Rich, Engender and Judith Robertson, Scottish Human Rights Commission. I will start with the same question that I asked previously, which is what are your thoughts on including principles in the bill and the seven principles set out and intended to underpin the new social security system? If anyone wants to start off first, please give us an odd. Emma, did you want to start off first? Thank you very much, committee, for inviting me and Engender to speak to you this morning. If we zoom out to the question of what has happened to women in Scotland as a result of social security changes, we see the need to consider gender at all stages when we are considering in Scotland what to do with the new powers that have come to us. Like some of the witnesses from the previous panel, Engender advocated through the Smith commission process for the devolution of social security powers to Scotland. We have been very pleased to be involved in the last few years in discussions about what that should look like. I think that some of the unintended consequences of failing to consider gender have really been seen in what has happened with welfare reform. The last time I was in front of this committee, it was to talk about the family cap and rape clause, which I think were perhaps some of the most acute failures to think about gender that were evident within the social security system. Our broad point has always been that it is vital to consider gender and women's different experiences of social security. One in 10 Scots is a poor woman, so the experiences that are different between women and men are vital when we think about how best to use these powers. We very much welcome the commitment to a human rights-based approach to the broad principles that are endorsing dignity and respect on the face of this bill. What we have pointed out is that the principle of non-discrimination and equality between women and men is incorporated in the human rights instrument that talks most about social security. That is the international covenant on economic and social rights. We would make the case that the principles should be amended to include that principle of non-discrimination and equality. As others have pointed out, the enabling framework nature of the Social Security Scotland Bill means that so much of this will come into being through regulation. We have unfortunately seen the consequences of having primary legislation that does not explicitly refer to gender equality and then a somewhat failure to pick up gender in regulation and strategy. I would give an example of that as the Trafficking Bill, which has enormous relevance to women and women's equality. I urge the committee to consider that, from our conversations with the minister, there has been a receptivity to that point that incorporating the principle of non-discrimination and equality would give effect to the ambition that this bill has a human rights-based approach. Thank you very much. Mr Harry. Just to follow up on that, and thank you for inviting me as well. We're also in support of having a specific principle on equality. We know, unless it's mentioned in your face, right there in front of you, equality is usually forgotten about or other things take over. We're certainly totally in favour of having a specific principle on equality. For a new agency and for a new system, unless it's right there up front, we know it'll get ignored and other things will take over. We hope that the committee would support having equality as a key principle. Thank you very much. Judith Robertson, do you want to come in? We welcome the ambition of the Government, particularly in stating that social security is a human right and essential to the realisation of other human rights. That's a really important point. The Scottish Government also stated ambition to take a rights-based approach to social security and are all welcome commitments from the Government. There are areas where we think that that could be strengthened significantly within the bill. We see the value of the principles fundamentally as reframing the way social security is viewed in Scottish public life and underpinning the charter. They have a fundamental value in setting the terms of the debate very differently. However, they do not create standalone rights and they cannot be directly enforced by individuals. That is a fundamental weakness and something that can be built on through other proposals that we are making. It is particularly important to remember that, given the emphasis on them during the consultation process and in discussions on the bill. We believe, as they currently stand, that they can be strengthened to ground them further in human rights standards and to reflect the panel principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination equality and legality. The substance of the written evidence that we submitted outlines some of the detail of the changes that we think can be made. First and foremost, the thing that we would like to see that would underpin everything around the bill is that the bill should enshrine the right to social security in Scots law. As it stands, the bill does not do this. The right to social security was recognised as far back as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. We see it featured in a number of regional and international human rights instruments, most notably that of article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Through the general comment 19 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, detailed guidance on the content of the right to social security has been provided. We are, as a Government and Parliament mandated to deliver on our international treaties that the UK has signed up to, and the UK has signed up to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of which general comment 19 on the right to social security is a key part. The right, as it is described in general comment 19, is broken down into core components and some of those core components have been discussed in detail earlier this morning. This is not territory, which is far away or alien to the discussions that we have been having this morning. These are overriding principles of availability, of adequacy and of accessibility. The reason that they are in general comment 19 is because, globally, when we look at social security, those are some of the key standards that we are seeking to be very clear on. Under accessibility, those principles cover coverage, eligibility, affordability, participation and information, and physical access. The right is described very clearly under general comment 19. As it currently stands, we have a principle in relation to the right to social security, but we do not have the right in this legislation. We believe that a significant strengthening of the legislation would be to enshrine that right in Scots law. I agree with all of my colleagues' points and perhaps just to add a slightly different perspective. Obviously, the agency and the operation of the social security system in Scotland will be covered by the Human Rights Act and by the Equality Act as well and the equality duties, so that level of protection is there. The incorporation of the principles into the charter presents a potentially opportunity to have a lower level of resolution to these issues. It is complex and lengthy processes to take a human rights challenge or a challenge under the Equality Act. Potentially, and it depends on how the charter develops, there is an opportunity to have a lower level of decision making or resolution there. As my colleagues have said, it is extremely helpful to have the International Convention on Economic and Social Rights incorporated. For the similar reasons to Emma, although non-discrimination is part of the human rights principles, the Equality Act takes that principle a little further and it goes into the issues of advancing equality and community relations, which I think would be useful to have reflected in that. Last but not least, I have noticed from some of the other submissions concerns about the use of the terms of efficient and valuable money in the system. I am perhaps less concerned about that as long as we are talking about the administration of the system. I think that the discussion at the end of the last session was really helpful, because if you have a system that is focused on efficiency and value for money, it will make the right decision the first time round. One of the most costly and wasteful things that we have in the current system and the UK system is the continual process of appeal. Focusing on efficiency, which is beneficial to the claimant, would be extremely helpful. Adam Tomkins, Ruth McLeod. Can I just pick up on the very helpful comments that we just heard from Judith Robertson? In your written evidence, you talk about the charter and the status of the charter. You say that the charter should be directly enforceable. Can you just expand a bit on what you mean by that? Can I ask other members of our panel whether they agree with what Judith has to say? The bill lacks clarity on the status of the charter, as has been previously noted. I think that there has been some confusion over its purpose. We welcome the charter broadly, potentially, but we believe that the right to social security should be set out in the bill. If we put the right to social security in the bill, all else flows from that. The charter defines the right to social security in a way that is accessible to the public. It makes that something that people understand and can gain access to. The charter should not create new rights and entitlements that have no way of being enforced. That is a fundamental caveat. If we put the right in the bill, on the face of the bill, all else flows from that. We appreciate that the charter will be drafted through an inclusive and participatory process, but we believe that, at a minimum, that charter should reflect the content of the right to social security. Previously, somebody has said that we should start with a blank sheet in relation to the charter. The charter is about social security, so it is not a blank sheet. We have to put some caveats around what it focuses on and I think that focusing it around the right gives it a consistency framework and, crucially, a grounding in international law. When you say that the charter should be enforceable, do you mean enforceable in court? The right to social security would be enforceable in court. The charter would, from my perspective, define what that means. Therefore, there is an option to put in the charter the accountability processes that flow on from that. For the purposes, I think that that is a decision to be made. I think that a participatory process might identify how much detail people want in a charter that says, here are your rights. This is what this is actually entitling you to. Anyone else who wants to come back in the after one? Christos, what do you want to go in? Emma Ritchie. To answer the direct question, I do agree with what Judith MacDonald said. In gender's evidence suggests that the charter should include a mechanism via which claimants could contest a breach. As Judith MacDonald's comments, that would need to be scoped out. There is obviously a tension between the ambition of creating a charter that I think the quote from the Government's publication in the memorandum was a format that can be easily understood and something which is justiciable. I think that that tension would perhaps need to be worked through, but entirely in accordance with Judith's view that without having some kind of redress mechanism, possibly in a role for an independent scrutiny body, it does seem that the charter would not have much weight. That is extremely helpful. We will find a very quick follow-up directly on that. If we have a charter that is judicially enforceable or a right to social security that is judicially enforceable, that will lead to an increase in litigation in the Scottish courts. If so, who is going to pay for that and shouldn't there be something in the financial memorandum that companies that spill about the likely increase on the calls on the legal aid budget? To be honest, it is very hard to say. I actually think that it is very hard to say. If the right to social security is enshrined in the bill and the principles and therefore is justiciable, the processes and policy and regulation that flows from that will have to be compliant with the right to social security. If it is not, it will be contributing the status of the law within the bill. There is a process whereby, as I say, all else flows from that. What was talked about earlier about getting it right first, having everything in line, I think that it could be very strong. If that is there and, in principle, the secondary legislation that flows from that has to be compliant with General Comment 19 and ISESCR, that can in itself be tested, argued, debated and understood within the system. You have a much strong framework within which you are making decisions about the whole process that flows from this. That can be tested, argued, discussed, debated and transparently done so. From then on, there may be cost implications around justiciability, but the implications of some of those processes will be much more regularly tested up front and in advance. The legal processes that support the development of regulation are in place to do that in a way that is compliant clearly within the confines of the law. At the moment, that is a real gap in the bill. The principles that I do not want to be cheeky. The principles really do try to do that, but actually enshrining the right in the legislation would really make that strong right throughout the process. Ultimately, it would become justiciable, but it is a backstop of protection. It is not the front line of protection. You have all sorts of other protections currently within the framework of the bill that are about redetermination processes, tribunal processes. There are all sorts of processes before you would get to a point of taking something to court. We are on a journey. Chris Hodge, do you want to come back in that Miss Aharie, and then it is Ruth Maguire? It is again important to remember that the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act apply already in this jurisdiction. There is justiciability on the table immediately. I would hope that the incorporation of principles around equality and human rights would lead to a more anticipatory approach by the agency where it would start to identify these issues in advance. It is also subject to what the charter enables or allows. It gives the possibility of resolving issues at a lower level without having to go to court to do so. I think that there is an advantage in that. The costs of justiciability are just there anyway irrespective of whether it is on the face of the bill. Chris Hodge says the Equality Act applies, but we know from public sector generally it is not enough. That is why the charter was seen as a good thing. At the moment it is sitting a little bit alone because there is no linkage, but we see it as setting an attitude. That is what people have been saying about what the bill and the agency will be about and how it will perform its functions. We need to see it. We are arguing that at the moment the bill requires users or claimants to be consulted but not equalities groups. We would like to see that in the legislation that equalities groups will be consulted before the charter is finalised. I can also see the virtue in a less adversarial process whereby, for example, if an independent scrutiny body is created—and I think that it should be, as do others—there would be a scope for policy concerns to be raised by interested organisations that would not be going to law. However, if in gender, for example, we are aware of a widespread unintended consequence in the process or policy of the agency that seems to defy what I hope will be the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the charter that we could alert the independent scrutiny body who could then make a determination. That would be equivalent to the way that equality bodies tend to operate across Europe. The EHRC is quite unusual in not having that quasi-judicial role. That might be a helpful way of getting concerns back into the system in a way that could become a bit of a virtuous circle. I just wanted to endorse that accountability mechanisms within a piece of legislation like this are multifarious. They add up, they stack up. At the moment, there are some gaps in it, particularly that one around accountability and scrutiny, and the process that Emma has described really well articulates where, but with that additional backstop, which currently does not exist in the legislation, would complete that picture. Ruth Maguire. I wish that we were having all of them, but the fact is that in the main it is carers and disability benefits that are being devolved and that we are going to have responsibility for. With that in mind, how can the right to social security be enshrined when it is just that portion that we are getting? That is a constraint that will be true across almost any piece of policy legislation that Scotland has, in the sense that we do not have absolute power over many of the levers of authority. From my perspective, that is an important piece of legislation. It is a landmark piece of legislation. The right to social security will only be enshrined on what that legislation can provide. It does not extend into legislation that it cannot provide. It does not extend into Westminster. It will only be contained within that legislation. However, I do not want to say something else about that, because, if it is in the face of this bill, it will make this a world-leading piece of legislation. This legislation will be leading by example. From my perspective, it will also provide what we used to call in my Oaksfam days the threat of a good example, because good examples test the barriers of everybody else's systems. I think that that is a really important aspect. It is not the reason that I think it should be in this legislation, because, in and of itself, it provides a set of principles and frameworks that are consistent enshrined in international law and that can be understood and worked on consistently. However, it does lots of other things. Those consequences, I think, in terms of social security globally, which reputationally is not great. It is not just reputationally bad in Britain. Some countries have very good reputations around social security, others have less so. I think that we have an opportunity to do it really well here, and the Government is in that territory. What we are saying is seeking to make it as strong as it can be. I always come back to the folk that come into my constituency office and the people that I am representing. I would not argue with any of what you said. It is laudable. Is there a danger that, in terms of expectations, there is a bit of a tension? We are still going to have to, and the people that are using the system that are entitled to social security are often going to be receiving services from both administrations. It might sound strange, but I worry about setting false expectations for people that we are representing. I think that if we are to effectively deliver on the spirit in which this legislation is put forward, which is clearly to put some distance between the way our current social security system is administered and a new one that Scotland provides, I think that we have to raise expectations. We have to raise expectations as well that people's relationship to a social security system is something that they can have with dignity and respect. They do not need to feel ashamed of being in receipt of benefits. We can change the terms and culture around social security in this country in a way that we cannot do it across the system. That is a clear limitation of where we are at in relation to this legislation clearly. However, we can do it within the bit that we have the authority and power over. If we do not, we are failing to realise the ambition that it can be done better, it can be done well, it can be done in a way that supports people to receive that to which they are entitled to. That is what we want—they are entitled to these benefits. We do want that to be strong and supported. Chris Oswell, do you want to come in? Thank you, and again, I agree with Judith's point. Obviously, we are where we are, and we cannot change the settlement as it stands today. What is encouraging is that we are moving in Scotland towards a more enabling rather than punitive system, and I think that that is to be commended. I think that it is also important that we look at the relationships in Scotland, the stuff that we do control and we do have power over. The social security system that we are developing, the regulations, the operation of the system will be as dependent on the adequacy of services on the ground provided by local authorities or the voluntary sector. It will be affected by health and social care integration. It will be hugely influenced by the availability of adequate housing. In some ways, we need to think more about how does this fit with other areas of Scottish social policy enabling rather than punitive approach that is being adopted in Scotland, rather than worrying too much about what we cannot control at this point. The discussion about advocacy, which was in the panel before, while I respect the provision of advocacy in Scotland may be better, is not perfect. We need to move towards systems where we can guarantee stuff rather than saying that we have a right to advocacy. The right is achievable and real. Emma, you wanted to go in, and I think that George Adam wanted to go in this up on that question. That is a really helpful question about carers, so if I could just talk specifically about that and how that illustrates that principle is really so important and vital on the face of this bill. In 2015, the welfare reform committee published its report on women and social security, and it made a number of recommendations for government. Obviously, in anticipating the Scotland Act by some months, it said that the Scottish Government needs to look at the gender impact of their policy decisions and mitigate those, and particularly design social security programmes to overcome barriers to prevent women's labour market participation. That is something that a number of committees in this place have reflected on. The Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee has just published a really helpful inquiry report into the question of the pay gap. The reason that this is important for carers is that I think that the schedule of this bill at the moment does somewhat replicate the status quo. There is a really welcome uplift in the level of support to carers, and that brings it on par with other working-age pieces of social security assistance, but it does contain some features that potentially in regulation could replicate what we have already got. Those are whether or not a carer is in education or how many hours a week the carer spends caring and what employment they are in. I think that all of those things have a risk of repeating what we have, which functions as a barrier to carers getting into the workplace, to developing their skills and capacity while they are on their what's called carer journey, and therefore are not qualified or skilled appropriately when that care ends. I think that we do have an opportunity to be bold and different in the regulation around that carer's social security assistance. However, without the principle on the face of the bill, it's not clear that gender and the specific impact on women who care. The majority of carers, 75 per cent of recipients of that particular entitlement, are women and what that will look like. I think that that makes the case for the principle of equality and non-discrimination on the face of the bill, but also the vital need to pick up on that challenge of the welfare reform committee in 2015, which is that Scottish Government does need to look at the equality impact assessment of all of this stuff in the round and how it articulates with other bits of policy. In gender, it certainly echoes the disappointment of the coalition for racial equality and rights in finding the equality impact assessment just inadequate at the moment. I would just like to follow up on what Ruth has already mentioned. If I get the idea that if we enshrine it and internationally people will look at the human rights that we have, social security is a human right, look at it and might force other legislations to think the same way as well, I get all that, I get the vision thing, but Ruth brought up the very practical idea of people who are dealing with the day-to-day issues of accessing the social security system. Some people may go to a DWP office and say, but I've got this bit of paper from the Scottish Parliament that says, I've got social security, I've got this right to be able to do this, and a DWP will sit there and say, no you have not. Then they'll say, ah, but it's the Scottish Parliament's past, it's exactly what Ruth was saying about expectation, and they'll say, we don't recognise that. Then you get into Adam Cthompkins territory of possibly if someone ends up going to litigation at a future date as well, and there's the different legislations on both sides of the border as well. It gets quite complicated, and on the actual delivery and the individuals who are all trying to help at the end of the day, does that not build up such an expectation that they get to the stage that they end up thinking that bit of paper or that bit that says that they've got that right waste of time? Does anyone want to make a quick comment on that, which I thought was a question, but obviously there's questions in there? Anyone want to make a quick comment on that? For me, the complexity of the system is there anyway, to be honest. I think that that's a clear thing. From my perspective, independent advocacy and the provision of effective independent advocacy is going to help people understand what their entitlements and their rights are within the process and the limitations on that. It's really important that it's not, to be honest, whether the right is there or not. That is going to be an issue, and that's what the previous panel was articulating very clearly. The charter in and of itself is intended to articulate what people's rights are. From my perspective, ensuring that the right to social security makes that a very clear process and puts that out there makes it explicit. It doesn't apply to Westminster clearly, and people will need help to understand that, definitely. I don't want to get into the constitutional question, so what you say may be true, but there are also benefits. I'll give two examples, which are more particular for Black minority ethnic communities. The question of stigma is a key issue, stigma of claiming benefits. If we can reduce that for devolved benefits, it will reduce for all benefit claimants. There is some research that shows that there is underclaiming within Black communities of benefits. If we do it better in Scotland and people claim more of what they are entitled to, I assume that they will increase their claims for reserved benefits as well. There are different benefits, as much as there may be problems. You just touched on that point about independent advocacy. I would like to ask all members of the panel whether they feel that there is a need for independent advocacy in the system and whether there should be a right to it set out on the face of the bill. I'm happy to. Yes, Engender supports independent advocacy. Other submissions that have been made have clearly set out what principles should apply to that. The entitlement should be either on the face of the bill or within the charter or some other appropriate place. For the very well-rehearsed reasons that we heard from the first panel, advocacy is important. Particularly in the context of George Adam's point, the cat is out of the bag in terms of the different ambitions for a social security system in Scotland. I think that because of the road shows that have happened across Scotland with communities setting out the ambitions for a system that has dignity and respect at its heart, communities are expecting to see that. Advocacy can be one way in which those at least able to articulate and advocate for themselves are able to understand the myriad complexities of the two interlocking systems that I'm sure not one person sitting in this room would have designed. If it had been up to us to allocate power responsibility and process between two different bits of state. Thank you. Christy, you wanted to come in. Yes, completely. We should have the right to invert independent advocacy. More critical is that people have the ability to access it. We have seen massive reductions in Scotland in terms of provision for the advice service. As things get more complex, I think that this is one of the issues that comes up in both the EIA and in other submissions. If people have a 30 day appeal window but they don't have access to communication support or advocacy, which is particularly tailored to their specific need, which might be driven by disability or age, then we need to think that these are very, very complex systems which citizens will struggle, many citizens will struggle to deal with. I think that we do need to have it built in, but we also need to talk about what does adequate independent advocacy mean and are there potential impacts in terms of the appeals timetables which might potentially disadvantage or discriminate against some sections of the community. Again, this is all part of the design which we're now starting to move into. Did you want to come in? Within the right to social security, as defined under General Commit 19, it's clear that the social security system would ensure the right of individuals to seek, receive and impart information on all social security entitlements in a clear and transparent manner. In shining that right on the face of the bill leads to those principles coming alive, being addressed, being looked at. I think that we need to remember that this is where the importance of the panel principles, participation and the lived experience of people in engaging with systems like this is difficult. We think that people require social security at times of their life when they are generally most vulnerable. That is the underlying principle around which we determine whether or not those rights should be applied. That, for me, shouldn't be forgotten in the technicalities of taking forward a bill process that we're seeking to meet our requirements under equalities legislation, but under human rights international law we're seeking to address the needs of some of the most vulnerable people first, foremost and with priority. For me, that is what underpins that principle. I think that it's touching on that and something that Jessica Burns mentioned in the previous session. It's about the attitude and approach of the system, of the new social security system. There is nothing to prevent reconsideration before an appeal, for example, so advocacy doesn't have to be adversarial. It could actually be more. Again, it comes down to what is the purpose of the social security system. In one way, the ethos in Scotland appears to be moving towards the promotion of public good in the sense that it's a joined up system that works with other parts of the social welfare systems to promote and advance people's income and rights. Or is it posited primarily on the protection of public money? It's a very interesting juncture that we're at. I was going to ask a similar question to my colleague Ruth Maguire, but I just, given on what's been discussed, maybe just want to try and clarify the situation with regard to Ruth and George's questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but clearly from my position is that a full right to social security within Scots and or international law is not deliverable by the Scottish Government because of the nature of the evolution. Is the proposition that there would be a right to social security within the competence of the Scotland act that you're proposing? I'm just thinking from a drafting perspective. A right to social security, per se, is not what you're advocating in fact. What you're advocating is a right to social security within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament. There are certain caveats around the creation of the Scotland act that have implications for that. We are going to do a piece of work on what that would actually look like in the Scottish context. Within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government and Parliament, the commission is going to do a bit of work to generate a clear sense of that in relation to this legislation, if that helps. We haven't done that yet, but we're going to do that. Thank you for that clarification and I look forward to reviewing what comes forward. Thank you very much. Jeremy Balford. We've had a very helpful discussion around a fairly limited area of the bill, important for limited. I suppose I'm interested to get the panel's view on the wider bill and going back to the question that was asked to the previous panel. How much should be in the primary legislation and how much should be in regulations and in secondary legislation? I suppose I'm interested from your perspective, maybe looking at other systems across the world, would your preference be to have more than is in the bill at the moment in it or are you content to see regulations, fairly detailed regulations follow? I think that also, just picking up my comment made by my colleague again previously, do you think that there should be a specific piece of section in the bill to say that we can create new social security benefits and should that be on the face of the bill at this stage as well? Who wants to pick up that one first? Emma? The first question about the division between primary and secondary legislation in gender submission is fairly clear in saying that we would want to see more on the face of the bill than exists. I think that parliamentary scrutiny is vital, particularly when we're considering a social security bill that contains quite a lot but also needs to articulate well with another system which has significant complexity. We have been particularly sensitised to the flaws of secondary legislation in our recent experience of the rape clause, which I think was not intended necessarily to have the impact that it had when it was first conceived, but a lack of parliamentary scrutiny surely did not help the shape that it ultimately took. I think we would want to avoid that kind of unintended consequence wherever possible. I think in terms of other systems we've made reference to Canada where quite detailed rules including eligibility criteria are prescribed in primary legislation, doubtless there are many more and I'm sure others are more qualified than us to comment on those. I do think it is vital that new entitlements and the capacity to create those are included on the face of the bill. We would also put in some other measures including the universal credit flexibilities which are now within the power of the Scottish Parliament and particularly would want to see one of our long-term calls which has been for individual payments for universal credit rather than household payments, included on the face of the bill. We think that the evidence that that is in the interests of women's equality and rights is absolutely uncontested at this point and so I would want to see that in terms of future proofing incorporated into this legislation. Chris Nodd, what do you want to comment? No, I don't. Judith Robertson. My first principle comment about enshrining the right social security in the face of the bill and what that would look like and the detail that would be given in that clause effectively, a new clause in the legislation would outline a whole range of processes which would then have impact on the rest of the legislation. As it currently stands, there are some gaps that we would see as not being there. One of the key ones is around accountability and the scrutiny mechanism. Just to be explicit about that, you have had that conversation earlier this morning and you may well go on to that in your line of questioning. From our perspective, the scrutiny mechanism is absent. It needs to have some clear principles underpinning it. It needs to be there firstly and it needs to have some clear principles underpinning it needs to be independent. It needs to be statutory. It should report to the Parliament directly. It should have a broad mandate with enough powers to carry out that mandate and it needs to have some element of public accountability in that its reports are published and made public and there is a transparent process around it. We would say that that is absent from the bill and in terms of the balance, whether that is a balance issue, it should be on the face of the bill. There are other things that we would strengthen within that accountability process. There is a duty on ministers to report. There is very little clarity on what the ministers would need to report. We would add to that that some indicators should be established, which are very clear against which the minister should be reporting. If the right to social security is enshrined in the bill, those indicators would be indicators that would be driven by the right. They could be established in a participatory process. They can be subject to review. There is no issue with flexibility around that but the fact of them could probably be added to the face of the bill. There is a range of things that we would add. To be honest, listening to the session this morning and listening to the conversation that you had around aspects of what is on the face of the bill and what is not, at some levels, given that regulation is subject to less scrutiny, more is better. Yes, absolutely, that would be a principle. I totally agree with that. I don't know if this is going to get attention, but hopefully not. We were really excited to see in the partial EQIA for the bill that ministers were saying that the agency must be an example of equality for the Scottish public sector, both in terms of support provided to people across all protected characteristics and in terms of employment opportunities offered. That has disappeared from the final EQIA and there is some comment about being an international exemplar in regard to dignity and respect. That is not quite the same thing as being an exemplar on equality in terms of the operation within Scotland. There is already some slippage and the more scrutiny on these things the better. Alison Johnstone is the last question. I will address my question to Emma Rich if I may just because of the nature of it and the gendered impacts of welfare reform are well documented, particularly by yourself, for which many thanks. I think that it is so difficult, particularly for women who are juggling many responsibilities to access the system in the first place. If you had a view on the right to income maximisation, people understanding exactly what they are entitled to and where they should go. We know from evidence of government programmes that can be hugely successful, making sure that people increase quite markedly the amount of income that household has access to. Do you agree that there should be a right to income maximisation support and what should that look like? That is not something that gender is considered in detail, so I would like to follow up in writing if I could. I know that the Scottish Government has funded some advocacy programmes that have resulted in significant income maximisation for households. I entirely agree that the system is at present confusing. I think that it runs the risk of becoming much more confusing as it tries to articulate with the social security system of the UK. I think that I have heard the principle in our discussions with civil servants of no wrong front door, so that individuals approaching either agency will get signposting and not turned away if they have inadvertently approached the wrong agency. I think that there are some things in the bill that may be very difficult for women in terms of the propensity to approach agencies with information. One of those is the seeming harshness of the question around overpayments and whether notification may result in overpayments being clawed back that have perhaps been the fault of the agency in making a wrong determination in the bill. I think that there was also an interesting point raised by Justice Scotland in their written submission about criminalisation, which seems to sit at odds with the Scottish Government understanding in other policy domains of the question of female imprisonment and wanting to reduce female imprisonment, but seemingly criminalising mistakes and errors that were made without full knowledge of the impact of those errors in reporting and communicating. I think that there should be additional support for people to try and wend their way through this thicket and I will come back to you on the specific question of the right that you set out. My final comment would be about the right to social security in the broader context. Ideally, we would not incorporate in isolation the right to social security. It addresses your point as well, Alison. We would incorporate economic and social cultural rights into Scots law, which therefore would look at adequate standards of living, maximising income, a whole range of other rights through which the right to social security would be one component by which we would be supporting people's economic and social cultural rights. Ideally, we would be seeing the incorporation of all economic and social cultural rights into Scots law. We welcome the Scottish Government's recent announcement and establishment of an independent process to look at how that can be enhanced and developed. My predecessor, Professor Alan Miller, is leading. I think that that is a welcome development in terms of the broader context and maybe provide some answers to some of the concerns here around what does that do? We need to be bringing that much more broadly into public discussion and debate. Does anyone else want to make a final comment scenario? To sum up, really. We hope you support the equality principle that we are arguing for. We hope that there is far more consultation with equality groups throughout the whole process. We have not really touched on this, but we hope that as much equality monitoring data would be collected as part of this process and all the way through and analysed and then we can look at any discrepancies and deal with those. The bill needs to be welcomed. It is something that Scots Human Rights Commission has seen as such a fundamental opportunity to advance equality in human rights in Scotland in a way that has not been done elsewhere. We are acting very much as critical friends in this area. I will touch on something that Jackman said and then something that came up from a previous question. We are working with the agency to try and get as much data as possible, so we are, hopefully, we will get what we possibly can. My only closing thing, and it is something that has come up a number of times but has not really been addressed in this committee, is the distinction between errors in emissions and fraud. It is something that we need to be much more clear about. There is clearly organised fraud of social security systems. We know that and there needs to be legislation around that. Where there are genuine errors in emissions, the idea that income will be withdrawn from them will be subject to lengthy investigations. It runs against the spirit of what the legislation is attempting to do, what the convention rights are. I think that you are very succinct there and I think that we all got the meaning. Emma, did you want to say that we had answered a question fully, I think? Just a final call for the incorporation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination on the face of the bill and the importance of that and to say how much we welcome the spirit of this bill but believe that equality could be added into human rights where that is specifically mentioned. For example, the welcome commitment to train agency staff on human rights-based approaches. I think that our disability, disabled people's organisation colleagues, race equality organisations, gender equality organisations have experience in the front line of working on things like the Scottish Welfare Fund, training for staff and so I think it could usefully be brought into that mix. Thank you all very much and thank you for your answers. It's very interesting and we will obviously follow some up and we look forward to when your report is commissioned. If it isn't in time, could you pass us a copy or let us know? That would be great. Thank you so much. We now move into private session.