 GwTer. amdangos i ar amsre Cind atomddau. Mae mhwylfa mewn cydfer y cy encore Cyngor a ma dim esos salut muffner hynny, a gennych angarthu, manufactur ac yn ebydd y system syrty spot ynglyn Studies. Mae fyrdwyd yn gweithio – Mare Griffin – я cael ei ddysgu'r cyfrifio ar gyfer explorellynau ac cymofill stigma. Ond yna maeth yn cysteilio edrych eich cyfrifio ar rôl Iodис einlda i mynd i amser i gyfrifio eich cyfrifio ch 급 Lind石 amsre ac sus 화� darnoddau rôl ac sefydliw syrdd officials, Colin Brown, James Wallace, Chris Boyland a Dandy Bettenthawke. Minister, do you want to make an open statement? Thank you very much, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here this morning, and I would like to place on the record my sincere thanks to everyone who has given evidence to the committee so far, whether that was in person or in writing. Mae'r unig yn ymddugod, ymddiw ymddugod ymddiw ymddugod, wrth gwrs, yn ei wneud cyfnodau i'r cyfrin o'r cyfrinsiau cyllidol o'r system dda i'r SWP. Ond oes y bywysau cyfrin o'r cyfrinsiau cyfrin i'r cyfrinsiau cyfrin ymddiw. Mae'r geneslis yn y cyfrinsiau cyfrinsiau cyfrinsiau cyfrinsiau cyfrinsiau cyfrinsiau cyfrinsiau cyfrinsiau We had 521 detailed responses to that consultation, which we published in February, along with our findings and independent analysis. Since that consultation, I have attended over 70 individual meetings with more than 50 separate individuals, groups or organisations, ranging from Age Scotland to COSLA, from the MS Society to Shelter. Alongside that, there have been many other contributions that key stakeholders have kindly contributed to our thinking. The first point that I want to make today is that the bill is the way it is because of our wide-ranging detailed and on-going engagement work, the scope of which now goes well beyond our consultation to encompass our expert advisory group, the experience panels and the stakeholder groups covering both policy and delivery. Because of that engagement work, we saw before the bill was introduced that there would be a need to ensure an appropriate balance between primary and secondary legislation. That is why we built a mechanism to address this into the bill. Members will have read paragraph 12 of the Delegated Powers memorandum, which we published back in June alongside the bill, where it says that the Scottish Government is live to concerns about the effect of that approach on the opportunity for the Parliament to control the detail around the different types of assistance during the bill's passage. The schedules attached to sections 11 to 17 are a way of ensuring that members will be able to control what may be done using the power to make provision about a particular type of assistance. In that way, members will be able to exert just as much control as they would if the rules were set directly on the face of the bill. We have addressed, by design, the need to ensure the right balance between primary and secondary legislation. We have also already taken steps to address another key concern, which is to ensure that our secondary legislation receives the input and scrutiny that it needs. We committed to producing illustrative versions of some of the regulations that we will make under the bill. I was pleased that, last month, we were able to share with the committee the first illustrative drafts of our planned best start grant regulations. Those have also been shared with stakeholders and I took part in a discussion with them about our best start grant reference group last Thursday. We sought feedback on our illustrative regulations to ensure that we get things right. I feel the same about this bill. For example, in sections 11 to 17 of the bill just now, where it specifies that assistance may or may not be given in the form of money, it does not say that the individual should always have a choice, or whether or not to receive their assistance in any form other than cash. Our policy memorandum, I believe, makes clear that we would wish the individual to have that choice. Our intention is that individuals should always have that choice. I will make changes at stage 2 of the bill to make that clear. Similarly, we have had a great deal during stage 1 evidence about independent advocacy, and how advocacy, as Inclusion Scotland has put it, is vital to ensure that the rights of those who cannot properly communicate their needs are upheld. It helps people to access advice and services that they would otherwise be unable to engage with due to communication needs. I am grateful to Inclusion Scotland and others for their evidence in this matter, in particular the clarification that advocacy does not mean mediation, giving advice or speaking up for someone when they are able to express themselves. I am happy to say that we will take steps to address this issue at stage 2. We have also responded to concerns about independent expert scrutiny, which I think we all accept is about more than just the scrutiny of legislation, important though that is. Members are aware that the short-life working group, made up from our expert advisory group on disability and carers benefits, has begun its work, which I tasked them to do. I am grateful for their time on Tuesday to update me on their thinking so far and for the discussion that we had then. They are working at pace. I know that they have had a discussion with this committee, and we will be holding a workshop with a wider group of stakeholders later this month. I hope that you and colleagues found the session with the working group useful and helpful. You will appreciate that there are a number of interested parties, including those who are keen to hear more about the committee's views on the issue, and I hope that we will be able to discuss that further this morning. That is an issue that I believe where Government, Parliament and stakeholders need to work together in order to get it right. As I said at the start, stakeholder evidence and our continued engagement with the wide community of stakeholders who have an interest in the legislation is the foundation for this bill. It has guided us in its development and drafting, leading us to make our legislation, I believe, clear, accessible and flexible, by putting the cardinal points into primary legislation and the detailed rules for the operation of our Scottish benefits into subordinate legislation. We have continued, as you know, with that direct involvement since the bill was introduced, with our 2,400 volunteers in our experience panels. We will go on into the future. The experience panels have been established to run for at least four years, by which time the new Scottish social security system will be in place, our new agency will be up and running and we will be delivering benefits to the people of Scotland. I am very happy to take any questions that the committee may have. I will start off with an overaction question. I note in the opening remarks that she mentioned about primary legislation and subordinate and secondary legislation. Obviously, we have heard from various stakeholders in regard to what would be on the face of the bill primary, secondary legislation and also superaffirmative procedures. I know that you have mentioned that in your opening statement, but can the minister expand on what the Scottish Government's proposals are in those particular areas, apart from what you have already said in your opening statement, in particular in regard to on the face of the bill legislation, which a number of stakeholders have asked us to expand on? Obviously, the legislation is going forward. Okay, thank you very much, convener. Let me start with the consultation and everything that we have heard from people since in terms of how the current system works, one aspect of how the current system works. It has been very clear to us throughout that time that individuals and stakeholder organisations find the current UK system confusing and difficult to identify, partly, what the situation may be in any particular instance. That is partly because there is, in primary and secondary, a mix of cardinal points and regulation and rules. We set out to try and make our proposition clearer for people, so that, in primary legislation, we would make the cardinal points about a social security system for Scotland, but in the regulations for each type of assistance, we would, if you like, tell the whole story about that type of assistance, congruent with those cardinal points, but in the regulations making clear eligibility and the type of assistance and so on and so forth. We believe that that then allows individuals, certainly, but also those who are working with them and for them, to be very clear and to, fairly straightforwardly, identify for any one person their eligibility and the requirements that would be placed upon them to demonstrate that, and the rules surrounding any particular type of assistance and what they can expect. The critical part of all of that, of course, is how then, and I'm conscious that there is no perfect way of doing this. I think that, as one of your colleagues has said to me, it's a difficult thing to get right and so good luck with that. I'm conscious that there is no perfect way of doing it, but what we hope that we'll be able to do with the committee's support is introduce and ensure that, in terms of the regulations, not only do we adopt in the majority of instances an affirmative approach, but that we add elements to that, which might be called superaffirmative, although I'm conscious that there's more than one model of superaffirmative, which allows members of this Parliament to be engaged and to scrutinise draft regulations before they are laid. It also should ensure that stakeholder groups are consulted in draft regulations before they are laid. As an example, the illustrative regulations that we have produced on best art grant and the ones that we will produce on funeral assistance are not simply there to provide an illustration of what members should expect to see in regulations, but also the approach that we would take in consulting on the drafts of those prior to formally laying them before the Parliament. If I can also just touch on the question of independent scrutiny—I'm sure that we will get into that in more detail—but it is my firm view that whatever resolution we collectively come to on that matter, in addition to Parliament committees having an important scrutiny role, we will have an independent body charged, at least in part, in terms of its remit with scrutiny. I believe that ministers should be required to consult that body in advance of making regulations or changing matters with respect to social security. That is very different from the current position at UK level with the Social Security Advisory Committee, where there is no obligation or duty on ministers to engage in that consultation prior to making their decisions. I'm hoping that if we take all of that in the round, my proposition is that we have got the balance between primary and secondary clear and that we are building in and open to propositions to build in aspects of the affirmative process that would take it to our definition collectively of superaffirmative that gives members the assurance that they will be able to look in some detail at those regulations as they come forward. Thank you very much, minister. I think that that's clarified quite a bit, but I know that there's a number of members wishing to come in. I may come back in later. Ruth Maguire wanted to come in first. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. I'd like to ask about redeterminations and appeals. I think that there's quite a bit of good faith and hope out there amongst folk who will be using the system, which has probably been helped by the consultation approach that has been taken, but I think that people still can't help but be coloured by the experience that they've already had, and it's come across quite a bit in evidence, and I think probably, for me personally, particularly in an event, an inclusion Scotland event that myself and Pauline McNeill attended, that people do have concerns about redetermination. I wonder if you could set out how that process will be different to the current system and why it needs to be a mandatory redetermination, not reconsideration. Yes, I'm happy to. Thank you for the question. As I understand the current proposition that people experience in the current system, is that, if they challenge the decision that is made, that decision is then reconsidered. There is no particular timescale around that, and the individual's position is that, should the initial decision be one that reduces their benefit, then that decision is enacted straight away. Our proposition is significantly different. What we are proposing is that, where an individual challenges a decision that the agency has made, first of all, when the agency advises them of their decision, they will be advised at the same time of their rights to disagree and of the process, clearly set out about what would happen if they do and of the timescale that the agency has to consider their challenge within. That challenge is then looked at in terms of the whole application being looked at afresh, which is why we are calling it a redetermination. If, for instance, I was a person who made the decision in the first instance and you challenged it, what would not happen is that James here, my colleague, would not take my work and check what I'd done. He would look at your application afresh and reach his own view. Let us presume that he agreed with your challenge. That is the decision. If he agreed with me, then you are advised of that and you are advised then of your right to go to appeal. It would then proceed to appeal in normal course. The final significant difference is that, in our system, should the decision that I made in the first instance, which you are disagreeing with, have reduced a reduction in the amount of financial support that you had been receiving, that reduction would not be enacted until the whole process had been concluded, so that you would retain your original level of financial support until either we concluded the process with James's decision or it was concluded at appeal. It has been argued that the mandatory element of that should be taken away from it. I absolutely understand what is in people's heads when they argue that, because there is a widely held perception that the current system is designed to put people off challenging. Ours is not, and I am finding it difficult to square a rights-based approach with one that would take the rights away from an individual to decide whether or not they wanted to challenge. That is why I think that it should always sit with the individual to choose what they do. If they disagree with the decision to choose whether or not they want to challenge that decision and not for the agency or government to make that decision on their behalf, I also think that it is important to put into place a process—that is why we have a timescale— whereby, if the agency has got it wrong, it can correct that quickly. That is obviously in the interests of the individual to do. In terms of going straight to appeal rather than having the agency have the opportunity to correct it, your position would be that there is an opportunity to fix it quicker if it goes to the agency. It is just around language. It was put to me by— I have two sups on the appeal. Is that all right with you? Of course. Pauline McLean and Jeremy. Good morning, minister. It is something that Ruth Maguire and I have picked up that the message is not clearly getting through and people are nervous about this aspect of it. What you describe is quite clearly different from people's experiences. Can you just say for the record, then, where is that clearly set out in the way that you have this morning that we can point people to? Where will that be set out exactly? That will be set out in the detail that I have described it and what individuals will receive and so on in the agency's operational manual, which is part of what our experience panels are currently engaged in in discussing with our officials. Our experience panels are not just looking at the design and so on of individual benefits, they are looking at delivery matters and so on as well and working with the agency on that. In terms of being clearly understood, I can assure you that I think that I have now spoken to every one of the key stakeholders precisely on that matter in exactly the terms that I have just done, but I do understand that people look at what we are proposing through the lens of their experience of the UK system and I get that. I think that there is an added concern in that. You say that it is going to be in the operational manual but not on the face of the bill and it will not come through the parliamentary scrutiny process. We will not be able to see that as you describe it. That might be my concern in regs. The other place that my colleague is quite right of where that would be is in the charter, where we would expect to see it, is in the charter. I am sure that we will get to the question of the charter at some point, but we would need to be clear about what the status of the charter was and the enforceability of that question. Jamie Balfour, you want to give me a supplement on that one. Good morning, minister, and can I again just for record declare that I am in receipt of higher rate, paper and am a former tribunal member. One of the issues just on this very point of reconsideration, minister, is the double ticking of a form. You get your decision, you ask for it to be reconsidered, you get the decision back and if it is negative you then have to fill out another form and tick another form to get the appeal. A number of organisations have said that it could not just be a one-stage process internally, it could be two, but for the claimant if it is unsuccessful that your colleague James agrees with you and if it goes to appeal, rather than having to tick another form and fill it back in, it just happens automatically. Have you given any thought in regard to that, rather than adding double administration to the claimant? I understand that and thank you very much, Mr Balfour, for raising that point. We are giving some thought to that. We are also having some discussion with our colleagues in the tribunal and court service about what they require and look for in order to minimise the amount of effort that the individual needs to go through. I want the decision about what happens next to sit with the individual where they are in a position of challenge, but I do not want to overburden them with lots of formfilling, in this instance or in any instance, in a way that they feel precludes them for pursuing it. I want them to be really clear about what they need to do and what they should now expect and the timeframe that they should expect. When we get to the appeal bit, we need to understand what our colleagues in courts and tribunal service require to do their end of that process. We are discussing that with them, but the objective is to reduce the amount of paperwork and formfilling that an individual has to follow. Alison Johnstone, do you want to come in and supplement you on the same issue? I welcome the fact that you are having a very good look at that. My colleague Jeremy Balfour suggests that it would help a lot of people if that automatically went forward. The issue is that a lot of people think that the internal appeal is the final stage and they do not push it any further, so I think that you need to have a balance between making sure that people understand that it is not the final stage, but that degree of it going forward automatically would be really helpful and I would be interested to learn what comes out of that discussion that you are having. If I can just say that it is going forward automatically provided that individual wants it to go forward, so it is not the agency that automatically forwards it to the appeal stage. The individual has to say, I have now got back your decision and your decision is that you do not agree with my challenge, you have looked at it internally, you do not agree with my challenge, I want to go to appeal. They need to trigger that, but as Mr Balfour rightly asks, they need to trigger that in the most simple way possible without lots more form filling. On the issue of the charter, previous sessions we had asked about the charter with stakeholders and a number of them said that the charter would be on the face of the charter, would be available for people in whatever form, paper form, whatever that they could see what was available to them and perhaps advice centres etc. Is that correct? Will it be available for people to actually see their online or in paper form what exactly is on the charter and concerning appeals? Oh absolutely, absolutely. The charter is where we take the principles of the bill and transfer those into what an individual should expect in their dealings with the agency and what their responsibilities are in their dealings with the agency. That is a document, a piece of paper, that we intend to write with our stakeholders and the input of our experience panels. I know that I am sure that we will get to it a discussion around exactly the enforceability and so on of that charter and how you would make those rights and responsibilities real, so it is not just something on a bit of paper. I expect the charter to be widely displayed and I also have asked our officials who are leading on the implementation of the agency to consider, it depends on the size of the charter to be fair, whether or not that is not something that people are simply given in their initial and subsequent communications with the agency. Ruth Maguire, you have another question. Thank you, convener. Just briefly, it is a question about language minister. It was pointed out to me that the term physical and mental impairment might not sit well or might almost be a barrier to folk living with conditions that have stigma around them, specifically people living with HIV. Are those terms fixed? It feels a little bit like it is slightly diminishing language anyway, but I wonder if you could just tell me why those terms are used. Thanks very much. Again, I understand the points that are being raised. The terms are used because in the 2016 Scotland act, in terms of definition of disability benefits, it says that disability benefit means a benefit that is normally payable in respect of. Part A and Part B says that a significant need arises from impairment to a person's physical or mental condition. There is, I think, a need to where we can retain a consistency of language across different pieces of legislation so that we are clear about what we are talking about. That is why we have taken that from the 2016 act. Clearly, and this has been clear since you became minister in May last year, you want to regard yourself as being accountable to key stakeholders, to social security users, and that is, in my view, to be welcomed and applauded. However, you are also accountable to this Parliament. Over the course of the past half hour, as you have been speaking with us, my concern has grown that in your desire to be accountable to stakeholders and user groups, the Scottish Parliament is being cut out of various aspects of the process, which makes me uneasy, I have to say, as an MSP. In your answer to Pauline McNeill's question, you talked about the new agency's operating manual. There will be no parliamentary scrutiny of that. There is indeed no parliamentary scrutiny of the creation of the agency at all. It is not to be a statutory body. In the creation of the charter that the bill talks about in section 3, there is a list of people that must be consulted by ministers in the creation of the first charter. That list does not include the Scottish Parliament. This is the core of the concern that the DPLR Committee had in its recommendations and its report published just yesterday about the balance between primary and secondary legislation, which is the issue that you started talking about with the convener a few minutes ago. That committee recommended that the bill could better strike the balance between accessibility on the one hand and parliamentary scrutiny. The committee calls for what it calls a reasonable level of detail to be set out on the face of the bill on eligibility criteria and the assistance to be given. That is paragraph 31 of its report yesterday. I have to say that I find those conclusions and recommendations compelling. What can you say in the light of what I have just put to you to reassure us as MSPs that, as well as all the values that we welcome in support of co-production that you have been working so hard to engineer over the course of the last year and a half, the Scottish Parliament will also be front and centre of the design and delivery of devolved social security in Scotland? Thank you very much, Mr Tomkins. I absolutely consider myself accountable to this Parliament. In large part, why we as a Government have said that the social security delivery body will be an agency precisely because agencies are accountable to ministers and ministers are accountable to this Parliament. The operation of the agency will be held accountable through the minister being accountable to the Parliament. It is not my intention to cut out Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny and involvement from how we construct a social security service and delivery agency for Scotland. It may be that there are elements of that balance, which I acknowledged at the outset, is that there is no perfect balance to strike. It may be that there are areas where we need to consider again what may be on primary as opposed to secondary legislation. However, I would ask members to hold in their heads that it is not simply the important role of this Parliament, but it is also the delivery experience of those in Scotland who will look to this social security system for the support that they are entitled to. I am reluctant, for example, to set out eligibility criteria on the face of the bill on primary legislation because I believe that that potentially creates difficulties for individuals. For example, if I set out a list of things that an individual has to produce in order to demonstrate that they are eligible for a particular form of assistance within the bill, if that individual cannot produce every single aspect of that, does that mean that the agency cannot have any discretion in order to deliver the benefit? Those are matters that need to be considered in our minds when we look to get what we consider to be the right balance between primary and secondary legislation. A mindful of Ms McNeill's point that she made a short while ago about where would our process for redetermination and appeals be set out? In that, as in other areas, I am open-minded in terms of where we might make improvements to the bill. In my opening statement, I gave a couple of instances in which we have already demonstrated that we are open-minded in terms of what we intend as a Government to bring forward as stage 2 amendments. I am not sitting here saying that this is what is in primary, that is what is in secondary and I am no willing to move, but I am asking members to consider the practical implications of putting some areas into primary legislation that perhaps those who are giving evidence to the committee have suggested that, in practice, we will undercut the approach that we are attempting to take in delivering social security in Scotland, just as I have to consider both. That is very helpful, thank you minister. You mentioned, I think that it was in your opening statement that it might have been in response to the community's first question, that you recognise the need for an independent advisory body perhaps along the lines of SAC, but with more powers. You are attracted by the idea that you said of there being a requirement on ministers to consult this body. Is it your intention that the independent advisory body should be a statutory body created in this bill, and is it your intention that the requirement on ministers to consult it should be a legal requirement again in this bill? If so, will you be minded to move amendments along those lines at stage 2? My view is that we should have an independent scrutiny body. I am not settled on whether its role is solely scrutiny or whether it may have additional areas to its remit. I am looking to both the committee, to be frank, and I think that I have raised it before here, and also to the expert group to come forward with their views. There may be more to such a body than simply scrutiny. I do believe that there should be a duty on ministers to consult with that body before they bring forward draft regulations and changes to primary legislation matters relating to social security. I am open to the proposition that it should be on a statutory footing. Can I ask you about a separate area of the bill, which is the power to create new benefits? As you know, it is an important part of the Smith commission package of the Scotland Act package. There are some social security powers that are devolved in full. We have the top-up power, and we also have the power to create new benefits. There are provisions in this bill that deal with the streams of social security that are devolved in full. There are provisions of this bill that deal with the top-up power, section 45 in particular, but there is no provision of the bill that enables Scottish ministers to create new benefits. I have asked you about this in the chamber, and you have said in the chamber that that is because you already have that power and do not need it. Can you just walk me through that? I am still struggling to understand why you need, in section 45, a bespoke power to top up, but you do not need, as it were, a companion bespoke power in the bill to create new benefits? As you know, Mr Tomkins, as I have said, the Scotland Act gives us the power to create new benefits. I do not believe that it is wise—in fact, it is quite contradictory—to worry about the degree to which Parliament and the committee have scrutiny over what we are doing, which are many points that I think are fair, but I also want us to put into primary legislation a simple provision that says that we have the power to create new benefits without specifying what those new benefits might be, because that would simply allow us, as Government, to go away and create a new benefit and produce secondary legislation, none of which comes from the primary. The point of the new benefit does not come to the Parliament in scrutiny in terms of this committee, but it is handled, I would imagine, in the way that I have described in terms of secondary legislation. I do not think that that is a consistent approach. That is why we have not put on primary legislation that kind of blanket proposition about a power to create new benefits. Should this Government or other Governments want to come forward with a new benefit to create, they would need to come with that as a piece of primary amendment to primary legislation to do that. Indeed, I think that we will ourselves be coming at stage 2 with just such a proposition in order to overcome the difficulty that we have encountered with respect to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds. Members will recall that we have currently got an interim solution. That is fine for now, but it is not a sustainable approach. The alternative to that is to amend this piece of legislation specifically, which is with a new benefit specifically for that purpose, and we will bring forward that amendment. That is how I think it is appropriate to use the powers of the 2016 act to introduce new benefits. That is why we have not done that in this bill. In terms of top-up, that is a separate proposition. The primary legislation, as you know, allows us to make the additional payment to carers allowance, which we intend to introduce as soon as the legislation receives royal consent. I think that this is an important area to examine at this point. I agree with you that it is important to get the balance right and that everything should not be in the face of the bill. I think that there is a good case for that. However, as you know, there are nears of different witnesses around understanding that. I think that there might be a way of trying to get something on the record about the procedure, which you have talked about, as one way in which regulations would have a higher degree of scrutiny. The first set of regulations, let us say, on the best start or whatever example you want to choose, would come before the committee and there would be a consultation on it. I am trying to think of a scenario in which, let us say, there was something in the regulations that the committee felt was really against the principles of the primary legislation, but, by and large, most of it was okay. However, we cannot take that out and that is the problem. I wonder what your view as a minister would be. What would you do in that case? Would you have any power to withdraw the regulations if the committee felt that they did not comply with the principles of the primary legislation? Is there anything that could be done? I think that it might be quite helpful to get a chance at that. Let us stick with the best start grant, because that is one that is currently around just now, and there are draft illustrative regulations there just now. They are in the process, written by my officials, but in consultation with the key stakeholders, through the stakeholder reference group. Now, certainly before this committee, also with delegated powers, and I understand that yesterday circulated to about 100 different individuals and organisations drawn from our consultation exercise for their comments and views. All of that, including any that the committee might have, will come to me when we get to the stage of turning those illustrative regulations into draft. It would be, in my opinion, a remarkably foolish Government that knew that either stakeholders or, in responding to stakeholders, a committee of this Parliament had a serious disagreement with what was in draft regulations and were arguing that they contradicted some of the key cardinal points in primary legislation that, nonetheless, plowed ahead with an affirmative process that risks Parliament voting those regulations down, because that means that you do not have the regulations for that form of assistance and you cannot then go ahead and deliver it. We would have two options, this Government and any future Government. One is to alter between the draft and what is then laid in order to respond to the concerns that have been expressed, and the other is to withdraw. The third option, of course, is to fire ahead, but risk that you are going to lose that vote in the Parliament. Of course, the dilemma is always for Parliament if 75 per cent of it is okay, but 25 per cent of it is not the problem as you can't amend any part of the superaffirmative regulations. Finally, I just wanted to ask you if an individual claimant or organisation felt that the regulations were not compatible with the principles in the bill, then what redress do they then have? The initial redress is, of course, through the charter and what the charter will make clear as its rights under that charter. It would raise that initially with the agency if there was a particular matter that the agency could resolve or directly with Government. Of course, all ministers are obliged to comply with the human rights legislation in what we do, so the final recourse is, of course, that judicial one, which is on the table anyway, in terms of the Parliament's legislation. I just wanted to move the questioning on to an area that has produced a lot of evidence both in writing and orally here at committee around the principles of the bill at section 1. In your opening remarks, you made reference to the different bits of evidence that have been received around advocacy, and I certainly welcome what you stated earlier about that point. There have been a number of other suggestions about amending the principles that are currently drafted and some suggestions of some new principles, particularly in my mind about accessibility, for example. Is there a very broad question, if you want to comment on any of the suggestions that have been made, and then I have a follow-up about particular principles as drafted thereafter? That would be helpful. One of the suggestions that I understand has been made is about equality and ensuring that there is equality of access and treatment and so on. I understand that principle and why people might want that, and I am open to that being included. I can see no reason why we would not want to include that. There have been other suggestions about ensuring that we tie the principles and the rights-based approach to international conventions. I may not be the right word, but I think that you know what I mean. I would make the point, as I have just touched on, that the 1998 Scotland Act requires Parliament legislation to be compatible with ECHR, and the Human Rights Act also makes it unlawful for public authorities in Scotland to act incompatibly with those convention rights. Everything that we are doing is set in that context. We might need to remind people of that to make that clearer. In addition, all Scottish ministers now and in the future have a requirement to comply with our code, which includes an overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law. I think that our draft bill and our principles sit in that landscape very firmly, so it may be that there is a case to make that clear, but I am not sure that we need to do more than make that clear, although people may come forward with propositions to suggest otherwise. I am also mindful that this has risen in a number of discussions that I have had with organisations that want us to do certain things. The point that I make is that, although I am intending to create a legislative framework for social security in Scotland, in the first instance, that is for 11 benefits. It is for 15 per cent. I cannot have this Government or a future Government required to meet obligations that 11 benefits are not sufficient to allow them to meet. We need to get that balance right as well. I think that that came through in some of the evidence that we received that there is that complexity that is difficult to navigate. Thank you, minister. Just on two of the principles that I am currently drafting, the Ursay workshop powerfully said that, as a group, they warmly welcomed the principles and particularly support the objective that states that respect and dignity will be at the heart of the social security system. However, there have been some concerns raised with me, particularly by a local advocacy agency and my constituency advocate, that dignity and respect are subjective terms. I wondered whether you would be open to tightening that aspect of the principle in order to make sure that we are as clear as possible on what those means in legislation. Also, there were several pieces of evidence that were given about the principle above that, around the Scottish ministers having a role in ensuring that individuals are given what they are eligible. There have been some representations that have been made that that should be a duty rather than a role, and I wondered whether you could comment on that also. Let me start with the last one first. I am open to bringing forward an amendment to make that change. I understand why people want that. The important part for me is, in that principle, the phrase that is eligible to be given under the Scottish social security system, because I think that that makes it clear what we would be responsible for, and I think that that is fair enough. The point about dignity and respect is a fair one. I read again last night the report from the University of Ulster that ECHR had commissioned, where they talk in some helpful ways about dignity and respect, and that being a difficult, judicially enforceable set of words concept, in that they are, to some extent, largely subjective. Where we look to make those more tangible is in our charter. I do not know how you could tighten those in terms of the primary legislation to address the issue that you are raising in a way that still retains their meaning in order to make them enforceable in those terms. With what University of Ulster's report says, it is very helpful in that regard, and they point us towards the charter. I think that that would be the right direction for us to go in in that respect. Good morning, minister. I asked this question previously when we discussed various things about the IT systems. We can all have great principles and ideals of how we want to treat people and how things are, but the practicality is that, come the day of delivery, we could have a situation that Governments traditionally are not great when it has come to the IT in the past. We know what Audit Scotland has said that you were in a good place earlier on when they had a look at everything. Where are we now? What is the update now? I believe that this is important, because at the end of the day, the claimants of the care about that money is in their bank account. I know that we can talk about everything else, but to me that is probably one of the most important issues. Thank you very much, Mr Adam. I think that you are absolutely right, in as much as at the end of the day what people will care about is that the money has arrived at the right amount to the right bank account and on the right day. I also think that they care about how they are treated, but we have dealt with that in some other respects. Andy McClintock, as you will see, is our chief digital officer. He is here this morning and will happily provide you with some detail of exactly where we are. Before I ask Andy to do that, I remind everyone, including myself, that the approach that we are taking to this is absolutely compliant with Audit Scotland's key lessons learned from previous IT projects, both those that worked and those that have encountered difficulties, which is absolutely not to go for the big bang but to do it in manageable chunks. That approach sits perfectly with the way in which we are building the agency and taking over responsibility for the individual benefits on an incremental basis, which also allows us to make the best use of our expert group, our stakeholder groups and our experience panels in the design, the test and the build. That overall is the approach across the whole piece around the individual benefits, the build of the agency and the IT, which is the infrastructure to support that. The final point that I would make is that our approach is that IT is the infrastructure that supports the overall objective of what we are delivering here. The last point before I hand to Mr McClintock is to make the point that that approach is one that we are adopting and have done from the outset in the social security directorate inside the Scottish Government, in other words, in the officials who are working with me and for me on this, in that all our teams are integrated. We do not have a team of policy officials in one corner working on policy without delivery folks sitting right beside them, advising on whether that is deliverable. Equally, we do not have delivery folks on one side working out a good system only to have policy people telling them that it may be a good system, but it is not going to deliver the policy intent or finance it in somewhere else altogether. Those integrated teams exemplify our intent to make sure that all of this works together, but the detail of where we are on the IT build, I am sure that Mr McClintock can give you more information. To give you an update on where we are, the minister has already explained that we have taken an incremental approach to this delivery of IT solutions. It is important to say that this is an IT-enabled programme for delivery, and this is not an IT-led approach. We are picking up very much on the lessons learned by others before us. The Audit Scotland report has shaped our thinking and we will continue to shape our thinking. The recent contract that was awarded some week or 10 days ago is the first step along that journey. It is a contract for £8.3 million, which was well publicised in the media last week. That will be the first step along a long journey about building an incremental approach to delivery of social security in Scotland. That approach and that award of that contract will take the element of reuse and reuse of software that has previously been used across the world. In addition to that, we are looking at reuse of other systems across the UK public sector. We are not trying to build everything ourselves. We are not trying to do it only in one large release. This is very much an incremental approach that you have heard to term agile as a delivery. That brings a different methodology in terms of the way in which projects are structured and the way in which technology is delivered. As the minister has outlined this morning, it sets out a journey where we have policy colleagues, legislation colleagues and delivery colleagues embedded in all those teams to ensure that users' needs and respect are at the forefront of everything that we do. The engagement of citizens and users along that journey to make sure that what we are building is fit for purpose and is highly usable as part of that approach. That will be a three or four-year journey of technology delivery that will support multiple benefits. The first wave of those will arrive next year and the technology journey has only just begun. Early indications are that we are on the right track. We are learning lessons from those before us. We are taking absolutely all the digital principles, digital standards that we are right to follow into our thinking and that is why our incremental approach to procurement and investment is proportionate and timely so that we can take things in small bite-sized chunks to make sure that what we are producing and what we are delivering is fit for purpose and will work for both the now and for the benefits of the future. I do not know whether that is a question for the minister or Mr McClintock again, but I remember that you mentioned before that the current benefits are spread over various data streams. In some cases, it is a manual system as well. How are we managing to get that? Mr McClintock is working with other UK systems trying to make a way to embed it in that as well. Where are we with that? That seems quite complicated as well. We are aware that the current UK benefits platforms are predominantly technologies, but there are some off-table solutions and manual approaches. As part of our journey, as we go on understanding the way in which we intend to deliver and implement benefits in Scotland, we will be looking to automate as much of that as possible and make sure that the processes end to end as efficient, end to end with a citizen in mind and make sure that as little as possible is not automated. We need to learn lessons from systems that have been developed decades before that have not been able to keep pace with the modern requirements of citizens and legislation and make sure that, as we implement the new technologies that they do so, with a citizen at the forefront of what we do, they are very much adaptable to the change in landscape. Will it be more open and flexible to any changes in the future? That is the plan. The whole approach that we are taking here is that we are not building something now, locking it down and saying that is what it has to be and then we have to bend benefits and rules and regulations to fit a system. We are creating an architecture that is loosely designed and coupled that can accommodate changes in legislation and changes in benefit powers but also changes in technology. Technology will continue to change over the lifetime of the programme and beyond. There was a part of your point, Mr Adam, about data transfer and data exchange. I think that perhaps colleagues have met before Lisa Barren-Brotrust, who is another of our deputy directors and is leading the programme delivery work in terms of systems and processes alongside Mr McClintock and the IT side. I suspect that there is daily contact between our officials and DWP officials to work out the process for data transfer so that we are assured that the information that we are receiving on those who currently are in receipt of those benefits that we will take responsibility for, that information is as robust and accurate as we can possibly be assured that it is. That sits alongside the work that Mr McClintock has described. The other thing is that COSLA has already brought up an issue that there are people who cannot get access to benefits. They have no recourse to public funds if they are asylum seekers or cause of their immigration status. Can you tell me, minister, what your understanding of that situation is currently as well? That is correct. If there is a consequence of an individual's asylum or immigration status, they have no recourse to public funds. However, that has been raised. There is nothing that we as a Scottish Government can do to alter that because it is a consequence of immigration and asylum policy that sits with the UK Government. We are obliged to comply with that. However, there are other areas of support that are primarily for children. A proxy for eligibility is used in terms of benefits that an individual may be receiving. I am thinking about local authorities and access to free school meals, school uniform support and so on. In those instances, the authorities are perfectly free to find another means of determining eligibility for those individuals other than every seat of benefits. In fact, I have had correspondence with Mr McPherson on that very matter. However, in terms of the condition of no recourse to public funds that comes as a consequence of a decision or a pending decision on immigration or asylum status, that sits with the UK Government as a reserved area and not one that we can alter at this point. Ben MacPherson. Sorry, not Ben MacPherson. Jeremy Balfour, sorry. Good morning. I have two specific questions and one general question of that. The first specific question is in regard to the residents of who might get an award. For my reading of the bill, and I am happy to be correct with you, but my reading of the bill has no clear definition of residents of who would get this award and how long we have had to live in Scotland and all that. Is that something that will, are you minded to bring forward in the face of the bill or have I missed it? If so, what kind of residence clause are you looking from that? One of the issues that I raise is when people move between different jurisdictions, so if I get carers allowance and live in Aberdeen and due to some change, I have to move to Newcastle. Do I take my award with me or do I then have to reapply in England? Have there been any discussions between Governments in regard to periods of how long people they move around, they will live on, but a particular round of residence and this residence for making a claim? We are still having a look at this, but we are minded to follow the existing DWP approach, which is to operate on the basis of what is called habitually resident, I think a fairly widely recognised term in terms of the common travel area and the EU and so on. That would be the approach that we are most likely to take. It would, I think, be in regulations for each of the benefits that we would set out. In terms of moving between different jurisdictions, we are in discussions with our colleagues in DWP simply to resolve that so that this can be as simple and straightforward as possible. It is not new for other areas. It is simply about looking at how we operate that in other subject matters, if you like, and whether that is agreeable to us and DWP UK Government in the case of social security. As we resolve that, we will make sure that the committee is aware. Mr Balford. I just clarify, minister. Once you come to a view in regard to residence, will that be in the bill or will that be in regulation? I think that you said regulation, did you? Well, it will be outlined in regulation, but it is in schedule 1 part 1 of the bill. The second area, just to seek some clarification on, is in regard to those who have terminal illness. At the moment, under the UK legislation, it is a six-month rule. I have had some correspondence from charities, but also from doctors who say that, for some conditions, it is very easy to say, sadly, that you have six or less months to live on, particularly perhaps those who have cancer. For some conditions, it is less clear. It may be six months, it may be nine months, it may be two years. Also, some conditions will have terminal consequences, but maybe not six months, but, as I say, 18 months or two years. Would your tour be open to extending that six-month figure to maybe a two-year, so not an open definition of terminal illness, but extending it from six months to maybe 18 months or two years? Well, my understanding of this, because, of course, this issue has been raised with me, and I have been alert to the views of various organisations. There are disagreements between some of our stakeholder groups on this. I am quite strongly held to disagreements on it, and I am not minded to take sides on that matter. I think that, as I can understand it so far, I am, of course, open to other representations, but, as I understand it so far, the current number of six months also accommodates those who may happily live longer than that. Actually, for a number of our clinicians, they are more likely to give a band, if you like, between this and this than an absolute number, because, as we all do, they understand that, in aspects of clinical judgment, as in other areas, there is less binary than perhaps we sometimes might like it to be. At this point, I am not minded to move beyond what we currently have. I am open to other representations, and the reason why I am not minded to do that is that there is significant disagreement among key stakeholder groups and in our clinical community on this matter. My final point is picking up a bit Paul McNeill and Adam Tomkins' point. I do appreciate that you want to listen to stakeholders and that you want to be as open as possible, but, at some point, we have to make either primary legislation or regulations in regard to who qualifies and who does not qualify, and they will become decisions that ultimately you will have to bring forward and we, as a committee, will have to agree or disagree with. For example, a lot of people raise with us is in regard to higher rate mobility. Under DLA, there was a certain range that you could walk, and that was lowered under PIP. Presumably, at some point, as a Government, you will come to a view in regard to that, and they will be in regulations. When will these regulations in regard to PIP be available? I think that there is concern among people that they only do accept your openness and have a precedent, but at some point we have to make some hard decisions. If it is not on the face of the bill, as Paul McNeill said, it comes to us as a committee and we love 99 per cent of it, but, to take a ridiculous situation, you say that if you can only walk a tiny bit, you do not get it. We say that we like everything, but we have to throw it all out on that one thing. It is very difficult for us as a committee to make it work. Is there any possibility that these regulations will be at least out there for consultation before we get to stage 3 of the bill? No, not for every single area of assistance, no. That is not possible. What we will have are the draft regulations on what we have described as the first wave of benefits that we will deliver. Keros supplement is covered, so it will be best start grant and funeral assistance. We are, at this point, bottoming out what will be the next set of benefits that we will take delivery of after those first three. Mindful of the fact that we have made a clear commitment by the end of this Parliament to be delivering all 11 benefits. There is a significant amount of work going on at pace, because I am very conscious of two things, as you might expect me to be. One, it is no that long until this Parliament reaches the end of its term. Two, yes, absolutely hard decisions do have to be made by me for which I am accountable. There will be significant consultation around the regulations in terms of the disability assistance benefits, both in the drafting of those and in the discussion around the drafting, but they will be in regulations. As members are, I hope, are clear, I have already accepted the difficulties in striking the right balance between primary and secondary and the positives and negatives and where you might set that balance. I repeat, it would be a remarkably foolish Government that brought forward regulations under the affirmative procedure where they knew that there was a significant disagreement on an aspect of them, because that Government risks those regulations being voted down, particularly when we are a minority Government, being voted down and therefore not being able to meet the commitment that it has made to deliver those benefits in the lifetime of this Parliament. There are clear consequences to that for a Government, but more importantly, in my view, there are clear consequences to the individuals that we will not then be assisting until those regulations find approval across the board. I think that we would be exceptionally foolish to get ourselves into that position. In responding to Mr McPherson's questions earlier, I was heartened to hear the minister say that she was open to bringing forward an amendment at stage 2 changing the role for the Government maximising the incomes of recipients into a duty, because that is certainly what the Cabinet Secretary has previously said to the committee. I am quoting here, she said, that it is important for the Scottish Government to help people to navigate their way through the complexity, and that includes ensuring that our new social security agency has a duty to maximise incomes. I would be grateful if the minister could expand on how you see the Government meeting such a duty. Could that, for example, be that the new agency having assessed someone for entitlement to one benefit might look at what others are entitled to automatically without that person having to fill in various forms? Yes, thank you very much. I, too, am mindful of what the Cabinet Secretary said, and there we are. So how might we do that? I think that there are a number of ways in which we as Government should be expected to do that. The first of those is through the means by which we have said our agency will operate, where we have been very clear that, in addition to those employed in the main sites, the headquarters site in Dundee and the large site in Glasgow, that there will be at least 400 staff employed spread across all local authority areas in Scotland, including the islands, with a job of preclaims advice and support. Of course, there is a primary role in the first instance, and people will be coming to them in the first instance around the benefits that we are responsible for, but we have also been clear that their job is to help people to secure what they are entitled to, regardless of whether that benefit is delivered by the UK or the Scottish Government. They would have a key role in that regard. We have also said that, as my officials are conducting a series of meetings with local authorities and other key agencies in each local authority area, my expectation is that the model of our operation will differ from one local authority to another. For example, in some local authorities, they have reconfigured their own services, their housing and welfare advice and council tax reduction and so on services in order to ensure a streamlined approach for an individual. A person might come to them for help and advice on one area, but that triggers support from within that authority in another area. In those circumstances where a local authority has done that, I would expect local social security agency staff to be working in there and complementing that and therefore be part of that trigger, if you like, trigger approach. The overall objective here is that people should receive what they are entitled to with the minimum of fuss and burden on them, congruent with good news of public funds and so on and so forth, but not every local authority is like that. Some remain disparate in their approach, so we need to adapt to that and find a way to complement that, but also to act where we can as a trigger to that realignment of services and reconfiguration of services so that the individual can receive that more streamlined approach. That is one way to deliver it. I think that it is a bit of a big deal the way in which we will deliver through these local social security staff. They will not be making decisions. The decisions on an individual's application will sit elsewhere in the agency and quite rightly so, but they have that role. If we look to some of the work and lessons from Northern Ireland, for example, we will see that the comparable approach there has had a significant impact in increasing benefit uptake. The complementary to that, of course, is the work that we are doing on benefit uptake. I am delighted that we are working closely with COSLA and local authorities so that our uptake campaign work, which will continue throughout this Parliament, is operating at both a national and a local level. On that issue of uptake, is the minister striving for 100 per cent take-up? Will there be annual targets so that we can assess what the gap is between entitlement and what people receive? We have not yet looked at that in any detail or set a target for ourselves. I think that what we and COSLA want to do is operate—we are operating two types of campaign, if you like. One is a general broad brush trigger campaign. Have you thought about what you might be entitled to? That is particularly aimed at people who are in work who might consider that they are consequently not entitled to support, but they might well be through tax credits and other means because of low income from their employment, and then targeting areas where we know that there is low uptake. The difficulty that we have is that we do not hold the data of uptake across all the benefits that are held elsewhere or not held at all. In those circumstances, it is a bit more difficult to set a target because you do not have a baseline. We know of some areas where there are low uptake carers being one of those, particularly young carers. We are targeting those. We have just completed the over 65 target areas and targeted campaign. We then sit down with our local authority colleagues again and review how that seems to have worked, what was the response rate that we can measure, what have we seen by way of feedback from citizens advice and others about people pursuing applications for support and reviewing what we might do next. It is an evolving piece of work. One final question, minister, if I may, and Mr Moog version 2 brought up the issues of dignity and respect. I appreciate the focus that the Government is putting on ensuring that the system delivers that. In order to achieve that, you have to have an adequate income. We can treat people with utmost dignity and respect, but if the benefits are simply inadequate because they keep decreasing because of inflation, it is very hard to deliver that. We have heard from many organisations that there should be an annual operating mechanism on the face of the bill. NHS Lothian said that annual operating of benefits should not be discretionary. Is that something that the Government is considering? Yes. I have seen and read that evidence. We will continue to consider what we may do there. We have made the commitment in terms of operating of disability assistance. We will look at the other areas and consider what we might do in that regard. I apologise for arriving late. I would like to go back to the issue of the balance between primary and secondary legislation and go into a bit more detail to some of the calls from some of the organisations. At the outset, I say that I do not envy the task of minister and officials in getting that balance right and not an easy job, certainly. We have touched on some of the areas already, and that was a duty to ensure that, when it is met, an income maximisation on annual operating to whether that would be an appropriate place to put that on the face of the bill and primary legislation to give people an upfront assurance that there would be annual operating and that their benefits would increase in line with inflation. The third one that I wanted to touch on, and it is something that we have spoken about before, was disability assessments. The minister said previously that a legislative ban she feels would be the wrong way because it brings significant potential for other difficulties and unintended consequences to occur. I wonder if you are able to set out what those difficulties and unintended consequences would be. On unintended consequences, I am mindful that, when you put something in primary legislation, your language, notwithstanding the points that we have discussed on dignity and respect, your language needs to be very clear and careful. I do not want us to get into a situation. What we have said very clearly is that we will not use the private sector in terms of one-to-one health assessments in disability benefits. I do not want us to get into a situation where putting something like that on the face of the bill means that we are then constrained from accepting supporting evidence, for example, in support of an application that comes from a private sector organisation, which it may do. It may come from any of the private healthcare providers that supports an individual's application. I certainly do not want us to be in a situation where we are concluding private sector in terms of, for example, IT contracts and so on. What I am looking at is devising a model such that it is clear that it will not be provided by the private sector because of the nature of that model. That is the way that the work that the expert group is undertaking and that we are working with some parts of our experience panels on is to devise what the assessment model will look like. I would then hope that that would be described in regulations on disability assistance. As was spoken about, a lot of people view the new social security system through the prism of the existing system. That would be one bold statement to put in the face of the bill. It is solely for the use of medical assessments that the private sector would be banned and that would be done entirely by the public sector, but I take on board the minister's point. On the issue of annual upbreeding, I do not know whether you would like to expand on where your officials see any difficulty in placing annual upbreeding on the face of the bill. No, as I have said to Ms Johnson, we are looking at that and a number of other areas that might be appropriate in the face of the bill or not. Will we turn to that when we get to stage 2 and we have the benefit of the committee's report? Thank you very much minister. There are no more questions. Thank you for answering very honestly and for the official way of being here. I close the meeting and we will go into private session.