 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1 to 079, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on delivering records social security investment in Scotland to tackle the cost of living crisis and inequality. I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press their questions to speak buttons. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville, cabinet secretary, to speak to and to move the motion around 13 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We have transformed social security provision in Scotland. We have established a radically different system based on dignity, fairness and respect, a system that is now an integral part of the social contract between the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland, and we have achieved that despite our fixed budgets and the limited powers of devolution. It is a safety net for the people of Scotland which we are making even stronger through record investment. All the while, the UK Government is steadily dismantling the welfare system across the UK and enforcing a sanctions regime that is punishing the most vulnerable in our society. In 2024-25, we are committing a record £6.3 billion for benefits expenditure. That is £1.1 billion more than the UK Government gives to the Scottish Government for Social Security, demonstrating our commitment to tackling poverty. That figure is forecast to rise by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. That is essential collective investment in a system from which we may all need help at any time in our lives. It is money going directly to people who need it most in the current cost of living crisis, and it is happening because of the deliberate budget choices that we have made in our national mission on equality, opportunity and community. This morning, I was at Ibrox primary school hearing from parents who are now automatically getting early learning and school-age best start grants without the need to apply through a separate application process, money that makes a difference immediately to their daily lives. Furthermore, we are delivering this investment against a backdrop of continued austerity at Westminster, catastrophic cuts to the Scotland block grant and a UK Government autumn statement that was the worst-case scenario for Scotland. Our Barnett funding, which is driven by UK spending choices, has fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since the 2022-23 budget was presented. Nor did the UK Government inflation-proof their capital budget, which has resulted in nearly a 10 per cent real terms cut fall in our capital funding over the medium term. However, as a part of our social contract here in Scotland and in recognition of the cost of living crisis, we are upgrading all Scottish benefits in line with inflation by 6.7 per cent in April. Benefit expenditure is our single biggest increase in the 24-25 budget, and it will support 1.2 million people in the year ahead. That is more than one in five people in Scotland getting one or more of our broad package of benefits, ranging from helping disabled people to live full and independent lives, to helping older people to heat their homes, and to helping low-income families with their living costs. When she was at Ibrox this morning, did she discuss the very low take-up of the two-year-old provision for early learning and childcare? We have discussed that before, but the latest figures show that there has been a reduction in the number of two-year-olds who are accessing that provision. What steps should we take together with the education team to make sure that that is increased? It is indeed something that we have spoken about in the past across the chamber, and I recognise Willie Rennie's continued interest in that area. Clearly, there has been work, as he and I have discussed in the past, to ensure that those who are eligible know about their eligibility and are encouraged to apply and to take benefit of that. I will be happy to provide further information or, through the education team, to provide them with that in due course. Although the Scottish Government benefits have been introduced and clients have transferred from the DWP, we will see the figure rise to 2 million children and adults taking part and being invested in through Social Security Scotland and our investment in social security. That is a huge achievement and one that we should all be proud of, regardless of our political standpoint. Next year alone, we will be investing £614 million in new benefits and payments that are only available here in Scotland and offer unparallel support that is not available elsewhere in the UK. Those seven Scotland-only benefits include our Scottish child payment, which, last month, Chris Burt of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation called a vindication of the powers and potential of this Parliament. Indeed, a vindication of this Parliament's unanimous decision in 2018 to enshrine in law the essential principle that social security is a basic human right. I agree absolutely here with Professor Stephen Sinclair of Glasgow Caledonian University, who said that it was extraordinary that social security across the UK is not founded upon that principle. In keeping with that principle, and thanks to the difficult but essential spending decisions made by this Government, from April the Scottish child payment will be paid at £26.70 a week for 329,000 children. It is estimated that 50,000 children will be lifted out of relative poverty in 2324, reducing child poverty levels by five percentage points. Modelling estimates that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative and absolute poverty this year as a result of this Government's policies, with poverty levels nine percentage points lower than they would have otherwise been. The Scottish child payment is just one part of our five-family payments package, which, from 1 April this year, could be worth over £10,000 by the time an eligible child turns six. That is compared to less than £2,000 for eligible families in England and Wales. Of course, that package includes the best start grant and best starts food, for which we are widening eligibility later this month. The five-family payment package is part of a £3 billion investment in policies next year, which tackle poverty and protect people from harm as much as possible during a cost-of-living crisis. That includes funding for childcare, providing free bus travel for over 2 million people and offering free school meals to all children primaries 1 to 5. Our disability payments are also delivering for the people of Scotland with the latest figures, showing that almost £400 million has been paid out for child disability payment to over 72,000 children. When delivering our commitment and reopening the independent living fund to new entrants, we are also further supporting disabled people who need it most, with £9 million extra in investment next year. However, disabled people have told us that they found the DWP system humiliating, dehumanising and bewilderingly complex, so we have listened and acted. Building our disability benefits in partnership with disabled people to be better, fairer and easier to apply for. Now in Scotland, disabled people no longer have to gather multiple pieces of evidence to detail every aspect of their disability, just to get the benefits that they are entitled to. They no longer have to suffer the dignity of having their disability tested by private-sector contractors. We have listened to families on carers as well. I thank the cabinet secretary. I know from my time working on committee that I agree with many of the points, but I just wondered what work has been undertaken by the Scottish Government to look at the fact, and it is a fact, that the number of complaints Social Security Scotland has received has increased by 174 per cent in just one year. As Miles Briggs should know, one of the reasons why the complaints have went up is because the actual number of cases has gone up exponentially because we took over child disability and adult disability payments. As a proportion of the number of cases, I am absolutely content with the fact, as has been demonstrated by the client's survey, that we still have a very, very high level of satisfaction rate. With the best will in the world to Mr Briggs, he is being slightly disingenuous not to also mark the fact that there has been a great increase in the number of cases as well. I will give way to Mike Marra. I appreciate the cabinet secretary giving way. What would she then say to the 50,000 people waiting more than three months for disability benefits, some of whom have been forced to go to food banks as a result? One of the very different aspects of the system, which I have just discussed, is the fact that Social Security Scotland will gather the supporting information. Previously, individuals were forced to do that under the DWP. They found that very, very humiliating and very, very difficult. The fact that Social Security Scotland will now do that for the client does mean that, as that supporting information is gathered, that it will take some time, but, of course, it will reassure anybody that it is eligible that their payment would be backdated to the point of application. We have also, as I said, listened to families and friends providing essential unpaid care for disabled people. That is one of the reasons why carers allowance supplement was introduced, our very first act when we took over social security powers, why we have invested £3.3 million in our young carers grant since 2019, and why we are also delivering extended entitlement for full-time students to the carers support payment as well. We do have to contrast that with the approach from the UK Government. We have progressive policies here within Scotland, but that is amid a worsening fog of Westminster austerity. We have a contract with the people of Scotland, but that contract does not exist when it comes to reserved benefits. We could do so much more, if we were not held back, by the fact, for example, that universal credit is failing to support the people that it should be there for, that it does not provide for essentials. Of course, the two-child limit alone is affecting 80,000 children in Scotland. No victim of sexual violence should ever have to disclose that to access welfare payments, but that is the society that we are living in under Westminster. The child poverty action group estimates that scrapping the cruel two-child limit and the abhorrent rape clause could lift 250,000 children, including 15,000 in Scotland, out of poverty. Sir Keir Starmer says that he wants to implement the rape clause more fairly. I struggle to comprehend what he means by that, Presiding Officer. His Labour colleagues in the chamber should also struggle to comprehend that and then do something about it, because with Labour saying that they will keep the cruel Tory policies, like the rape clause in the two-child limit, and that they will cut benefits but they will not cut bankers' bonuses, it is increasingly clear that Westminster values are not Scotland's values. While Westminster chooses to introduce the rape clause, the Scottish Government chose to deliver the baby box. While Westminster chose to hike tuition fees, the Scottish Government chose to keep tuition free. While Westminster chose to hike prescription charges, the Scottish Government chose to keep prescriptions free. While Westminster chose to scrap the universal credit uplift, the Scottish Government chose to deliver the Scottish child payment. That is delivering for the people of Scotland. Indeed, the Scottish Government has spent over a billion pounds mitigating the impacts of Westminster austerity over the last 13 years. We can and should be doing so much better. I am concerned yet again about what has been announced for work capability assessment changes by the UK Government, and I call on it to reverse that. I call on it that it is still not too late to look at the levels of universal credit and actually have a universal credit that delivers a level of support that provides for an essential guarantee. We have asked the UK Government to do so, and yet it is not forthcoming. We have built a new system here in Scotland with the powers at our disposal, but our hands remain tied by the restricted powers and by UK Government austerity. Even with the significant restrictions that they face, we have delivered a social security system built on the values of dignity, fairness and respect. We have introduced 14 Scottish Government benefits, seven of them, only available in Scotland, thanks to an investment of £12 billion in March 2023, delivering for the people of Scotland when they need it most. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move a motion in my name and can I also remind members that I am on at PIP myself? I am pleased to be taking part in this debate. It is always encouraging when we come to this chamber to debate a topic that falls under the remit of this place. I am sure that people of Scotland will be grateful that we are discussing a topic that actually reflects their priorities. In that spirit, I would like to begin on a point of agreement. We on these benches agree that social security plays a vital role in tackling poverty. A safety net can and should act to lift people out of poverty and help them to move towards a life that is full and thriving. Of course, the system should be absolutely treat everyone with dignity, fairness and respect. However, unfortunately the Deputy Presiding Officer, that is where the agreement must come to an end. We cannot in any way endorse the SNP passing on himself on the back in the ways that we see in this motion. It tells a story about a perfect system that works well to provide those in need when this could not be further from the truth. The past eight years of social security have been marked by error, delay and broken promises. The division of social security was meant to be a signal of an unprecedented opportunity to build a uniquely Scottish social security system that works to address unique issues that we face here in Scotland. It was a radical affirmation of the doctrine of localism and a chance for the Scottish Government to put its money where its mouth was and build a quality system that left behind the problems that they claim were embedded in DWP. Alas not to be, eight years on and we had what is essentially a carbon copy of Westminster model that seems to be costing significantly more and producing worse results. As we lay out in our amendment, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has reported that the Scottish Government will need to find an extra £1.3 billion in its budget for 2027 to pay for the demand-led benefits. To put that into perspective, that represents over double what we spent on the entire Scottish Prison Service last year. It is all very well-making big promises, but there has to be thought of how we are going to pay for them. We see ballooning costs at every level of the enterprise. Not only is the payment bill racking up, but we have also seen the operational cost of Social Security Scotland ever increasing as well. I will give way to the member for giving way. Will he recognise that we are spending more money than Westminster does, because our values are different? That includes the investment of nearly £1.5 billion in the Scottish child payment on our mitigation matters because the UK Government will not scrap the bedroom tax on our protection of people on a cost-of-living crisis when the UK Government has just walked away from their responsibilities this week. That is why it costs more money, Mr Balfour, because we invest in the people of Scotland. I am disappointed that the Scottish Conservatives are suggesting that we would want to cut that money in the future. With respect, the cabinet secretary got the long end of the stick. I am simply asking if you are going to have an extra £1.3 billion in 2027, what other budgets with the Scottish Government are going to be cut to pay for that? I understand that the agency will run up a £322 million operations bill over the next financial year, which is a 130 per cent increase from 2021. What on earth is going on in Dundee that is causing this metric rise in cost? In a second, you would think that if we are spending this much on operations, it would be running a bit smoother, or at least the hand-over would be running a little more on schedule. The entire roll-out of devolved benefits has been nothing but delay, delay, delay. I am grateful to Mr Balfour for giving way because he is advancing an entirely contradictory argument to Parliament today. On the one hand, he is telling Parliament that the Scottish Government has simply followed Westminster policies, and on the other hand, he is saying that we are incurring more costs in social security because we are spending more money, as the cabinet secretary has just said, in her intervention. Could Mr Balfour please bring some coherence to this argument, rather than the incoherence that the Conservatives bring to any debate on welfare in this society? I am always happy to try to help Mr Swinney. The situation is that we have higher and higher costs of administration of the same benefits, so we are spending more money having to do with admin compared to what happens in DWP. Most recently, the Government has put back on its estimate of how long it will take for it to move over from everyone from PIP and DLA to ADP. It was originally claimed that it would all be done by this summer, but now the estimate that it will be the end of 2025. That is an incredible thing that, even with the extended deadline, I suspect that it will struggle to meet it. Up to this point, Social Security Scotland has moved across under 5,000 people per month on average. To meet the new target, it will need to meet just over 10,000 people a month. I would be interested if the cabinet secretary could clarify in her closing whether she is confident that this deadline will be met. None of this is acceptable in any way. It is a total failure to deliver for the people of Scotland. We have got nothing that was promised from devolving Social Security. There is no radical Scottish way of doing things. There is no appetite from the Government to really put into work what they claim they want to do. They like to pretend that they are more kind and more cuddly than the big bad DWP, but the figures just do not bear this out. One third of Scottish child payment applications denied. Two thirds of job start payment applications denied. One in five funeral payment applications denied. One over third of ADP payment applications denied. They like to claim to be kind and friendly, but we are no such thing. The power of the mantra of dignity, fairness and respect, without doing anything meaningful to pursue those ideas. For example, the Scottish Government could change the 20m rule to 50m in the budget. That would be a radical departure from UK-wide policy, but we will not. All we have done is to commission a review on ADP that will not report until August 2025. I would appreciate perhaps now, or in her closing, that she could explain why it will take so long for the findings of this report to be published. The independent review will decide its own timelines, but I suggest that Mr Balfour is wanting to make any changes to eligibility. Therefore, it would be useful if the Scottish Conservatives came forward with cost-it budget proposals for how much that would cost, where the money would come from or otherwise. We are once again hearing empty rhetoric and no action. I think that the Prime Minister could just reflect in her closing that the August 2025 came from her press release, so that is the date that the Government has set. I am aware that the SNP will accuse me of being partisan or pointing out those failings, but rest assured that I am not speaking for myself. I have had a number, as many members have, briefing from the third sector organisations who have all made reference to the shortcomings of the Scottish Government. Age concern points out that we still do not have a minister for older people. We have lost the title of Minister for Disability—key things within the Scottish Government. A number of organisations such as the MS Society have been in touch with me this week and are calling for changes to the 20-metre rules. Others, such as Carers Scotland, are calling for changes to the way in which carers are supported in Scotland. Both requests demonstrate that the Scottish Government is not living up to rhetoric. Our amendment recognises the shortcomings, and I am proud to move it, and I hope that each member will vote for it at decision time. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. That is at least the third debate that we have had on social security in the past 12 months, and, as always, I will try to begin with a note of consensus. As in previous debates, I think that we would want to recognise the impact that social security has in supporting people across Scotland, and in particular the Scottish child payment, which we have supported since its introduction, and indeed those binding poverty targets that were agreed across the Parliament. Of course, we would also reflect the aspiration that we would hold for social security in Scotland should be one based on dignity, fairness and respect. Indeed, the changes that the last UK Labour Government made to the social contract, including social security across the UK, led to one million children and one million pensioners being lifted out of poverty. The principles of dignity, fairness and respect were very much at the heart of that. I do think that we have to recognise that a Government motion that comes before us and does not recognise the significant challenges within Social Security Scotland presents no detail on what might be done to fix the issues and, in many ways, ignores the lived experience of thousands of Scots facing the blunt end of poverty and really suggests that this is a Government that is more interested in self-praised and political posturing than actually debating solutions. Let me be clear that we on these benches will always call out the failings of the current Conservative Government, their crashing of and their failure to grow the economy, the failure to make work pay and bluntly their failure to tackle poverty and show compassion to the most vulnerable people in our society. They have failed working people and should be voted out of office as soon as possible, so that a Labour Government can go about the work of reform, making work pay and reforming social security to be a proper safety net for those who need it. I will take Ms Forbes. I wondered if the member could identify very specific welfare policies that Labour would reverse that the Tories have introduced. I am very grateful for Ms Forbes' intervention and I believe that she has participated in a number of these social security debates where we have had this interaction before. I am very clear that Labour wants to fundamentally reform the system, because universal credit does not work. It is not working for all parts of our United Kingdom and we need to ensure that we fundamentally reform the entire system so that it works and ensures that people have a sufficient safety net, as I have said. It is clear to me that we have opposed all of what the Tories have done and we are clear that it needs to be fundamentally reformed, but we have to do that in terms of the fiscal situation that we will inherit. I want to move on, if I can, and make some progress in terms of the challenges that I see that we are facing here in Scotland. The current Government are presiding over a system that has significant challenges and the Cabinet Secretary has again today repeated the words, dignity, fairness and respect, but just saying that doesn't make it so because we know that in many ways Social Security Scotland has failed to live up to people's expectations and their aspirations. I think we should reflect on waiting times last summer the Chief Executive of Social Security Scotland told the Social Justice and Social Security Committee that he expected the waiting times for child disability payments to fall below the 80-day mark on average by the end of the summer. The end of the summer came and we had statistical releases in September of last year and we are still stuck very stubbornly over 100 at 106 days. Again, at Evidence and Committee last week, we asked the questions of Social Security Scotland about when we could see a marked improvement in those waiting times, getting it below that 80-day mark. I'm not sure we got any clarity on when that would happen and indeed how that is going to happen. I think it would be good to hear from the Cabinet Secretary what part of keeping many families with vulnerable children in that waiting period for over three months is meeting the aspirations of dignity, fairness and respect because we know that people really are struggling as they wait for benefits. It's not just child disability payment, as was reported over the weekend and my colleague Michael Marra has already referred to. We're seeing reports of almost 50,000 Scots having to wait for three months for claims to be processed, some having waited longer than that and many who have terminal illness. We're also seeing that many have had to turn to food banks as a result and we see charities like Macmillan Cancer really signing the alarm and urging the Government to take very urgent action. I think that we need to absolutely reflect on that today because I don't think that people would recognise that picture as according with the aspiration of dignity, fairness and respect. Social Security Scotland has been in existence or has been developed over the last five years now and of course we have heard today about the many benefits that they do deliver and much of the work that is going on but I do think we are past the point where many of these delays can be blamed on teething problems. I think it is high time that the Government accepted that they have responsibility and must be held accountable for those significant challenges in the system. We know that Social Security alone cannot just solve the problem of poverty here in Scotland and across our UK. We know that over a million people in Scotland still live in poverty, nearly half of them in very deep poverty, according to reports from various third sector organisations. We know that in-work poverty is on the rise with over 10 per cent of workers locked in persistent low pay. The Scottish Government's own statistics show that lower and middle incomes have decreased over the latest three-year period and yet I must say that we sit in a week when we are about to debate a budget that has done nothing to stimulate economic growth and has taken actions such as cutting the housing budget by 27 per cent, which is clearly going to impact on those struggling on low incomes. I think it is against all of that backdrop that we have this motion today, which is rich in praise but perhaps lacking in the reality of the situation. If we want to tackle the cost of living crisis, inequality and poverty, what we need is a Government willing to take the decisions to make work pay and to tackle the structural causes behind poverty and inequality. We know that positive change can be delivered by a Labour Government willing to get to grips with the challenges that surround the system. The last Labour Government, as I have said already, understood that when it removes 2 million children and pensioners from poverty through its action. We can do the same again by making work pay to end-and-work poverty, growing the economy and fixing a broken social security system across the UK. That is the change that I believe the people of Scotland want, the change that the people of Scotland need and the change that Labour will deliver when the SNP has failed to do so. John Swinney will recall how we got here. This was as a result of the Smith commission. I know that John Swinney was not wholly satisfied with the process, but through those cross-party discussions there was significant movement. Initially at the start, I think, not many of the UK parties were in favour of the devolution of the significant parts of the social security budget, but by the end of the process we agreed that in total, combined with what was already being devolved, it was going to be a £3 billion budget. It was quite significant at the time because this was probably the first time that a new service was disentangled across the UK and devolved to the Scottish Government. Therefore, the challenges of delivering this are not to be underestimated, but that is why we at the time were committed to working in partnership across the Parliament to try to build a consensus about forging a new social security system in many ways, such as when the NHS was forged post the war that there was more of a collaboration at that time to build a consensus. I think that that is to be welcomed. However, I have been concerned slightly with this debate today, and I recognise that the child payment has significantly reduced the levels of child poverty. There is no doubt about that. I do not think that Jeremy Balfour is right when he says that the Scottish Government has just replicated what Westminster is doing more inefficiently. I do not think that that is correct, but what I think has been missing from this discussion, while it is right to reflect on those reducing child poverty levels, is that we have not really dealt with the root causes of why we have such high levels of child poverty. I am not saying that this is holding the door of the Scottish Government or holding the door of the Scottish Government to resolve, but I would have expected some kind of discussion today from the Social Security Secretary to just set out what the ambitions were to try to reduce those levels. Paul O'Kane, in his contribution, could I just finish this point just briefly? Paul O'Kane was quite right to talk about in-work poverty and the need to boost the economy. He was right with regard to that, and I would have hoped that the Government would perhaps say that this high level of the number of children that are accessing this payment is not good enough, and we need to try and drive down those numbers, because then that would be a reflection of more people being in work, not just in work, but well-paid work. John Swinney. I am grateful to Mr Rennie for giving me a very serious point here. The Government's child poverty action plan takes into account other things other than child payment, because some of us who say everything in the Government at the time made sure that that was the case, that there was an emphasis on employability to tackle exactly the issue that Mr Rennie raises. However, there is a very illustrative picture down at the bottom end of the garden lobby today, which goes through the history of the development of child poverty. I am afraid that the genesis of the current crisis that we face is the austerity that commenced after 2010, and it is crippling our society. That is why we have to have an honest discussion about the financial choices, which in the budget that will be discussed tomorrow, about trying to tackle that poverty, because the UK Government has made the situation that we face in Scotland a great deal worse as a consequence of the prevalence of the austerity agenda. We are all learning from the impact of that period and the financial decisions that were made, and how that affects future decisions. I think that that is right, and I have certainly learned lessons from that period. Some of them were choices that we would rather not have made because of the existing financial position at the time. Nevertheless, I think that we all need to reflect on how we make sure that we learn the lessons from that period, because I, too, have been down to be briefed by the population health people from Glasgow. I understand the point that they are making, but I think that we need to have a greater emphasis from the Government on the economic aspects and the economic opportunity. There should be an impatience, not necessarily to the celebration of reducing child poverty, but an impatience to deal with the root causes rather than just dealing with the symptoms of it, which is what the child payment is effectively doing. I want to deal with, in the short time that I have left, in a couple of technical transitional issues. One has already been referred to, which is the delays for ADP. I understand what the Social Security Secretary is saying, that there is as a result of gathering the information on behalf of the client that it has taken longer, but that is having a big financial impact on those individuals who are having to wait longer. Just to reflect, the target was eight to ten weeks. It is now at 16.6 weeks. It is a long time. I cannot believe that PIP is doing it in nine weeks. We should aspire to be much better than that, and I hope that there is an impatience on that front, too, to try to drive down the waiting times for it, because it is having a big impact. The second point is on the transition. I have a constituent who was on PIP and had a change of circumstances—her health deteriorated. She applied to have that change of circumstance. That triggered the transfer to the adult disability payment. Her payments have subsequently been backdated to the point of transition, not to the point of change of circumstance. That resulted in her losing out £1,000. For her, it is an enormous sum of money. We must have a means to be able to backdate the funds to the point that our circumstances changed. That is when she needed more money, not the technical transition from PIP to ADP. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary is able to look at that and resolve that problem, because I do not want more of my constituents to be facing a loss of £1,000. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. I would advise members that there is a bit of time in hand at this point for interventions, should members wish. I call Collette Stevenson to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I am glad that the Scottish Government is choosing to spend more on social security. Scotland has built a new social security system, rooted in compassion, with dignity, fairness and respect at its heart, which has resulted in great changes, even with limited powers. Stakeholders such as Save the Children welcome the Scottish Government's positive choices in tackling poverty. It is baffling that Labour and the Tories cannot even acknowledge that investment is going up. All parties should recognise that devolved social security is actively lifting children out of poverty, and we should continue in this vein. The Scottish Government is supporting people through the Tory-made cost of living crisis, with on-going investment of around £3 billion per year. Policies include 1140 hours of funded early learning and childcare, expanded free school meals and the council tax reduction scheme. On top of that, despite continued Westminster austerity, the Scottish Government has chosen to spend more on social security, delivering 14 benefits, seven of which are unique to Scotland. Those benefits will continue tackling inequality and supporting the national mission to tackle child poverty. A crucial part of that is the game-changing Scottish child payment, something that Inclusion Scotland recognises as the single policy intervention that has created the largest fall in child poverty anywhere in Europe for at least 40 years. That payment of £25 per eligible child per week is a lifeline for so many families, and it will keep up with inflation. This year alone, it is lifting 50,000 children in Scotland out of poverty, and it will benefit a further 250,000 children. Other initiatives include the best start grants and the best start foods, helping families in the face of inflated food prices. Estimates suggest that policies like this are lifting 90,000 children out of poverty this year, and I am glad that those bold initiatives will continue. However, Scottish efforts to tackle the scourge of child poverty are needlessly undermined by the UK Government, with cruel policies such as the two child cap that Labour will keep and the £20 universal credit cut. That is a social and financial impact, and reversing those policies could lift 30,000 children in Scotland out of poverty and allow the Scottish Government to reallocate the resources that it spends every year mitigating the worst aspects of Westminster policies, including the bedroom tax. I want to touch on aspects of Labour's amendment now, particularly about waiting times for disability payments. It is important to note that successful applicants will have their payments backdated. Figures for Social Security Scotland and the DWP cannot be compared like for like. In Scotland, people get help to apply, including with medical information collected on their behalf, thus reducing the stress of the application process compared to that under the DWP. She makes not a reasonable point, but does she accept the financial impact that that is having on people who are having to wait so much longer to get the benefits? Is that not a factor for her? I thank the member for that intervention. I will come on to that in the backdated amendment, and I know that you alluded to that earlier in your speech. Having gone to a visit in Dundee to visit Social Security Scotland, it is trying to mitigate the waiting times. As far as I know, in the last count, it has gone down again by eight days, so it is doing progressive work to try and tackle that as well. When the social justice and social security committee has touched on their visited Social Security Scotland, we learned about the work under way to speed up all the applications. I am glad that that would not come at the cost of delivering a Scottish social security system with fairness, dignity and respect at its heart. We were told that part of the process in time is due to Social Security Scotland checking that people are not under reporting their conditions, thereby ensuring that they get the full payment that they are entitled to. Also, some claimants have very complex needs, which requires discussion with multiple stakeholders, including hospital consultants, GPs and mental health practitioners. There are also issues with the use of the Sky Gateway by external agencies, and that is definitely something worth exploring further. Some of those points tie in with the remarks about caseload from Jeremy Balfour. I hope that there is a consensus here where we can all accept the way Social Security Scotland is trying to do things in a much fairer way. In terms of finance, given disabled people and their families that are at greater risk of poverty than non-disabled people, Inclusion Scotland welcomes the additional £1.1 billion on Social Security Scotland, and we should all recognise that the Scottish Government's approach to the application process for adult disability payment has resulted in a higher number of claimants receiving support and supporting the investment that is required for that. To conclude, although Westminster rips the UK welfare state to shreds, the SNP and government is investing in Scotland's social contracts. However, Scottish policies are being stymied by the Tories, and I call on the UK Government to introduce an essential guarantee to ensure people on UK benefits have enough to cover their basic costs like food and fuel. With its powers, the Scottish Government will deliver record investment in social security next year and continue to deliver unique benefits that are lifting children out of poverty. Overall, estimates show that Scottish Government policy is lifting 90,000 children out of poverty this year alone, and it is right that we increase investment in social security to tackle poverty. Surely, colleagues and other parties will vote for this tonight. I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I will be supporting the amendment in the name of Jeremy Balfour this afternoon. It is right that the Scottish Social Security system be used to support those suffering due to the cost of living crisis. With the significant social security powers that Scotland now has available to it, it would be expected, and we would expect nothing less from the Scottish Government, just as we would expect nothing less from the United Kingdom Government, who have already invested additional £94 million to support householders through the difficult economic climate. The support was significant and has helped to avoid a recession in 2023, according to estimates from the OBR. There have also been significant increases to universal credit, which means that the test of that is that over 700,000 Scots will benefit from that. That is in addition to the increase in the state pension of more than £900 per year and the increase in the national minimum wage to nearly 10 per cent, and the national insurance cuts were £750 to nearly £3 million working Scots. On the face of it, there are some statements within the motion today that the Government is mentioning that are laudable and speaks about the importance of using Scotland's social security powers to support those who need and are in need of assistance. Unfortunately, however, the motion also contains too many self-congratulatory statements, and that will mean that we will not be able to support it today. As our amendment sets out, the Scottish Government's record on this issue is not one that the ministers found patting themselves on the back for. Indeed, the Government's record so far has been, and we have heard already in discussion in the debate, that there are many delays and many missed opportunities. We know that the Government has missed its original deadline for transferring benefits to social security Scotland. We also know that, in the total, it has taken a decade from us to go from the act of 2016 to ensuring that full control was taken forward. While that is good news for benefits such as the child benefit payment and the adult disability payment, which has finally been introduced, we are still seeing problems on how those benefits are being processed. Nearly a third of applications for the Scottish child benefit have been denied, and Social Security Scotland has admitted that processing times for the adult disability payment are still too long and are causing concern for those individuals. Recent data showed that, in 2023, the number of applications that were processed within three months decreased from 26 per cent in January to just 15 per cent in July. The number of applications that were processed in less than two months has now fallen to just three per cent. On top of that, the number of complaints that we have heard today has increased by 170 per cent in the space of one year. Yes, the cabinet secretary has talked about managing the situation and coping with the increase, but the reality is that people are waiting longer and more people are making complaints about the process. The SNP Government has often liked to criticise the Department of Work and Pensions, and I have heard that on numerous occasions in the chamber over the years and the UK Government's approach to dealing with benefits. However, with Scottish Social Security, the SNP is now learning the hard facts about how it tackles that and how it works and what it looks like. I am happy to take an intervention. Jackie Dunbar Thank you to the member for taking an intervention. You were saying that the Scottish Government has been critical of the way that the UK Government's DWP handles things. Are you critical of it, or do you think that what it has been doing in the last few years has been acceptable? We need to speak through the chair. I thank Jackie Dunbar for her intervention. There is no doubt that mistakes have been made on all sides, but the basic necessity of ensuring that individuals receive support and have been receiving support is what is required. As I have already said, Scotland is taking longer and having more complaints, so your record on the process is not blameless. The UK Government has made mistakes and I have admitted them many times in the past. I do not necessarily always agree with what it has achieved, but at the end of the day, the safety net is there to secure and support individuals in the process. It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that the individuals and caseloads are increasing. We have already seen that, despite not being able to manage all the current situations and the powers that the SNP Government has. Now we are getting into the realms of pie-in-the-sky plans for more benefits. The Scottish Government recently indicated and put forward its independence paper, Social Security, in an independent Scotland, which makes the usual collection of undeliverable promises for the Scottish public are becoming very tired of listening to you. Those include suggestions that an independent Scotland could consider introducing the universal basic income. Of course, those details have been propped about in the past, but the Government has not given us the full estimation of how that would be funded and how many billions it would cost. It is very surprising that it does not go into the clarity when we see that in the past. Instead of wasting yet more time and more money setting out hypothetical plans for a hypothetical social security system in Scotland, the Government should be putting efforts into using the powers that it has today to support the individuals who need support on the ground today. In conclusion, those benches want to see a distinctly Scottish approach to social security, an approach that gives full advantage of the powers that this Parliament has underpinned and the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom Government has provided. For the current Scottish Government, however, it is disappointing. To see that it wants a distinctly Scottish approach, yes, we all want to see a distinctly Scottish approach, which overpromises, but it also underdelivers. The whole idea of capitalising on the Parliament's powers cannot be swept under the carpet. In our amendment, we have set out the alternative vision to see how what can be delivered for the social security system that the Scottish Parliament expects and that members would report. I call for them to do so. Today, the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to reaffirm the kind of social security system that we all wish to see. It is an opportunity to recognise, on a cross-party basis, the huge progress that has been made by Scotland's Government and Scotland's Parliament to embed a social security system that is based on dignity, fairness and respect, to set out how we can build further on our fledgling social security system and to have a frank conversation as to the barriers that are telling us to go further, as we wish to. I am not surprised that the Conservative approach to the debate is simply to seek to airbrush out of the public record the very real progress that has been made by the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland to help those who are most in need in Scotland. I am also not surprised that they seem to question whether it is money well spent by drawing attention to the costs of social security in Scotland. Let me see clearly to the Conservatives. The £6.3 billion in social security expenditure in 2024-25 and the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast that this investment will be £1.1 billion beyond what we get from the UK Government through the social security block grant is an investment well spent, a welcome investment to support the most vulnerable people in our society, and I am proud of it. An investment that, for instance, due to the near half a billion pounds annual investment in the Scottish child payment, means that child poverty levels in Scotland are significantly lower in Scotland than in Conservative England and indeed Labour Wales. Child poverty levels in Scotland are nine points lower than it would otherwise be. Of course, it is still too high, but 90,000 children are less in poverty because of the Scottish Government's actions. Let me agree with the Conservatives that I am also concerned at the cost. The cost of having to pick up the pieces within Scottish society of a Westminster Government prioritising attacks on the poor and disabled and tax cuts and for the rich overdoing the right thing. The Scottish Government is absolutely right to reference UK Government block grant cuts and to continue UK Government austerity. That directly undermines the positive progress that Scotland's Parliament has all signed up to over a number of years. We must never take that progress for granted on child poverty, on carers allowance, on disability assistance, on the bedroom tax and so much more. Importantly, the Scottish Government motion also calls on the UK Government to drop planned work capability assessment changes, which has all the hallmarks of another Westminster attack on our most vulnerable, potentially directly attacking some of the sick and ill people in society's shame on them. And for a UK Government to immediately scrap the two-child cap, it would lift 80,000 children out of poverty. It would out of that cap and 15 out of poverty here in Scotland and, of course, the heinous rape clause. Signing up to the terms of the Scottish Government motion, essentially acknowledging the extra progress that is made by Social Security Scotland and our Parliament in supporting many of our most vulnerable citizens, that £6.3 billion investment and the real progress made in tackling child poverty, as well as pointing at the clear cruelties and deficiencies of the current UK Conservative Government's approach to welfare, should be plain sailing for any Labour Party worthy of that name. How sad that we see the UK Labour Party representatives here in the Scottish Parliament again fail to offer any commitment to scrapping the repugnant Tory rape clause and to seek to raise any concerns over work capability assessments. As we also looked to the Parliament passing the 24-25 Scottish budget in the days ahead, that has also drawn attention this afternoon to the Labour Party actions seeking to remove all reference to Westminster austerity on Scotland and any reference to cuts to Scotland's block grant from Westminster. Presiding Officer, this is a diminished Labour Party, a Labour Party in name only. Let's have no crocodile tears from the Labour Party over the tough choices that this Scottish Government will make in the days ahead because of the said same UK cuts. We need to be champions for the most vulnerable people in Scotland, not apologists for Westminster. I want to talk about the what next of Social Security in Scotland. I acknowledge those what next depend heavily on the extent of UK austerity and the budget constraints on this place, but there are a few that I want to suggest. I think that we need to explore if there is a need for a taper when people move into work or lose universal credit but were previously receiving the Scottish child payment. Should that be removed in a phased way? Is there a cliff edge as families try to get back into work? Are there unintended consequences around that? I think that Mr Rennie made some points in relation to how we support making work paid within Scotland. Perhaps the Scottish child payment is a role to play going forward in relation to getting people into well-paid work when using a taper. It might be one way of doing that. I would like to know what the cabinet secretary and the Scottish government has thought about in relation to that going forward in the future. I also believe that we need to do more to support the energy costs for terminate ill individuals, their families and carers. I know that MND Scotland gave us a briefing ahead of this afternoon's debate. One of the things that I have called for is for targeted support from the Scottish Government for the energy costs of those in that situation. I acknowledge that my SNP colleague at Westminster Marion Fellows seeks to bring in legislation for a social tariff for those who are disabled and those with a thermal illness at a UK level. However, if we can do more in Scotland, even though it is the UK's responsibility, let us do so, despite those financial constraints. I will support the Scottish Government's motion this afternoon of rejecting the amendment for a discredited Conservative party and for a diminished Labour party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Doris. I now call Foisio Tradgy to be followed by Jackie Dunbar. Thank you. Presiding Officer, a quarter of families are now living in poverty in Scotland. Urgent action is required across a range of areas to protect families from the immediate impact of the cost of living crisis and austerity. Parents need to have consistent and sufficient income to plan ahead and make decisions for their children. Parental employability funds exist to assist in the left people out of poverty. These have been stripped of more than 20 million in a year by the SNP Government. We welcome the news that the Scottish Government has finally listened to the Scottish Labour and provided resources to wipe school meals debt. However, this policy is limited to a year, and without sustained investment, this debt will begin to build up again almost immediately. Adverse childhood experiences have been found to have a lifelong impact on mental health. One of these is a childhood spent below the poverty line. According to Public Health Scotland, children born into poverty are more likely to experience mental health problems. Prevention for adverse childhood experiences such as poverty are essential for fostering long-term mental well-being for young people. Public Health Scotland advised that the majority of the mental health problem will develop before the age of 24, with 50 per cent of mental health difficulties established by the age of 14. The SNP is set to miss its own statutory child poverty target with 23 per cent of children in relative poverty in 2021-22. Children born into improvised areas will eventually face significant hurdles in their life. The longer children live below the poverty line, the bigger impact it has on their overall health, development and well-being. If the Scottish Government fails to meet its own 20-30 child poverty targets, it faces an even bigger strain on the NHS, mental health services and social security as a result. I want to progress. The Scottish child payment is a welcome investment in lifting children out of the poverty, but there needs to be a more targeted approach to addressing the consequences of a childhood below the poverty line. The Glasgow Centre for Population Health has an exhibition this week in the Parliament, and many in the chamber will have already visited their stand. Their Centre's recent report outlines the cost of living crisis and austerity are affecting mortality rates across Scotland. In 2019, it was reported that a boy born in Mirhouse had a life expectancy at the time of 13 years, less than a boy born in the neighbouring Cramond. This is still the reality for many children who grow up in poverty. Across the nation, healthy life expectancy is decreasing, but it is decidedly lower for those who are from the most deprived areas across Scotland. I want to progress. The report also emphasised trends of increasing death rates among poorer communities across the country, which are made worse by the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. These inequalities can often be linked back to our childhood below the poverty line. Yet we are still seeing budgets for tackling child poverty and social justice reduced. Budget was down 3 million this year alone, and 68.8 million compared for two years ago. Finally, the Scottish Government must make its 2030 child poverty targets but also address other inequalities that people in Scotland are facing. Social security costs are sparing. We are seeing the multimillion pounds increase to running the cost to support the delivery of devolved benefits. Yet we are still seeing alarmingly high waiting times for child disability payments, and there is no great improvement when looking at waiting times for adult disability payment. Around half of all people living in poverty are living in a household with at least one disabled member. The Scottish Government must do so much more to patch up the broken system. I am pleased to be taking part in today's debate. I will be even more pleased to see the day when the cost of living crisis and inequality are no longer an issue here in Scotland. We are still trying to mitigate it. I am delighted to hear that the Scottish Government will invest in our record £6.3 billion in social security in the year ahead. That money is an investment in the folk of Scotland in our social contract with them and in the safety net that should be there to catch folks when times get tough, and right now times are tough. During this cost of living crisis, every single penny that we can put towards helping folk get by is worth it. I am particularly pleased that, when folk are interacting with Social Security Scotland, they are being treated with dignity, fairness and respect. That approach is a key part of why 90 per cent of those contact in Social Security Scotland said that their experience with staff was good or very good, and 93 per cent felt that they were being treated with kindness. That approach stands up in short contrast to what folk have experienced with the UK Government's Department for Work and Pensions, especially since the UK Government first started to implement its welfare reforms. The idea that social security needed to be reformed was not, in itself, a bad idea, but it was not simply reformed. Instead, billions of pounds of support were snatched from the very hands of folk who needed it most right across the UK. Looking back, I remember the devastation of those who had been sanctioned and just did not know where to turn to for help. I remember the fear of those who did not know how they would cope with the impending bedroom tax. I remember the trepidation of those being asked to attend a work assessment, including those with lifelong or terminal conditions. I remember the implementation of the benefit cap, the child cap and the rape clause. I remember food balance becoming commonplace. For a lot of folk, the early 2010s is when their cost of living crisis started. That is when they started to struggle to afford food and electricity. That is when they could no longer afford to socialise, play sports or enjoy certain hobbies or take part in a wide range of activities that give joy and meaning to life because it costs money. The past two years, I have seen most folk cut back on those things or simply just go without. I am worried about how many folk are now struggling with the utility bills, their housing costs and their food bills, because those are the price rises that hit folk hardest. However, my even greater worry is for those who have been struggling for a decade or so now. The pressures that they are facing are not the cost of living. Heating, shelter and food are basic essentials. It is the cost of merely surviving that is the challenge that they now face. They are facing the situation because the UK Government did not see the value of social security and the safety net that it is supposed to offer in time of need. Today, I am welcoming what the Scottish Government's value and that social security Scotland are starting to repair that safety net. The Parliament has the power to make some differences that comes out of the independence referendum and the Smith commission that followed. If we look at the communities that were hardest hit by the Tory welfare cuts, those were the communities where support for Scottish independence was the highest. In my Aberdeen-Donsai constituency, that was certainly the case across middlefield, Maastricht, Cummins Park, Norfield and Hithery Fold. I know that we will have seen it in other communities right across this nation. It is fair to say that during that campaign, many of the folk who were struggling to get by saw the prospect of independence as a light at the end of the tunnel. Those of us in the yes campaign promised that things could be better with independence, with control over our own affairs. The independence campaign gave a lot of folk hope, and we saw how powerful that hope could be with the turnout that we saw on 18 September 2014. In the aftermath of the referendum, through the Smith commission and the further devolution that followed, this Parliament now has some power over welfare. What has followed has been the establishment of the Social Security Scotland. We are building a social security system that, even at this early stage, is offering support from the cradle to the grave, with the best start grants and best start foods, the game change and Scottish child payments, all there for the start of life, while the funeral support payments are supporting families who are grieving at the loss of a loved one at the end of life. All of this has helped to bring about a situation where 90,000 fewer children growing up in poverty than might otherwise be. That is investing in Scotland's future. That is what we can do with just some control over our own affairs. There is more to do, but we are on the right path, and continued record investment in social security is going to help to make that fairer and more equal Scotland that we all want to see a reality. I would like to put on record my thanks to all those organisations that have engaged with me over recent weeks or sent in briefings about today's debate. The work that those organisations and their staff and volunteers do is a vital part of our system of social protection, something on which we all rely. I will not manage to address all of the asks in those briefings today, but I undertake to keep them in mind in forthcoming discussions about budgets and service deliveries. For decades now, for the whole of my lifetime, both the idea and the practice of social security have come under cynical and sustained attack. In the UK, they have been undermined by the vicious drip feed of media myth, made subject to humiliating and often impossible hurdles and reduced to levels of near-often actual destitution. Too often, even those defending social security have been apologetic and half-hearted. They cannot, it seems, fully withstand those tabloid lies, the constant bombardment of stereotypes, the perpetuation of that deep and damaging stigma that generations now bear. But social security is not an unfortunate side hustle, a grubby little job to be got out of the way before we begin our important business. It is our important business. It is at the heart of what a responsible Government does and what a responsible Parliament cares about. Why is that? First, it is a question of justice. The degree of inequality in our society goes far, far beyond anything that might be explained by natural variations of fortune, aspiration, hard work or talent. It represents deliberate dispossession and the on-going transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. It is a reversed Robin Hood, obscenely celebrated as though the sheriff of Nottingham were the hero and made Marian a woke activist, getting in the way of economic growth. Salaries for the richest have been rising in what Professor Danny Dawling has described as a spiral of excess, involving not only bankers and hedge fund managers but those such as university vice-chancellors who once saw their work as a matter of public benefit and the common good. Faced with such injustice, we should be unashamed in calling for fair redistribution for the poor to recover what has been stolen from them. Social security is one way that we can do a small part of that essential rebalancing—a small act of justice and solidarity. Second, it is a question of rights. Among the four freedoms set out by President Roosevelt at the foundations of a post-war world was freedom from want. The social and economic rights that expressed that freedom are integral to the universal declaration of human rights, whose 75th anniversary we celebrated just a couple of months ago. It was a pure political project on the part of capitalist Governments to pretend that those rights were less important than their civil and political counterpart freedoms. It is part of our role to dismantle that project and to restore a dignified and healthy life to the heart of our human rights endeavours. Third, it is a question of sustainability, of our shared future and what that is going to look like. For inequality, as the spirit level authors demonstrate, damages our whole society, and the traumatic effects of poverty harm not only individuals and families, but communities and social structures across time and place. There are huge tasks ahead as we work for a fair, peaceful, unpolluted and thriving Scotland, and we each need the resources and resilience to play our part. As this motion reflects this afternoon, we can and I think should be proud of what we have done here in Scotland, of our record investment in social security, of our increased benefits, our respectful approach, our mitigation of Westminster cruelties, but most of all of the Scottish child payment, which Danny Dawling has described as the single policy intervention that has created the largest fall in child poverty anywhere in Europe for at least 40 years, as others have already highlighted. However, we must do more. We must look at all of our policies, our budget decisions and our proposed legislation from the perspective of a child in poverty, using the tools that we have and developing those that we need, participation, transparency and accountability, accurate data and monitored targets—they all take work, meticulous work, humility and a willingness to challenge and be challenged. This afternoon's debate is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to that work and that willingness, and I thank Bob Doris especially for the suggestions that he made earlier in his contribution, some clear proposals for us to consider. We must also continue to call out Westminster's cruel and vindictive policies, its direct social security decisions, the inhuman to child limit and purient rape clause, but also its failures in reserved areas, especially energy, trade and immigration, because social security that excludes children seeking sanctuary from the worst horrors of the world is neither social nor secure. We must challenge other vested interests who are hiding their exploitation of the poor behind a cloak of invented inevitability. The reality of the cost of living crisis is that it represents the cost of greed. The new, taken, not earned report by Global Justice Now and others shows how huge corporations and their billionaire controllers set exorbitant prices using their effect of monopoly power not only to gouge consumers but to strangle the smaller firms upon which our communities depend. Social security, at its best, is just that. The essential oil that keeps our society, our communities and families working as they should, safe and secure, freed from want to come together in growing our shared future. We are privileged here to help to make that a reality. I welcome the Scottish Government's plans to invest £6.3 billion in benefits and payments in 2024-25, supporting more than 1.2 million people. The Scottish Government has rightly taken a different path with the UK Government on social security. The contrast between both Governments could not be greater. Here in Scotland, we are creating a social security system that is humane and compassionate, one that recognises decent levels of support and assistance and is essential to helping our citizens to thrive. An investment that secures a fairer Scotland that wants to leave no one behind. That is in stark contrast to the Westminster system that has a punitive approach at its heart. One that promotes stigma and drives down living standards to the lowest ever level since records began. One with a sanctuary regime that stigmatises and denies basic subsistence. Ignoring the evidence of experts such as Dr David Webster or Glasgow University who believe that the workhouse aside, there has never been a social security programme that is delivered as much pain for so little gain. Yet the system has been supported by the two main Westminster parties, Labour and the Tories. Alongside the use of private sector medical assessments, that has caused so much misery and harm. A humane system needs a different approach and the Scottish Government has taken that path with our social security system, delivering 14 benefits, seven of which are only available in Scotland, including the Scottish child payment, tackling poverty and reducing inequality and, most importantly, an overall system that treats people with dignity, fairness and respect. This record investment demonstrates the Scottish Government's choices in particularly challenging times. With increased food, energy and general living costs, we are trying to reach those who need it most. This is delivering real and meaningful change through Social Security Scotland. In the London School of Economics recent piece titled What Scotland's policies can teach Westminster about fighting poverty, academics from the University of York wrote, The devolution of some social security powers has meant that Scotland has been able to forge a different path, including potentially transformative policy reforms, which means that families with children living north of the border face a more hopeful future than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. When discussing the Scottish child payment, the state, Oxford University's Danny Dorling has predicted that increased and extended payments will transform Scotland from being one of the most unequal places to live in Scotland. Europe, sorry, to being one of the most equal. In short, it is a big deal. They are right that it is a big deal, and we will do more. However, we are hindered in that endeavour, though, by the need to mitigate Westminster welfare cuts. £90 million has been made available for discretionary housing payments. That includes payments to fully mitigate the bedroom tax, helping over 92,000 households in Scotland to sustain their tenancies. Over 50 per cent of Scottish households in receipt of universal credit housing element have rents to exceed the local housing allowance set by Westminster, so discretionary housing payments are necessary in many cases to help to cover the rent. The benefit cap has also been mitigated as fully as possible to support over 2,700 families with over 9,400 children. The benefit cap denies children the support they need, yet the Tories persevere with it, and shamefully Labour are silent. Silent on this cap that plunges families into poverty, but all chatty about the cap on bankers' bonuses. Labour is happy to see the cap on bankers' bonuses lifted, but it will not commit to lifting the cap on benefits or scrapping the two-child policy, and it is a porrant rape clause—disgusting. We are also writing wrongs that the Tories and Labour refuse to fix. One example is the raw deal that was given by both parties within Government to unpaid carers. Since 1976, when carers allowance was initially introduced as Inglid carer allowance, success of UK Government refused to align the amount paid with other earning replacement benefits. It has taken this SNP Government to change that with a carers allowance supplement, and we are also making further improvements in contrast to the neglect from Westminster. The recent proposed changes to work capability assessments show that the neglect will continue, and that all we are estimated that hundreds of thousands could be impacted and potentially lose over £4,000 per year. Unfortunately, that shows that the cruel UK Government austerity measures are continuing at a pace. We need to end this Westminster approach that lacks humanity and compassion, and only real change will come with independence and full control over social security. We can remove the two-child limit and scrap the rape clause. We can remove the benefit cap and the bedroom tax. We can end the benefits action and resume. We can end the young parent penalty. We can provide more support for those starting work, such as upfront child care costs and travel. The Scottish Government will continue to invest in social security, providing help when it needs and investing in our citizens. With independence, we will do it even more. I welcome this debate as an opportunity to scrutinise the work of Social Security Scotland and, indeed, the devolution of benefits in Scotland. Of course, as others have said, we face significant problems in Scotland with poverty, deprivation, de-industrialisation, poor growth and poor productivity. We are not in any way going to be able to lay out a strategy to deal with that in this debate today. However, I do believe that we can use it as an opportunity to scrutinise what has happened in recent years and how social security is working in Scotland. The cabinet secretary and others are, of course, correct to make the point about mitigation and that it is decisions that this Parliament has made to mitigate some of the inhumane policy decisions of the Westminster Government that are part of the reason that the social security benefits in Scotland are under strain and that the budget is so high. However, the role of this Parliament is to ensure that the new significant social security benefits and budgets are properly spent and that support is provided to those most in need. It is fair to say that all parties in this chamber have the expectation that Social Security Scotland will be significantly better than the Department of Work and Pensions. As a member of the Social Security Committee, I would like to highlight some of the flaws that I believe are in the design of the Scottish social security system, which is becoming increasingly apparent. Despite over five years of the devolved social security system that was meant to be fairer than its UK predecessor, in work poverty and deprivation levels in Scotland, it remains stubbornly high, with many of the problems that claimants highlight that are very similar to those experienced when the Department of Work and Pensions was dealing with similar benefits. Unfortunately, the cabinet secretary claimed to have transformed the social security system in Scotland, and I presume that she means that the experience of claimants is simply not born out in reality. To use an example from last week, for example, two constituents contacted my office who were receiving daily communications by email saying that their payments would be stopped. Both cases were resolved when we intervened. However, I believe that this is an example of an over-reliance on automatic computer-generated systems sending out emails causing distress. On both occasions, the social security emails were indicating that information had not been provided, and therefore benefits were being stopped. However, it later was accepted that, in fact, the information had been safely received. There are also serious concerns about the over-budget and behind schedule social security IT system, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond to that in her conclusions. If we look at some of the most recent statistics available, it appears that processing times have worsened for several services compared to previous years. I note what the convener of the committee said in relation to one specific benefit, but, for example—it may be that she has information that I have not been provided with yet—when looking at the data for adult disability payments, which is, of course, a substantial benefit that takes up a substantial part of the budget, we can see that the average number of days waiting for an application to be processed increased. Between March 2023 and October 2023, the average waiting time for adult disability payment to be processed was 104 working days over the same period for the year before the application processing time was 37 days. It would be helpful if there is more up-to-date information and if there is progress, if that could be provided. However, according to most recent data that is available for child disability payments, the average number of days for an application to be processed has also increased. Between January 2023 and September 2023, an application took 105 working days, which was longer than the previous timeframe of January. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I touched on that with the member, Willie Rennie, as well. When we visited Social Security Scotland and Dundee as part of the committee, there were external factors, which I alluded to in my speech. Notwithstanding that, there are obviously significant factors in terms of varying degrees of disabilities and activities that need to be dealt with. However, the times that the days have gone down, you asked me about that. Social Security Scotland, when it came and gave evidence last week at the committee, stated that it is clearly going down and that it is working progress as well. I am grateful to that, because, as you can see, time is progressing. Similar information was available in terms of funeral support payments. However, I will look at what the convener is saying, because that is information that has been provided formally as yet and issues where I was not on that particular committee visit. The turndown times for some benefits, as she will be aware, are either the same or, at times, worse than the Department of Work and Pension levels. That has been referred to by other members in the debate. We fully appreciate the financial pressures on the Scottish Government. As I have said, most spend is on adult disability payment and the pressures. We also very strongly support new benefits that have been introduced, such as the Scottish child payment. That is worthy of specific mention, because the research suggests that that has been a specifically successful measure. As a Parliament, I think that we have to say very clearly that we have high expectations of Social Security Scotland. It is not helpful for the Scottish Government to be coming forward with self-congratulatory motions. I think that we need to have a balanced debate, and some very significant issues are being raised, which are appropriate to raise in the chamber. I hope that, going forward, there will be a constructive debate as to how we ensure that what claimants receive in Scotland is at least as good as south of the border, and, as most of us would hope, significantly better. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms Clark. We now come to the final speaker in the open debate. Mr Kidd, up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am very happy to contribute to today's debate. I am proud to highlight the work of Social Security Scotland, which I believe has been hugely positive. It is work that is making a real difference to people's lives. I am disappointed that, in the table amendments, there is no recognition of the huge dedication and effort of all those involved in the delivery of Scotland's social security. The Government in motion quite rightly recognises that it plays a vital role in tackling poverty and reducing economic and social inequalities. That work stands in stark contrast to the callous right-wing policies of the Tory UK Government and the UK's opposition's meek desire to ape them. A decade of austerity, a Brexit that Scotland invoked for disastrous economic decisions that list Trussies' infamous mini-budget have hit Scottish households and deepened inequality. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently highlighted, more than one in five people in the UK, 22 per cent, were in poverty in 2021-22. It is a total of 14.4 million people. As Joseph Rowntree stated, it has been almost 20 years and six Prime Ministers since the last prolonged period of falling poverty. The Scottish Government is doing everything that it can with limited powers to put money in people's pockets as the Tories take it away and Labour promises more of the same. The UN special rapport tour on extreme poverty goes as far as to say that the UK Government's welfare system is grossly insufficient after a decade of austerity and may potentially be in violation of international law. However, what is Westminster's response to that shocking statement? It is more cuts and more austerity as Rishi Sunak considers plans to slash sickness benefits to the tune of £4 billion. Plans that will see as many as 56,500 people in Scotland alone lose out on existing health benefits worth £390 per month under the proposed changes. Should we be proud of the fact that, in response to being told that mothers are being forced to water down baby formula, the Prime Minister, after being pressed, said that, of course, he was sad to hear that someone is in that situation. Sad. He and his party should be ashamed that, in 2024, families cannot afford to feed their children. Can he be proud of the fact that, rather than showing compassion, rather than focusing on making people's lives better, the Prime Minister is happily gambling with them instead? While people struggle to scrape together another tenor for food, he is happy to wager £1,000 with Piers Morgan on whether or not his unlawful and inhumane Rwanda deportation policy will ever get off the ground. Bringing the ex-home Secretary, Suella Braverman's self-proclaimed dream man obsession into reality. Meanwhile, Keir Starmer even praised Margaret Thatcher in a recent article. All this amidst a string of u-turns and broken promises from the shadow cabinet most recently by confirming no intention to reinstate the cap on bankers' bonuses. We should be proud of a social security system that puts dignity, fairness and respect at its heart. Tackling poverty and protecting people from harm is one of the three critical and interdependent missions for the Scottish Government alongside a focus on the economy and strengthening public services. Remember that it is only with the full economic and fiscal powers of an independent nation that ministers can use all the levers other Governments have to tackle inequalities. The building of a new Scotland paper, Social Security and Independence Scotland, shows how a progressive Scottish Government in full powers could build a human rights-based approach treating people with dignity, fairness and respect, and build a system that is integral part of wellbeing, economy and deliver financial security for all through a minimum income guarantee, and see small independent European nations comparably Scotland have lower inequality and poverty rates than the UK. If they can do it, why not Scotland? Until then, the SNP Government will use the limited powers of devolution to build a social security system with dignity, fairness and respect at its core, and this is something that we should be supportive of, something that we should be proud of. We now move to the closing speeches. I call first Michael Manna for around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to close on behalf of Scottish Labour today. It's fair to say that the debate has been a bit of a mixed bag. Certainly much of the Cabinet Secretary's opening contribution and the content of the motion looks like it's been copy and pasted from the 12th of September debate, much of which was itself copy and pasted from our debate on 4 September. I note that we have another debate on social security on 20 February, a slightly different sign, where the Cabinet will lay out how to build a full social security system in Scotland in the context of immediate £14 billion cut to their revenue spending in this country. We look forward to that. Today, many members have rightly set out the benefits of an evolving constitutional settlement in Scotland that has provided social security powers and, crucially, real and often very difficult decisions for this Parliament and for the Government about how to use those powers and how we might provide the resources to pay for them. It falls to all of us to support a progressive welfare system that recognises human dignity and the support of our families and our communities that they live in to continually make the case for an effective and inefficient social security Scotland. The public support for that institution for those powers and how they are used are absolutely crucial, but it depends on the very effective operation of that system. That's the job of Parliament in this regard, to ensure that we ask those questions and put a challenge to the Government to make sure that that system performs properly. It's on that basis that we will continue to command the full public support that we can for the system. Members are correct to question the operation of the system as it stands. We've had some useful exchanges on that today, but we should not be in a position, I don't believe, where waiting times are longer for disability payments in Scotland than in the rest of the UK when people are facing destitution. That is a real and immediate impact. Willie Rennie was right to discuss, I believe, the issue of back-dating payments, but for many the need is immediate. It's not just the case of whether you can get the money in a few months' time and the cabinet secretary was highlighting some of those issues and continued to have those conversations, but for many they cannot wait weeks, months or even days. Collette Stevenson highlighted her committee visit to Social Security Scotland in God's own city of Dundee and, crucially, the recognition from senior staff there that they must do better and they are striving to do better to reduce those waiting times. I think that there can be consensus that more has to be done in that area and we want to see those performances improve. However, there are very considerable challenges in the system and we do have significantly growing numbers of people with long-term sickness. Paul O'Kane was right to highlight the numbers of 50,000 people in that regard and also the calls from Macmillan in cancer care to try and look to people who are in terminal illness situations to make sure that we can have proper respect and bring them the dignity that the system and the cabinet secretary talks of that she wants to see in the system which she presides over. There has been some discussion in the debate about what's next. I think that Bob Doris was talking about some of the next challenges that system has faced and I would like to highlight one in particular and certainly the Office of National Statistics has recently highlighted an additional 200,000 people across the UK who are at the long-term sickness. That's a real significant strategic challenge for the entire UK's social security system but it is for Scotland as well a very significant challenge. The causes of that are far from clear. There are certainly issues in the post-Covid environment, a burden of legacy disease, a real failure to restart the NHS. We know that those figures are partly the consequence of the complete failure to restart our NHS appropriately, the failure of the Government's recovery plan, one-in-six on waiting lists, disastrous A&E performance and an elective surgery at a standstill for many people across Scotland. Those are the kind of issues if we don't solve them then we will continue to increase the burden on our social security system. That can be seen certainly. We'll take the next question. Just on that point, we keep on hearing of the Labour that have told us that they are the change that we need. Paula Keane was asked the question about what welfare policies Labour would reverse if they were in power in the UK. He mentioned, obviously, about fiscal rules. Now that's the real important point. The fiscal rules are obviously something that Labour can change if they are in power, it's a political choice and I think that's a really important point to mention when Mary McNair obviously talked about mitigation policies but to start a Labour Government could reverse the two child cap, rape clause, reverse capital cuts and raise local housing allowance. Now would you support me in this request to go in for an incoming government? The minister rightly points to the issue of fiscal discipline within the UK. We've seen and we regularly discuss the complete lack of fiscal discipline from Conservative colleagues which has left us in a disastrous situation with rising household prices, mortgage payments going through the roof and the real challenges that are pushing people into poverty in this country. So Labour will never play fast and loose through the public finances and we will examine the situation that is inherited if we have the opportunity to serve in a UK Parliament after a general election and it's on those bases that those decisions will be taken, no thank you sir, and rightly so because these are, it's a contingent issue, we have to have an economy that works, we have to have effective stewardship of our public finances to make sure we can do that. And actually it brings me to the point of the effective stewardship of public finances in Scotland. We are looking at a 1.9 billion pound gap in our budget and clearly and we know that 1.3 billion of that is above and beyond the block grant allocations on social security decisions taken by the government but these issues will be exacerbated by these sickness and long-term sickness figures and all of that Presiding Officer leads if we listen to the Office of Budget Responsibility to a 1.5 down tick in GDP figures and that itself would also be disastrous. We're going to deliver the resources that we all want to deliver for social security and the many other parts of the public services that we require. I have to say that I reflect very briefly, I can't notice, I'm just coming to a conclusion that thank you Mr Dost, very briefly on my colleagues behind me's contribution, Faisal Chowry and Katie Clark, detailing some of the issues that they have been receiving in terms of representation from their constituents and it is the divergence, I'm afraid, between the representations that we receive as MSPs in our inboxes and the content of the motion that means that we shall not be able to support it today. There are significant challenges that the government has to face up to and the sooner we can get into that and more of a constructive debate on it the better. Thank you Mr Marra. I now call on Miles Briggs for around seven minutes, Mr Briggs. We've heard a lot of what I think we'll be hearing over the Westminster election of SNP rhetoric, but I would like to start by thanking the organisations that have provided very helpful briefings for today's debate. We all want to see a social security system that can help people to realise their potential and provide that safety net when we need it. As the cabinet secretary stated at the beginning, Parliament has worked cross-party to support the delivery of new payments, which ministers have highlighted, for example, the Scottish child payment, which is making a difference. We should collectively welcome that, but Katie Clark was right in her contribution. Today's debate should be about scrutinising the Scottish Government. It would have been more honest for the cabinet secretary and SNP and Green members to acknowledge the many and increasing challenges facing social security Scotland, as well as the future sustainability questions that are coming more and more over new and existing benefits. I have stated in previous debates that I cannot believe that ministers and MSPs from SNP and Green parties have not received complaints from constituents regarding social security Scotland, processing times and arrangements. I do not think that it helps any of us and certainly not our constituents to try to dismiss or sweep those concerns under the carpet. Despite SNP and Green Government claiming all is well, it is clear that the establishment and transition today of social security powers to Scotland has not been easy or straightforward, as the Scottish ministers suggested it would be. The fact that DWP and UK ministers have been able to provide contingencies and extensions is welcome. It shows the UK working together, but those will be in place until 2026 to help to support the delivery of what was meant to already be in place. Promises made by SNP ministers around the establishment capabilities of social security Scotland have clearly just not been realised. We are in the middle of a Scottish budget process. Although ministers today highlight a forecasted £1.1 billion in more welfare spending, what is not clear, and something that we should all cross-parties in this chamber take seriously, is where future sustainability rain in that spend will come, especially as we see the development in relation to new demand-led payments. The Parliament's social justice and social security committee have consistently and on a cross-party basis raised those concerns over future financial sustainability of our welfare budgets in this Scottish Parliament. I think that is something that we have not heard much from ministers today. I thank Miles Briggs for taking the intervention. In my course, I mentioned the idea of tapering of the Scottish child payment to support families and parents back into work and not have a cliff edge. That would be a financial benefit to the UK Government to get people off of universal credit and the like. Do you think that the UK Government could help to support finance some of that to Scotland? Is there hope for the UK Government to fund Scotland more, tell us to do these innovative things that would save the UK, exchequer, cash? I definitely think that that is something that should be looked at. I think that there are a number of issues that we are touched upon in this debate, which collectively both Governments can look to take forward. Willie Rennie made a characteristically measured contribution to the debate, but I think that what we have lacked today is that vision for our social security system. On that point, 150,000 of our fellow Scots who have never been able to get into work—that is 6.8 per cent of our working-age population—needed additional support to be able to achieve that. One of the key questions that I want to know is where cuts to employability schemes in Scotland over recent years have also hampered that happening. Carers allowance changes are also an area that was touched upon and payments towards six months, moving towards six months for someone who has faced the bereavement, I think, is something that there is cross-party consensus on. Also, the negative impact that we have seen in changes to the winter heating payment in rural households, for example. Maggie Chapman, who represents the north-east of Scotland, did not want to mention the fact that, under the SNP Green Government, her constituents are facing an unfair and cruel cut to the winter support that they receive. That is something that I think that the Scottish Government should re-look at, because many people in rural Scotland are losing out from the SNP Green Government. Bob Doris highlighted Mary Currie Scotland's briefing and the call for more targeted support for those who are terminally ill and their families and carers. That is something that I hope in future debates that we can also look at. I agree with what has been said by Mary Currie, that we need to see more support. Last week, I chaired a round table with Kidneycare UK and I was pleased to hear from the Minister for Paltiff Care work, which is progressing to deliver a national home dialysis energy reimbursement scheme. That is something that is really welcome. Although Kidney patients are an important group of patients, there is a small number as well. We need to see, and I hope that we will see, across-party support for more support for patients running NHS medical equipment in their homes. That is something that the former First Minister said would also take priority. We have not seen that. I have quite a lot to say, so I do not think that I can get some time back. I thank the member for taking an intervention. It has been alluded to in one of the member's speeches about the work capability assessment and the reform that is under way by the UK Government. Does the member think that it is acceptable that, at a time of high poverty, while the Scottish Government is investing social security at over £1 billion above the Westminster funding, the UK Government is looking to slash health benefits further to the tune of £4 billion? I do not think that that is the case. Obviously, the decisions that the UK Government has taken to increase Barnett formula funding has provided the Scottish Government with the resources to take different decisions and also to make that investment. However, I was coming on to this very point with regard to UK Government support, because we have heard a lot from SNP and greenback benches on that. Let us just look at the facts. This year alone, the UK Government benefits will see an increase of an average of £470 for people in Scotland. That will benefit over £700,000 of our fellow Scots. The UK Government has provided £94 billion in support for households navigating the cost of living crisis. No one necessarily mentioned the real heart of that, which was the global pandemic and the illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is why it is so welcome that, just last week, the UK Government also announced the third instalment of its cost of living payment to be paid later this month to qualifying households, benefiting more than 680,000 people across Scotland, totaling a £900 payment to eligible households. The UK Government has also announced the national insurance cut, worth £754 in everyone in over £2.8 million working Scots pockets. The UK Government has also raised the minimum wage from £11.44—I do not think that I have got any more flexibility—increasing that by over £2,000 for most households. The state pension, let us not forget as well, will increase by an average of more than £900 this year, benefiting over £1 million pensioners in Scotland. Taken as a whole, both Governments can and should be working together to deliver the welfare system that we want to see. Certainly, as I have outlined, the UK Government has made many welcome changes to support people during this cost of living crisis. To conclude, the future financial sustainability of our welfare system in Scotland is something that we across parties need to take seriously in this Parliament. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are responsible for that. It is important that, in future debates, we look towards how that will be fully funded. That is why I am happy to support the amendment in my colleague Jeremy Balfour's name. I thank you very much, Mr Briggs. I now call on Shirley-Anne Salamillville to conclude the debate for a very generous nine minutes. The right to social security is of central importance in guaranteeing human dignity for all persons when they are faced with circumstances that deprive them of their capacity to fully realise their human rights. Those are not my words—they come from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights—and they underline exactly why we, as a Parliament, should be very proud of the difference in social security in Scotland and that we recognise in statute that social security is a human right. There have been a number of contributions that I will try to get through today, but there have been some cases in which a variety of members have offered up as areas where Social Security Scotland and, indeed, Social Security in Scotland is not performing as they should be. I would, in case I miss anyone out at this point, say that, including the cases that Katie Clark and Willie Rennie raised, if people would wish to provide me with detail so that we can learn lessons where things do need to get better, then I am more than happy if the constituent is agreeable for me to learn those lessons. I am looking to them. Does she accept that we need to backdate beyond the transfer from PIP to ADP and back to the point of the change of circumstance? Does she accept that in principle that that should happen? As I said, I am more than happy to look into that and what is preventing that from happening and to see whether there is something that we can be done in general about shortening that timeframe anyway, but I am happy, as I said, to look into it. The offer is a genuine one. I would say that that also shows the difference between how we are running social security in Scotland and the DWP, because, despite the criticisms to the contrary, I am willing to learn lessons and recognise that things do need to improve. We will always ensure that we are continuously looking to improve. However, I have to say that the introduction speech by Jeremy Balfour that somehow suggested that there has been no changes when compared to the DWP, but it also criticised us for spending £1.1 billion more on social security because of policy changes that we have made. I think that, as Mr Swinney has said, it was confused. I would point out to the chamber what that £1.1 billion additional investment is all about. It is about new benefits unique to Scotland—£614 million, including the Scottish child payment—£457 million. It is about other social security payments of £110 million, including the Scottish welfare fund and discretionary housing payments—many of course are there to mitigate against the worst excesses of Westminster. The spend above the block grant adjustments for social security is £368 million, of which £300 million is on adult disability payment. That is the difference that we are making. The policy changes because social security is an investment in the people of Scotland. To those, particularly in the Conservative benches, who are asking how we can make and ensure the sustainability of social security, can I give them two suggestions? If the UK Government actually got its act together and ensured that we did not have to mitigate against their worst excesses, that would save us hundreds of millions of pounds each year. If the UK Government raised universal credit or introduced an essential guarantee—we are still waiting for our reply on that one, but I do not hold out hope—that would ensure that this Government had more money to invest and make other changes in social security, many of which people have asked for today, but none have suggested where that money would come from. I would also say that, when it comes to how people are feeling about social security and the delivery of that, I can point to the number of complaints about ADP in the first half of 23-24, which were 0.67 per cent. I would say that we still have lessons to learn on that, but clearly that is a marked difference to the DWP. When we look at the client survey results, we have 97 per cent of people who use the service getting their payments on time, 93 per cent saying that they were treated with kindness. I would compare that to the DWP, but they do not publish figures on that. I wonder why. When it comes to some of the contributions from Labour Party members today, and Paul O'Kane's introductory remarks put that into focus right at the start. We talked about social security overall needing reform, but the intervention from my colleague Kate Forbes brought no suggestions about what they were going to do. I think that, to be fair to Mr O'Kane, we got that they would have a review. While I do not need a review to know that the rape clause is immoral, I do not need a review to know that the universal credit is not fit for purpose and not at a rate that allows people to survive, never mind thrive. Unless anyone from Scottish Labour—I hear Michael Marra from a standing to position—wants to say that Labour will bring in an essential guarantee that Labour will scrap the rape clause, we have just, unfortunately, heard more empty rhetoric from the Labour Party today. On an issue where we need to do better, that is around processing times. There has been some discussion around terminal illness. For absolute clarity, I say to the chamber that the processing times for those under the special rules for terminal illness is three days, and that is a very important reassurance that I hope everyone will be able to give out to those at suffering some of the most difficult circumstances they and their families will ever do. In saying that, though, I know that people are waiting too long in many cases, and that is why I am pleased to see that there have been improvements—more to do, but more improvements. The ladies published figures covering the period to October 2023, so that the average processing time for adult disability payment reduced by seven working days in social security Scotland process 18 per cent more adult disability payment applications than in the previous quarter. More child disability payment applications processed also in the last quarter than in any other. Yes, absolutely, Presiding Officer, more to do. That is very important again to once again recognise the critical difference between social security Scotland and the DWP is that in Scotland we will collate the supporting information for an individual. That time, that stress, lay on the claimant's shoulders before, and that will not happen in a system here. Many people also talked about case transfer, and I can confirm that we are on target to complete all-case transfer for care and disability benefits in 2025. Many members mentioned the work capability assessment, and they were right to do so, because I am very concerned about the changes to universal credit announced in the UK autumn budget statement. Last week, I met disabled people's organisations to hear more about their concerns for planned changes to work capability assessment, which I call on the UK Government to reverse. Those will lead to disabled people and those with long-term health conditions losing out financially and with it bringing the stress that the benefits sanctions regime gives to anyone who has to take part in it. That does absolutely need to be something that the Conservatives roll back on and Labour needs to find a backbone on and say that they would have nothing to do with if they got into power. I was at Ibrox primary school this morning, and the discussion with parents was a very good one. We talked about those who were already receiving the Scottish child payment, and we learned once more what we need to do to ensure that we encourage those who are eligible to apply. I would ask everyone, regardless of their discussions about social security today, to work with their constituents to ensure that they know about the benefits that are available to them. We can, I hope, have consensus about the importance of bringing people together and ensuring that they get the benefits that they are entitled to, but we have to look at our differences as well. Social Security Scotland is now delivering 14 benefits, seven unique to Scotland. With that, I would compare an essential guarantee where we can't even get a reply from the UK Government, a rape clause where, with either party, there will be no change, a two-child cap where there will be no change, a sanctions regime where there will be no change. I could go on with the areas where there will be no change, but there is one area where there will be change on that work capability assessment, driving more disabled people into sanctions regimes, all that worry, all that stress. That is again where the parties are united on the change that they will bring forward. Once again, this debate has shown that the values that we have in Scotland, the values of this Government, are about dignity, fairness and respect, and we are delivering that through 14 benefits, seven unique to Scotland. The values of Westminster, the values of the Conservatives and the values of Labour are not Scotland's values, they are not this Government's values, and that is why we will continue to deliver for the people of Scotland with pride to ensure that they get what is their human right, their social security entitlements. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on delivering record social security investment in Scotland to tackle the cost of living crisis and inequality. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of a business motion 12085, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out their business programme. I invite the minister to move the motion. No member is asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 12085 be agreed. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The next item of business is consideration of a business motion 12086, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a stage 2 extension. Any member wishing to speak against the motion, press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on the minister to move the motion. No member is asked to speak against the motion. The question is therefore that motion 12086 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 12087, on committee meeting times. I ask the minister on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the minister for parliamentary business to move such a motion. I am happy to do so. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Jeremy Balfour is agreed to, then the amendment in the name of Paula Kane will fall. The first question is that amendment 12079.2 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, which seeks to amend motion 12079 in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on delivering record social security investment in Scotland to tackle the cost of living crisis and inequality be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting platform.