 I apologise to the two members that I couldn't call. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 14791 in the name of Hugh Henry on women and social security. As the Presiding Officer said, the next item of business is a debate on motion number 14791 in the name of Hugh Henry on women and social security. I now call on Clare Adamson to speak to him and move the motion in the name of Hugh Henry on behalf of the Welfare Reform Committee. Adamson, you have 13 minutes so thereby please. I welcome the opportunity to speak to you today in order to share the conclusions and recommendations of the Welfare Reform Committee's recent inquiry on women and social security. The committee reported that the cumulative impact of the reforms to the social security system has had a damaging and disproportionate impact on women, in particular disabled women, lone parents, carers, refugee women and those who are experiencing domestic abuse. The cumulative effect not only negatively impacts on the women's lives but on that of their families and the people they care for. While the committee welcomed the reports that there are more women in work than ever before, it cannot escape the fact that £26 billion worth of cuts have been made to the benefits and tax credits, pay and pensions since 2010. According to the House of Commons library, 85 per cent of that £26 billion has been taken from women's incomes. The committee heard that one of the reasons for the disproportionate impact is an existing systemic inequality for women. That inequality has been aggravated by the recent reforms to the social security system. I am sure that the whole chamber is aware of the challenges that women face finding accessible and good quality childcare. We also heard about women being forced into lower-level, pink-coloured jobs, women earning less in the workplace and the overlimes on women as primary carers. That can impact people over a lifetime. It means, for instance, that women have fewer financial assets and less access to occupational pensions than men. Women are twice as likely to give up paid work in order to care and 92 per cent of lone parents are women. Overall, it is clear to see why women are twice as dependent on the social security system than men. I thank the committee members, the clerking team and all those who contributed to the report during our deliberations. The committee published the report on women in social security in July of this year, based on the written and oral evidence received from the committee, and it made a number of conclusions and recommendations. I thank the committee member, Christine McKelvin, in particular, for suggesting that the committee take this approach in our deliberations. I may not be able to cover each and all of the recommendations, but what I want to do is give a flavour of our main findings, with a caveat that our Conservative member of the committee noted their dissent from certain conclusions and recommendations, and that is detailed in the report. We look at some of the main changes if I can start with universal credit. One of the biggest reforms, which is still in the roll-out phase, is universal credit. The principles behind it can be seen as laudable, making it easier for everyone to gain and sustain employment should be a good thing. However, we as a committee had evidence that the financial arrangements for second earners who are most likely to be women may discourage them from entering the labour market at all. That is why we called on the UK Government to rethink the earnings disregard for second earners to make work more financially worthwhile for the second earners, who are mainly women. The committee welcomed the proposals to allow Scotland discretion over its administrative elements. We would like to see the Scottish Government use the powers to make a move away from monthly payments and single household payments to allow women to budget more effectively and preserve their financial autonomy within the household. The committee would also like to see a return of direct housing payments direct to the landlord. Being able to choose what is best for you and your family and decrease the risk of renter years will improve women's security and the ability to provide for their children. When we turn to employment and job-seeking support, working women will need a new social security system, which will overcome the barriers that prevent or restrict their labour market participation. For it to be its most effective, we believe that job-seeking support should be integrated across health, housing and social care and tailored to meet the needs of particular groups. The committee would like the Scottish Government to think about how it can incentivise employer to provide true, flexible working arrangements for women with caring responsibilities and reduce the dependence on short-term and zero-hours contracts. The committee recognised the work that is done in Scotland so far in increasing child provision. However, more could be done and efforts to improve the availability, quality and flexibility of childcare should allow women to return to work if that is their wish, and should continue to be a top priority. We also examined the impact on lone parents. We heard that the system creates pressures, especially on lone parents, to apply for or take up work that does not fit in with their caring responsibilities. To avoid that pressure, we want the DWP to make job centres more welcoming and appropriately train staff and provide experts with specialist knowledge for particular circumstances. Especially since the announcement of the emergency budget earlier this year that, from April 2017, parents claiming universal credit, including lone parents, will be expected to prepare for work from when their youngest child turns two and to look for work when their youngest child turns three. We need to make sure that existing safeguards for lone parents are working to avoid single mothers being threatened or receiving sanctions inappropriately, which brings me to the S-word and one of the areas of great concern sanctions. The committee has always taken a strong view on the impact of sanctions, and although the necessity of some form of conditionality is welcomed and understood by the committee, we believe that the current operation of the so-called sanctions regime can be punishing and counterproductive. The committee will continue to demand at the DWP a review on the application of its policies at a local level to ensure that sanctions are only ever a last resort. We have also joined our voice with the UK Parliament's Work and Pension Committee to call on the UK Government to conduct a comprehensive independent review on sanctions to identify whether they are actually having their desired effect at all, which should be to encourage people into work. In addition, we want to see the UK Government publish a tracking study to follow the true cost of being sanctioned and how that impacts not just on the immediate finances of the claimant but on the knock-on effect on local authority services and the sub-sector and the NHS. The committee also took evidence on the impact on women experiencing domestic violence. Talking about the true cost of reform, we need to consider the knock-on impact on all particular groups. Women experiencing domestic and financial abuse have suffered a decrease in their financial autonomy, increasing the risk of remaining or returning to an abuser. We found that that can be a particular issue for European economic area jobseekers, where their right to reside is based on their partner's status. The UK Government should consider what further security and protection it can offer women who wish to leave abusive partners. We want to see the DWP promoting its domestic violent easement flexibilities to remove the job-seeking pressures on women exiting abusive relationships. The committee also examined the impact on refugee women. The danger of a lack of financial autonomy is also something particularly experienced by refugee women. We heard that women in the household may not receive a national insurance number for several weeks, and in some occasions do not receive their national insurance number without significant advocacy work on behalf of the third sector or of an elected member. That can leave them destitute with no rights to claim benefits in their own name and potentially no bank account or financial independence. We have highlighted those issues to the UK Government in order for it to do more to speed up the process and give those women the right to their own financial autonomy. This week, we heard of some of the impacts of the sanctions regime and work capability assessments on people with mental health issues. At the time of writing the report, we had looked at the issue and heard about the disproportionate impact of the reforms on women. That, understandably, has a serious impact on people with mental health issues going through the process. NHS Gator Glasgow and Clyde cited evidence that, compared to men, women in their area have significantly poorer mental health profiles. They argued that loss of income and stigma through sanctioning or changes in benefits are very large risk factors in triggering mental health problems and suicide. That is why the committee was shocked when witnesses told us that the recent tightening of eligibility criteria in employment support allowance discriminates against women with mental health issues. The new screening system places additional requirements on women to prove the area at a higher risk of self-harm or suicide than men undergoing the same assessment. Not only is the impact of the cuts disproportionately felt by women, women have to go to disproportionate lengths in which to prove the negative impact on their mental health. The committee has written to the UK minister to try to understand why they have put in place such potentially discriminatory policies. We also looked at the impact on carers and children of the social security reforms. Of course, those negative impacts are not only felt by the women involved, but it would be keenly felt by the people from whom they care. We know that 74 per cent of those in receipt of carers allowance are women. Those women make an essential contribution to our society in those caring roles. We heard about the significant challenges that many carers face when they take on a caring role. They often see a sharp rise in household expenditure, accompanied by a drop in income, as innings disregard is so low that it can act as a disincentive to work. That is why the committee supports the Scottish Government proposal to bring carers allowance into line with jobseekers allowance. The committee also believes that there should be a stronger link between the social security system and the Scottish Government's approach to child poverty and to getting it right for every child. We encourage the Scottish Government to consider those links when planning the delivery of devolved benefits. For the future of social security in Scotland, now the potential for Scotland to use the proposed evolved powers over benefits is an interesting and challenging proposal. We as a committee welcome the devolution of further social security powers to Scotland. That can be an opportunity to rectify some of the systematic inequalities that women face to reverse some of that disproportionate impact. When taking our opportunity to design the new system, we want us to see the Scottish Government embedding gender and human rights analysis throughout the whole further devolution process. We need to examine our services and better support those in need, and we need to get that right for the women of Scotland. In order to do that, we want to see a dedicated action plan from the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of social security cuts on women. This plan should seek stock of employability services, social care and childcare provision. I am out of time, so I look forward to hearing contributions this afternoon from the chamber. Many thanks. We are tight for time today. I now call on Margaret Burgess at nine minutes, please minister. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Achieving real meaningful gender equality is right at the heart of this Government's core objectives. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that equality of opportunity is embedded in everything that we do. First, I thank the welfare reform committee and those who gave evidence to inform the findings of the report. It is a comprehensive report and it makes for interesting if disturbing reading. I recollect that there were a number of thoughtful submissions made through the call for evidence that gave some quite compelling insights into the issues that women are facing through the benefits regime. The cabinet secretary has already published the Government's response to the recommendations of the report. There is much that we are already taking forward in the issues that are identified, but unfortunately there is also much that demonstrates why so many of us wanted full devolution of social security. Rest assured, this Government will continue to make the case to the UK Government that its austerity regime is punishing some of our most vulnerable people. The Chancellor's U-turn on tax credits shows that the Scottish Government was right to keep up the continued and constant pressure right up till the last minute, highlighting the damage that would be inflicted by changing the tax credit system and calling on George Osborne to reverse his proposal. As the changes would have a devastating impact on the incomes of thousands of low-paid families, which is something that the Scottish Government consistently said, so while I welcome the capitulation of the Chancellor on tax credits, the Tory's ideological driven austerity agenda is still in course, because make no mistake, the cuts are still coming. There will still be £12 billion worth of cuts to the welfare budget over the next five years, around £1 million of which will be land and low-income families and individuals in Scotland. However, I want to touch on some of the specific recommendations made in the report and some of the action that the Scottish Government is taking to address them. Our analysts estimate that the cumulative impact of welfare cuts in Scotland is some £6 billion. This year alone, there will be cuts of just under £2.5 billion here in Scotland, and that demonstrates the scale of the challenge that we face as the Women and Social Security report made clear. On disability and the impact of welfare cuts in disabled women, we absolutely agree with the committee on the importance of maintaining the existing budget. That is why the fiscal framework is so important in the negotiations between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. I would hope, as John Swinney said earlier, that, across the chamber, we can unite to ensure that the transfer of powers comes with the full budget. We have invested nearly £300 million over three years in welfare mitigation funding from fully mitigating the bedroom tax to providing funding for food banks. We have taken a range of actions to shelter people from the worst of the Tory's damaging welfare policies. We are already using the powers that we have to improve outcomes, and we now, as Clare Adamson said, have an opportunity through the new powers to make progress in providing a quality of service that is more joined up and also delivers a better service for women. The committee, like the Scottish Government, has heard a wealth of evidence in issues to do with disability assessment. I can say to the Parliament that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that a Scottish social security system will have at its heart a set of principles and values. That will include ensuring that people are treated with respect and dignity when applying for, being assessed for and receiving disability-related benefits. We will also ensure that people are provided with the relevant information so that they are aware of how the system will work for them and how long decisions will take. We will ensure that it is a fair and efficient system, but importantly, a person-centred system, and that is how people will regain their trust in social security. The Scottish Government has already announced measures that will help women who are often carers. Earlier in the autumn, we announced that we will abolish the UK Government 84-day rule, which means that families who face higher living costs due to their child's illness or disability will not be penalised when their child goes into hospital or has necessary medical treatment. We have also said, as Claire Adamson alluded to, that carers will be placed at the heart of the devolved carers allowance and will begin to increase the rate of the allowance to that of jobseekers allowance. There were a number of recommendations in the committee's report made in relation to universal credit flexibilities. We welcome some of the flexibilities given through the Scotland Bill and have already stated our commitment to using those flexibilities to allow households to request that we pay social landlords direct for rent payments and to move away from monthly payments. I know that many organisations working with vulnerable women also want to see a split payment option. We are listening carefully to those points and will monitor how that could work in practice when universal credit is ruled out fully. The report touched on the issue of women in low-paid work and employment. Progress is being made across a range of areas. The female employment rate in Scotland is 71.1 per cent, above the UK rate of 69 per cent. According to Skills Development Scotland, figures on the number of female modern apprentices has increased from 27 per cent in 2008-9 to 40 per cent in 2014-15. Female learners also outnumber males at college when measured in headcount and full-time equivalent. More encouraging still, the number of women studying full-time courses has increased 15 per cent since 2006-07. The gender pay gap is lower in Scotland than the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is still much more that can be done. As part of the delivery of our economic strategy, we have established a fair work convention and launched the Scottish business pledge. Those will all help to make a meaningful difference to ensuring appropriate representation of all women in the workplace. The report recognised the difficulties women face in going back to work and in caring responsibilities, and the Scottish Government is committed to supporting and helping to deliver family-friendly, flexible working in Scotland. One step that the Scottish Government is taking is to increase the provision of childcare to improve outcomes for children and support more women back into work. By the end of next Parliament, we will double the hours from 16 to 30, and we will also look at having flexible hours for childcare. We acknowledge the committee's recommendation that the employment programme support should include a tailored English language support for refugees. That is important, particularly for women. There is a recognition that women lose out because they do not have children who can learn language at school. Men are maybe out working in various differentials that we have with the national insurance number, making it more difficult for women. We have taken that on board with our current refugee programme and the package that local authorities are building up for the refugees that we are taking in from the Syrian crisis to ensure that English language is very much at the heart of that, and that women are very much included in that. I want to say a bit about, as Clare Adamson called it, the S-word. It is a matter of genuine regret to me that that conditionality and the benefits sanction was not devolved as part of the Smith settlement. We continue to believe that the sanction system is harsh and pushes people into crisis. It is clear that it needs wholesale reform, and we remain of the view that an independent review of the sanctions regime is absolutely necessary. In closing today, I would like to thank again the welfare reform committee and welcome the report and today's date. The Scottish Government fully recognised the disproportionate impact of the UK Government's welfare changes that have had on women and children. In our own engagement, we have worked closely with women's groups to ensure that we have an understanding of the issues that are faced. New powers in social security and employment provide us with an opportunity to have a Scottish social security system that is delivering for women, and to be assured that this Government will do everything that we can to make the most of that opportunity. I thank the committee for its wide-ranging and authoritative report on the issues that impact women from welfare reform. It strikes me that, had the UK Government shown the same attention to the impact of its reforms, it might not have been so gleeful and gung-ho in pursuing the deep cuts to social security, which will be felt by mothers, grandmothers, carers, low-paid workers, lone parents, victims of domestic abuse, refugee women, women suffering mental health problems, disabled women and, of course, children. All of the potential damage, often with multiple impacts on women, has been covered forensically and compassionately by the authors of the report here in Parliament. It is indeed a damning indictment of the welfare policies of the UK Government and the lack of regard for women who need social security to support their families. Of course, that is not the whole story. Two important developments have emerged since the good work of the welfare reform committee. Just a day after the report was published in July, the chancellor returned to the House of Commons with his emergency budget. He announced £34 billion worth of additional cuts. The House of Commons library estimated that 70 per cent of those cuts will fall on women. We have yet to see whether the spending review yesterday will ameliorate or exacerbate this unfair targeting of women. Instead of using his new mandate to reduce the structural inequalities that have held so many women back, the chancellor has taken the decision to reinforce them. The Tory cry that we are all in this together has never seemed so hollow, and it will not be recognised by women across the United Kingdom. The women of Scotland fearing those cuts have been given some hope in other developments since the chancellor deepened his welfare cuts, however. The emergence of the Scotland bill as a considerable transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood gives all of us who oppose those unfair welfare cuts an opportunity to do something about it. The top-up powers over welfare and the devolution of income tax mean that we can now match our rhetoric with action and design a fairer social security system that protects women. Yes, the Scottish Government already has considerable influence over issues relating to equality, and the welfare reform committee rightly points out several areas that need to be improved here and now. To his credit, the cabinet secretary has given the committee a very full response on behalf of the Scottish Government, which details some of the action being taken to support women adversely affected by welfare reform. However, the real prize, Presiding Officer, will be how the next Scottish Government and this Parliament use the new powers over welfare to correct the wrong-headed approach by the Tory Government for the women of Scotland. A good start, I think, would be for the Scottish Government to take the suggestion of the welfare reform committee and call a high-level summit on women's social security, as supported by Engender, Scottish Women's Aid, Scottish Refugee Council and Close the Gap. That would allow us to determine what strategic action is needed to redress the gender impact of welfare reform and public spending cuts, and I hope that the minister might address the suggestion in her closing remarks this afternoon. As this report outlines, there is much work to do and the situation continues to escalate. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer performed a spectacular and welcome U-turn on tax credits that will mean that many working people are spared these unfair cuts. He also spared the blushes of the SNP who had failed miserably to show any real appetite for reversing the proposed tax credit cuts when the powers came to Scotland when we debated this here in this chamber two weeks ago. I thank the member for giving way. Do you think that Labour really got its tactics right on this? Surely the best bet was to challenge the principle before we worried about where the money would come from to compensate? My primary concern is not the tactics, but the working people who had been affected by the cuts to tax credits, and those benches miserably failed to show any appetite for wanting to use the powers that are coming to this building to mitigate or reverse those tax cuts. That was the shame of two weeks ago, but I hope that they will not be found wanting as we look to address what is left of the UK Government's welfare reform programme. As we saw yesterday, it is still a substantial and pernicious agenda, and I know that the minister agrees with me on that. Scottish politics will have changed forever when the powers promised by the Smith commission come to Holyrood. No longer will the Scottish people indulge us when we complain about cuts to the most vulnerable in society. No longer will it be enough to join in on the chorus of despair at the Tory welfare reforms protected from the hard choices that come from power and responsibility? The people of Scotland, indeed the women of Scotland, will instead look to us to act and use those new powers to build the fairer and more compassionate Scotland to which we aspire. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate and the attention that the committee has given to the relationship between policy choices and the opportunity of women. Although I have little doubt that there will be some areas of fairly robust disagreement, I am pleased that there are several areas in the committee's report where agreement was found. That was reflected in the constructive contributions of my colleague and predecessor on the committee, Annabelle Goldie, who will be speaking later on this afternoon. Despite the title, it is worth considering that the committee's report and recommendations go further than the direct impact of benefits. It touches upon a range of issues from the status of women in the workplace as parents or carers, potentially as lone parents, and the interplay of benefits, employment, childcare, flexible working and a variety of other measures. That is to the committee's credit. However, I cannot shake the feeling that some of the context of the changes to social security was missed. When my party came into government in 2010, there was a very reasonable view that social security spending was too high, creating perverse disincentives to employment and was extremely complex. The last Labour Government, for its part, adopted a range of policies under the banner of welfare reform. The problem was that their vision was often contradictory, short-termist and, on some occasions, as with the introduction of employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment, purely implemented. I have no reservation in stating my ambition to see a lower welfare society. The best and most sustainable way to achieve that is to increase employment and financial independence. In terms of the latter, we should look forward to the twin aims of higher pay and lower tax. Across the United Kingdom, we have a record level of women in employment, with almost a million more in work since the 2010 general election. That is the benefit of an economic plan that is actually delivering. The UK's recovery with economic growth, leading with the advanced economies of the world, has been notable for being employment heavy. I will give way to Mr Findlay. A few weeks ago, his colleague, Bernie Escaldi, was in the House of Lords voting to get rid of tax credits. Can you tell us where the Tory party's position is now? The Scottish Tory party wanted, apparently, to keep tax credits, so where are we on this? I think that the chancellor very clearly set out the position on tax credits yesterday, and I will leave it to him and his explanation for that, rather than getting involved in reopening that issue. When we speak of a jobs miracle, it is not an idle boast. It can be seen in our constituencies and across every corner of the country. It is also not a dry statistics, but the reality of thousands more people with the security of a regular wage coming in. We know that, still today, many women are often found in low-paid, part-time and less-cure employment. It is therefore welcome that we have seen the greatest growth in full-time work and that wages are growing consistently while inflation remains effectively flat. Part-time work will always afford a level of flexibility, and for many it will be a choice, but we should also be considering the level of those who are in part-time jobs and seeking full-time employment. Those classed as involuntary part-time. That is why we should celebrate the considerable advances in childcare provision across the United Kingdom. All the main parties represented in this chamber have had a hand in placing that on the agenda, albeit with a number of important differences in our respective approaches. That solid groundwork allows a widening of opportunity and aspiration for a great many women. That is not only beneficial on an individual level but across our society. It is harnessing the skills and knowledge that have in the past been absent, often not by choice, from the labour market. The committee is of course right to consider where our welfare system may fall short for women. The report suggests that women have, for example, a relatively poorer experience of the work programme. While it would be essential to see more evidence of that, it is important information that should be kept in mind by the Scottish Government when crafting its replacement programmes following the passage of the Scotland Bill. We should also consider those policies that have successfully benefited women. I have already spoken of childcare, but I would also like to consider some of the other measures in the time left to me this afternoon. The increase in the personal allowance this year has taken a further 430,000 people across the United Kingdom out of paying income tax altogether, two thirds of which will be women. The national living wage, announced by the chancellor in the summer budget, will directly increase the income of round 3 in every 10 working women. That is not only a pay rise, but will have a positive impact on the gender pay gap, as well as providing a great deal of support for many in part-time work. As the further powers promised in the Smith commission are making us think seriously about the future of social security in Scotland, the committee should continue to reflect on the impact of women. We must also work to build on the many significant successes that we have already seen. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. We are tight for time this afternoon, so speeches of a maximum of six minutes please. Could members check that they have pressed the request to speak buttons if they wish to contribute? I call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Michael McMahon. I would like to thank all the members of the committee and all those who gave evidence because that was a pretty tough piece of work. It was the last report that Michael McMahon carried out as convener of the committee, and I would like to pay tribute to him for his fairness in that role. I have to say that, on the committee, over the peace, it has been rare that there has been any disagreement apart from one party. I will leave that at that for just now. Clare Adamson in the opening speech highlighted the fact that research by the House of Commons library states that, since 2010, £26 billion of cuts have been made to benefits, tax credits and pay and pensions. 85 per cent of that £26 billion has been taken from women's incomes. Therefore, I find it surprising that the Tory member of the committee descended from the following sentence. The committee believes that the cumulative impact of the reforms has had a damaging and disproportionate impact on women. How can anyone argue that it has not been a disproportionate and damaging effect on women when, quite clearly, research shows that 85 per cent of those cuts have been borne by women? How can anybody say that that has not been disproportionate and damaging? We have heard that women are twice as dependent on social security as men, with 20 per cent of women's income coming from the benefits and tax credit system compared with 10 per cent of men's. Women have fewer financial assets and less access to occupational pensions than men, and there are considerably more women than men in the lowest income desile in the UK. 92 per cent of lone parents are women and women make up 95 per cent of lone parents dependent on income support. The statistics go on and on and quite clearly show that disproportionate impact. One of the things that has not been touched on yet is some of the recommendations. One of the main ones, as far as I am concerned, was that on multiple impacts. On page 6, par 29 of the report, it says that the committee has been struck by the complexity of women's lives in relation to the benefits system. Many do not fit neatly into one administrative box and will be hit by reforms to carers, disability and children's benefits. The committee calls on the UK Government to urgently conduct a cumulative impact assessment of all of the welfare reforms to identify the true impact on families and households. It is quite shocking that that kind of assessment has not been made. That clearly shows to me that the Conservative Government and the previous Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition Government really did not give a monkeys about the impact of the changes that they have made. Surely, if you are going to make that kind of major change, you want to know exactly what the impact is. In his speech, Mr Lamont said that the aspiration was to see higher pay and lower tax. I think that the Tories have achieved that in some regards, higher pay and lower tax, for the most wealthy in our society, but certainly not for those folks who are struggling to make ends meet on a day and daily basis. It comes as no surprise to me, I have to say, that that is the way that the Conservatives have moved, because that has been their attitude throughout history. Higher pay and lower tax for the rich and really not giving monkeys about those folks who are suffering at the most vulnerable and the poorest in our society. I think that we only need to look at some of the statistics that have come out in recent weeks, again by the trussel trust and the increase in the rise in food banks. I have to say during my course to visit some food banks that what you always see is women there with young kids. It is horrific that people in work are having to rely on food banks. While I welcome the U-turn yesterday on tax credits, what we all have to remember is that, for months, families in this country have been living in fear at the thought of losing those tax credits. I believe that that is unacceptable. If nothing else, I think that we as a Parliament must ensure that that one recommendation from the committee, that cumulative impact assessment, must be carried out by the UK Government as soon as possible, they will then realise the horrors of the policies that they have implemented. I am afraid that I have to reiterate that I can only give members up to six minutes. My comment, my hand, is to be followed by Joan McAlpine. I was a bit concerned that I would sound conceited when I said that I felt a degree of achievement and fulfilment at having been involved in generating the body of work that the Welfare Reform Committee has produced in examining the impact of the current economic climate being created by the Tory party's welfare changes. The analysis that has been undertaken by the committee on such things as the geographical and individual effect of benefit changes, the sanctions regime and the rise in food bank usage, I believe, will not only serve the Parliament well but will serve the country well whenever those issues are discussed. However, I believe that the report that we are discussing this afternoon may be the most important piece of work that the committee has so far embarked upon. The statistics concerning women's welfare issues in Scotland are staggering. The fact that women are twice as dependent on social security as men have fewer financial assets and make up to 95 per cent of loan payments depending on income support is absolutely shocking. That the gender pay gap sits at 32 per cent for part-time workers furthering the divide between the financial status of men and women is embarrassing in this day and age. Those statistics lead us inescapably to the conclusion that women are disproportionately affected by social security reforms, so any unfavourable change made to the system will unavoidably be multiplied in its impact on women. For example, universal credit exists in theory to ensure that everyone in Scotland can easily retain a comfortable level of employment. However, many organisations have stated that a complete disregard for second earners in earning calculations who are predominantly female will have a disincentive to workers' result on the gender barriers to employment being ignored. That formula must change so that women can feel that the credit is given to them for the work that they perform. The Tory Government has evidently been blissfully unaware of the needs of women in regard to social security programmes or they simply would not be making the changes that they are. According to the Faucet Society, the current job-seeking support system is too crude to be able to deal with the complexities in women's lives. Job-seeking support is absolutely vital to ensure that every woman in Scotland has access to an appropriate job to her level of skill. Additionally, the impact of these policies on disabled women and those who are victims of domestic violence is utterly unacceptable. Disabled women are far less likely to obtain full-time employment than non-disabled people. Closed the gaps estimation that the unemployment rate for disabled men is almost 90 per cent compared with only 40 per cent of disabled women is an indicator that should send alarm bells ringing in many levels of authority. Discrimination and incorrectly preconceived notions about mental and physical capability are only two of the issues that women face on a day-to-day basis. A similarly shocking statistic can be found when looking at domestic abuse statistics where 80 per cent of cases involve a female victim. Attempting to leave an abusive partner is not only emotionally and physically challenging but can be financially crippling. Scottish Women's Aid has noted that two thirds of women lose their jobs due to domestic abuse-related issues. No woman should have to fear for her economic and professional wellbeing while experiencing a heartbreaking situation such as this. I would like to pay tribute, in particular this afternoon, to Engenda, who played the pivotal role in steering the committee towards initiating this report in the first place and then taking through its deliberations. They, more than any other group, put together a number of recommendations that would help Scotland to move in the right direction on these issues. First and foremost, the Scottish Government must recognise that the policies that are being introduced disproportionately impact women in all intersections of identity. Therefore, any programme that is proposed or put in place must be beneficial to women with an evaluation completed as to the impact on women specifically. Job-seeking support needs to be updated to include groups of women that often face additional persecutions such as refugees, disabled women, survivors of domestic abuse, those living in rural areas, older women, lone mothers and carers. It is our duty as a legislative body to make sure that these women are given special attention as their individualised needs are too often overlooked. Investment in employability services and job centres for women looking to get back into the labour market is simply money well spent for Scotland. Appropriate training and skilled staff with specialised knowledge should be in place to ensure that those programmes are being used as effectively and efficiently as possible. Finally, a conversation on women's welfare would be remiss without a discussion on the multiple identities that many women hold. As the committee succinctly stated in the report, many women do not fit neatly into one administrative box and will be hit by reforms to carers, disability and children's benefits. A one-size-fits-all policy is not going to work for the women of Scotland who simply deserve more than that. 51 per cent of the Scottish population is female. It is high time that the complex needs of women as a workforce are given proper consideration to the impact of the welfare policies that we produce in regard to women. Scotland now has a chance to make a real difference to those in many of the issues with the new powers that we are to have. I hope that this report will be used to help to guide this Parliament and others looking at this issue and future Scottish Governments in the right direction. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to use the opportunity of today's debate to raise the issue of carers and those for whom they care to groups who feature prominently in the committee's report into women and social security. They are often interdependent groups who are extremely vulnerable and who have suffered disproportionately from the cuts to social security, and indeed the reduced employment opportunities caused by the economic downturn since 2008. Unpaid carers save the economy in Scotland £10.3 billion a year, and as the report documents, 59 per cent of unpaid carers are women and 74 per cent of those in receipt of carers allowance, which is awarded to those with the heaviest burden of caring responsibilities, are women. Women are also twice as likely as men to give up work in order to care. As one of our witnesses, Helen Graham of Napier University, pointed out, much of the differential impact of welfare reform on women, which has been well illustrated by previous speakers, stems from this unequal distribution of caring responsibilities between men and women. When preparing for this debate, I was reminded that, in the very early days of our welfare state, indeed before beverage, feminists struggled in a very patriarchal society to get understanding of the huge amount of unpaid work that women did in the home and to have that recognised. A leading suffragette and social reformer, Eleanor Rathbone, was responsible for challenging this and campaigned tirelessly to eventually secure family allowances in order to be politically acceptable. Family allowances were presented as a support for children and, of course, evolved into child benefit, but Rathbone was primarily motivated by the need to recognise the unpaid work of women in the home and the huge personal sacrifices that poor women made in neglecting their health and wellbeing to prioritise those for whom they cared. The direction of welfare reforms in the 21st century suggests that we are still fighting the same battles that Eleanor Rathbone and other feminists fought almost 100 years ago to get recognition for women's unpaid work. In particular, the reforms and cuts do not adequately address the difficulties that are faced by those with caring responsibilities, and indeed they make life considerably more difficult for them. Carer Scotland, Inclusion Scotland and individual witnesses expressed concern about the change from DLA to PIP because of a loss of financial support for the cared for person, and that has a considerable knock-on effect for the carer and household income. Already, the financial loss in Scotland from DLA and incapacity benefit reform is estimated to be £600 million a year. When a disabled person loses their benefits, their carer could find themselves forced to claim job seekers allowance, which, of course, introduces conditionality and the risk of sanctions. Let us remember, Presiding Officer, that those with caring responsibilities are more likely to miss appointments, hence invoking those sanctions. Those sanctions can put the whole family into crisis running up rent arrears, hastening eviction. They have a devastating effect on the ability not just to care but to live with a degree of dignity. To Ms Marra, I would say that, of course, sanctions are specifically excluded from the Scotland bill that she admires so much. Once on job seekers allowance or on the work-related associated group of ESA, unpaid carers can find themselves on compulsory employability programmes, which, as closed the gap has pointed out to the committee, force women into unsuitable, gender-specific low-paid work, often on zero-hours contracts. Those zero-hours contracts jobs often give women no opportunity to plan their life and work around the responsibility of carers. I would point out to Ms Marra again that employability and zero-hours contracts remain reserved to Westminster. Inclusion Scotland and closed the gap have also highlighted the particular effect that its forms at UK level are having on women who are disabled themselves. In Scotland, 55 per cent in those of receipt of the higher rate of mobility component of PIP are women. However, we know that the DWP has a target of having the number of DLA claimants in receipt of that higher rate mobility payment when they reassess for PIP, and that will have a disproportionate effect on women, particularly in Scotland, for some of the people that we spoke to. The fear of losing higher rate mobility payments has caused real anxiety. Disabled women already face a number of barriers to the job market. According to closed the gap, the employment rate for disabled men is 90 per cent compared to 40 per cent for disabled women. However, the evidence that we took suggested that that minority of disabled women who are able to work currently as a result of getting a motability award, for example, could be further reduced because of DWP targets without a car or appropriate transport that cannot work. One of our witnesses, Moiris Sinclair, illustrated that absolute counter-productiveness when she spoke about how she lost her motability car. She would have to give up work, and the loss of income tax and national insurance would be £11,500 a year. What better illustration of how ill-thought-out cuts have been? There is a higher proportion of women in Scotland claiming DLA and employment support allowance than the UK as a whole. We must not forget that, despite those disabilities, those same women have caring responsibilities either for children or a sick partner or relative. That is why I welcome the commitment from the First Minister to look at carers allowance once it is devolved and to bring it up to the level of job seekers allowance. However, I would point out once again that only 14 per cent of welfare is devolved under the Scotland bill, and with £12 billion of welfare cuts still to come, we do not know where from, and I fear for women going forward. I am sorry that there is not more time this afternoon, but if members take over the time, that means that someone else will lose out. Christina McKelvie to be followed by Margaret MacDougall. Welfare reform at Westminster has achieved two things. First of all, it has deprived the most vulnerable and needy in our communities of the capacity to feed and clothe themselves without anxiety and has instead left them struggling between food bank and warm home, or sometimes any home at all. Secondly, it has aggravated an existing inequality for women. The very term welfare is popular with the Chancellor. I cannot help feeling that he quite likes the Dickensian idea of the worthy poor and the magnanimity of those who offer charity, the big society that they talked about. However, we live in the 21st century, not the 19th century, and we ought to have moved on from the workhouses and the soup kitchens, yet the gap between rich and poor extends even wider. While international investors pour their millions into expensive houses in Kensington and Chelsea, many of my constituencies are struggling to find a few pounds to put into their gas meter. Research provided to the committee by the Child Poverty Action Group and others tells us time and again that most of the people using food banks are those who are in work and have had their benefit payments sanctioned for sometimes the most absurd of reasons. Situs, the Vice Scotland, told the committee of a case of a woman who was heading to the job centre when her four-year-old needed to go to the bathroom. We have all been there if you have good kids. They want to try out every bathroom. They sanctioned her for 12 weeks for being 10 minutes late. Burnados told the committee that we are aware that the current system of benefit sanctions is nowhere near fit for purpose. Sanctions are regularly applied unfairly, leaving people with little or no money for all of long periods of time. That causes severe hardship for many claimants and can have a negative impact not only on their own health and wellbeing but on their families too. When universal credit is fully rolled out, women will probably lose out even more. Women will be answerable to the male breadwinner for the money to run the house. If he has other ideas on how to spend that money, it will be the partners who have to try and sweep up the mess of debt, lack of food and probably a housing crisis. Situs, the Vice Scotland, also told the committee and emphasised that women use social services more than men do and the reasons are straightforward. They tend to be the carers of children, of elderly and firm parents, of relatives with special needs, including their own children and many are in low paid and part-time works. They have missed out in making a prosperous career for themselves because they have put their families first. They should not be sanctioned for that. The realities that are born out by Situs's Advice Scotland who have found that women are more likely to seek advice on housing benefit, working tax credits, child tax credits, child benefit and income support and changes to those benefits are going to have a disproportionate impact on women. Housing benefit is one of the most common benefit problems that women bring to Situs's Advice Scotland. As the Scottish Government does everything that it can to mitigate the horrendous impact of the bedroom tax, there are limitations on which we are allowed to do. East of Scotland, Situs's Advice Bureau reports of a client who has a high rent arrears. She thought that she was in receipt of housing benefit but has discovered that this support had stopped and she has working non-dependence adult children living with her. The client had arrangements in place to pay the arrears and wanted to apply for discretionary housing benefits but was advised that she cannot do that if she is not in receipt of housing benefit. The complications of the system are just absolutely impenetrable. Ill health and disability payments have had a hugely damaging impact already and it is set to get worse. PIP will make tens of thousands of people who have got the right to DLA out of that system. The endless confusion, delays and backlog do nothing to support its introduction, which is what Situs's Advice warned our committee during the evidence taken. The very concept that the state needs to help families on low incomes has vanished yet pay rates are hopelessly inadequate. I believe that we have a moral and a financial duty to support people in need for whatever reason and that they need the right framework in which to do that. I do not accept the assumption of public school boys in London who would never venture into a cut-price food store that we can all make a decent income and support ourselves and our families. David Cameron once said that he was born not with one but two silver spoons in his mouth. I say try a weak living and benefits in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Maybe you could learn a lot. The Scottish Government rightly highlights the huge contribution made by carers most eloquently, described by my colleague Joan McAlpine and her contribution. There is the rub. That is a part of it, isn't it? As Situs's Advice says, benefit conditionality remains reserved to the UK. The current draft of the Scotland Belt was silent on the matter and we do not yet know the extent to which Scottish employment services might be subject to that regime. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has just reported that 2.6 million working families will be £1,600 worse off as a result of the chancellor's statement yesterday. So what do we need? We need to face the facts. The current system discriminates and fails women time and again. Whether they are parents, carers, have a disability or are victims of domestic violence, have a long-term condition, are a refugee or have other cultural barriers, the system fails them. A future social security system for Scotland needs to have security at its heart. In order to get Britain working, we have to get Britain's women working, and that will not happen under this system. I was a member of the welfare reform committee when evidence was being taken on this topic in June. During the evidence sessions, we learned that inequality for women still exists within our society and that the recent welfare reforms have increased this inequality because women are disproportionately affected by the welfare reforms. A recent report produced by Engender found that women are twice as dependent on social security as men, with 20 per cent of women's income coming from the benefits and the tax credit system compared with 10 per cent of men's. The committee heard evidence that tax credits provide essential support for women who work, and I had real fears that the tax credit reforms would add to the pressure on women. While I am delighted with George Osborne's U-turn on tax credits, there is no doubt that the £12 billion cuts of welfare that are still to come will have an adverse effect on women and families over the coming years. The report found that 92 per cent of lone parents are women, and women make up 95 per cent of lone parents dependent on income support. During the committee stages, I highlighted the shocking statistic from Inclusion Scotland that, at the time of giving evidence, sanctions for lone parents on GISA had risen from under 200 per month prior to 2008 to 4,700 per month. While I would like to say that that has fallen, I am afraid that it has not, given that Tory ministers seem to be in denial over the damage that they are causing, especially to women and families across the country. I agree with the committee's recommendations in calling for a complete and comprehensive overview of the sanctions regime. It is clear to me that sanctions are not encouraging people to find work, rather that they seem to be demoralising people. The committee also found that many people don't even understand why they are sanctioned. You cannot promote a change in behaviour if a person doesn't know what they did wrong or feels that they have been wrongly penalised. For example, during evidence, we heard the story of a lone parent, mother of three, who went to sign on during the summer school holidays. She was sanctioned because she had to bring her children to her interview and she couldn't get childcare. The job centre officer said that if she didn't have childcare, that meant that she wasn't available for work. In examples like this, can anyone honestly say that sanctioning this mother of three was the right thing to do? This is a case where sanctions, in my view, have been wrongly applied. It might have been more helpful for job centre staff to assist this mother to find flexible and affordable childcare rather than placing her and her children into further hardship and distress. The above example needs me on to my next point, the importance of flexible and affordable childcare and the barriers that a lack of childcare can present. Close the gap had argued that childcare can be prohibitively expensive and this is one of the most immediate barriers for women returning to work. It is worse if you are on low pay, part-time hours or a zero-hours contract, as you might not know how much you will get paid that week or even when you need childcare, but you still have to pay to keep the child place open. Provision of childcare is also a major issue. The Family and Child Care Trust report into the annual childcare cost survey 2015 tells us that, in Scotland in 2014, only 23 per cent of local authorities reported sufficient childcare provision for parents who worked full-time, but in 2015, that had fallen to 15 per cent. For those with a disabled child in 2014, the figure was 18 per cent. That had fallen dramatically to 7 per cent in 2015. Finally, for those in flexible working hours, those figures were even worse in 2014. Only 9 per cent of local authorities reported sufficient provision and, shockingly, that had fallen to 4 per cent in 2015. I acknowledge the work that the Scottish Government has done on access to childcare and provision, but from the statistics we can see that not enough is being done to support it across our local authorities and that it is getting worse. It is good that we have childcare places for all three to four-year-olds for up to 600 hours per year. It is not so good that those places are not available in reality. That was further emphasised by one parent family in Scotland who said in evidence that loan parents are trapped. When children are under five and their parents want to access training and education, it is a challenge for them to get childcare. When the child reaches five, the doors to access training, education and higher education are closed because the parent has to be available to work and sign on. It is clear that, if we want to develop a transformational childcare policy, we need to do more to tackle the lack of places and the lack of flexible, affordable, wraparound childcare. That is one barrier that we know that we can break down and that we need to redouble our efforts to do so. To conclude, with the further social security powers coming to this Parliament, it is clear that we can do things differently to improve the situation for women here in Scotland. I welcome that the minister said today that this will be given consideration and that dignity and respect will be at the centre of Scotland's social security system. On childcare, we have the power now. We just need the political world to create a fully transformable childcare system that works for everyone who needs it. I thank the committee for what I felt as an outsider to the committee for a very wide-ranging and thorough report. It is good that we are to have new welfare powers devolved to Scotland, but the powers are only part of the answer or part of the question. Currently, I have a couple of main questions that are, can we do better with the existing money that we have or going to have, but do we need more money to create a better system? From what I can see in the report, we could do better with the existing money, and recommendations such as moving away from monthly payments and from single household payments would be positive. In some cases, making rent payments direct to the landlord would be positive. Looking at the report itself, I thought that paragraph 49 was very telling in some of the quotes that it had under the universal credit section and struck a chord with me and some of my constituents. It deals with the whole point about monthly payments. It was recognised that this is not the lived reality for many benefit claimants whose lives are not so ordered. It could give rise to problems with budgeting, being cash-rich at the start of the month, and it quotes Morag Gillespie of Glasgow Caledonian University, who said that, on the one hand, we are looking for people to live on quite a hand-to-mouth basis. Lots of people still get paid and live from week to week or fortnight to fortnight, while on the other, we almost want to pretend that they are white-collar workers with monthly salaries. Lots of people's lives are not quite that tidy and we need to accommodate the differences. I think that phrase, accommodate the differences, is something that the committee and I certainly desire, but we do not see very much of that in the DWP. Clearly, there can be a real disconnect between the reality in which many ordinary folk live and the theoretical existences imagined for them by some of the mandrons at Westminster. Now, there are particular issues that I would like to touch on in the report, and the main one would be sanctions. I have been certainly concerned about those for some considerable time and have always felt that, while bedroom tax would perhaps reduce people's income and, again, unjustifiably, sanctions can completely remove people's income, and I just feel that so much worse. Paragraph 80 talks about the committee, one of the conclusion paragraphs. It had previously reported an impact of sanctions. It continues to urge the DWP to review how its policies are being applied, and I can broadly agree with that paragraph. However, I did have some questions about the preceding paragraph in paragraph 78, when it said that the committee had always agreed that some kind of conditionality is important. Surely we have to accept that every single person be that in the UK or Scotland deserves food and shelter as the absolute minimum. After all, we accept that prisoners are entitled to that, and that is not conditional. So surely everybody else should get at least that. For me, that means that there needs to be a certain minimum income that every individual and every family should get, which is completely unconditional, no matter what they do or what they do not do. I think that that was the point that Engender was making in one of its list of recommendations when they talked about citizens' income, and that is something that we need to think about going forward. Employment is another topic that is mentioned in the report, and paragraph 14 notes that the aim of universal credit was intended to encourage everyone to gain and sustain employment. However, I agree with those who argue that employment is not the right course for everyone. Like it or not, as has been mentioned in previous speeches, a number of women are often still the main carers, both for the older generation and the younger generation and others, as Christina McKelvie referred to. We as a society benefit from those carers doing that key role, so we as a society in turn need to accept that there are some people that we should be sporting in the long term, if necessary, and that they should not be having to seek employment, even though technically they might be able to do so. I am happy also with the suggestion that we move more to using the term social security rather than welfare. Another subject to universal credit is clearly things that have moved on since the report was written, and we certainly welcome the relaxation of the proposed cuts. However, if the same overall savings are to be made within the welfare budget, there have to be concerns about where that will hit. Devolution of powers is a key element going forward, and the fiscal framework has been mentioned and is meant to ensure fairness and no detriment to Westminster or Scotland as a result of powers being devolved. However, I have to say that I remain sceptical about this, and the signs that we have seen so far have not been good. The original theory was that, whenever whichever Parliament made changes, that Parliament would incur the subsequent costs. However, with the tax powers that we have so far, we see that Westminster made the changes, but this Parliament had to write the cheque for all the costs, so the presidents are not good and it concerns me about welfare as well. Whatever powers we end up with, we will still face a limited budget if we want to have a more generous welfare system, especially for women. Where will the money come from? The obvious options are to reduce spending in some other area or perhaps to raise taxes. We are being more consensual today because it is a committee report, and I support that. However, we will have real choices to make as we go through the budget process, and I think that that is going to be challenging. I would call all parties to be realistic that if they want more money in one place, they have to tell us where it comes from. The welfare reform committee's report on women and social security is surely one of the most important reports produced by the Parliament in this current session. It is a substantial piece of work highlighting the impact of welfare reforms on women and putting in record, possibly for the first time in the wind document, how many of those changes have served to aggravate existing inequalities that women experience. Numerous examples in the report illustrate those inequalities across a whole spectrum of welfare reforms from universal credits, the sanction regime, the impact on women's carers and single parents. The report shows how women are affected in particular as a result of the welfare reform agenda. One of the most startling figures that has been mentioned by several members that has come to light from the House of Commons library was that, since the reforms began in 2010, some £26 billion worth of cuts have been made and a staggering £22 billion of that was taken from women's income. The committee has made a large number of recommendations for both the Scottish and the UK Governments to consider, and I am pleased to read the detailed comments from the Scottish Government indicating that work is already under way to bring about the changes requested. I am not aware if the UK Government has responded to the report as yet, so I think that we should pay tribute to the committee, past and present, to all those who gave evidence into the claps and put in the report together. Some concerns were raised about universal credit, of course, in the system of single monthly payments, and the issue about a person in the household, usually the male being the recipient of the payments, including those intended to cover things like rent. The worry is that this makes it much more difficult for a woman to negotiate and manage the household income in terms of family priorities. The Scottish Government's response supports a move to twice monthly payments, and for direct payments to landlords that would remove some of the concerns here. People will have a choice of how they want to manage their account, given the more control over their own affairs. In addition, women are far more likely to earn less than their male partners, and therefore be regarded as the second earner. Professor Diane Ellson commented that, when earnings, disregards and tapers were taken into account, it is not financially worthwhile for many women to take on a job at all. The committee has asked the UK Government to re-examine the allowances for second earners to overcome this problem, but greatly affects the ability of women to enter the labour market. One area that the committee heard about the severe negative impact, particularly in women, was in relation to sanctions. One of the most common problems is when appointments were delayed or cancelled by job centres, and women in particular have been unable to attend and rescheduled dates due to childcare issues or affordability of transport costs for those journeys as a result. The Scottish Women's Convention noted the hypocrisy of the DWP of making errors and causing delays, having no impact yet when a person makes a mistake, then it usually leads to a sanction being imposed. Sanctions and delays and benefit payments are one of the main causes of people being driven to food banks in order to survive. I have seen countless constituents in Kilmariner and Valley coming to food banks citing both those reasons as being the main factor. The effectiveness of sanctions has also been questioned. However, Reid from Landman Economics told the committee that there was no relationship between sanctions and employment levels, areas in which sanctions had been employed with greater gusto, as he described, showed that employment rates were slightly lower. He also informed the committee that there is no UK Government data looking at the impact that sanctions have on people and their families as a whole. The committee therefore called on the UK Government to conduct an independent review of the sanctions process to establish the impact that it has, whether it helps people into work or not, and to revise the appeals process so that it can be carried out much quicker. One of the biggest barriers for women in taking up employment is finding suitable and affordable childcare. Careers Scotland said that women are four times as likely as men to have given up work because of multiple caring duties and that 85 per cent of people who care for children and an adult, called sandwich carers sometimes, are also women. As members know, the Scottish Government will double childcare provision to about 30 hours per week on a flexible basis by the end of the next session of Parliament. Barnardo's comment that the flexibility and wraparound nature of this is just as important as the provision of the funding itself. That should have a hugely positive impact on the ability of women, and men too have to be said to get into work and still maintain their family duties and obligations. Lastly, in my contribution from the report, just a word in support of lone parent women, we note in the report that 92 per cent of single parents are women, and that means that we have over 150,000 single parent women in Scotland. There are supposed to be 12 safeguards in fact that the DWP should apply to protect lone parents from having their circumstances worsened, but we heard from the single parent action network who noted that only a quarter of those had agreements with their local job centres, allowing them to restrict their job searches to school hours. One of the 12 safeguards that are particularly important for women. The impact of the welfare reform act on women in Scotland is particularly unfair. I know that the Scottish Government is working to mitigate much of that as far as we can. It spends in some £300 million already and undoing the damage that it would have done to thousands of women in Scotland had we not acted. However, it is not all about money. It is about restoring a sense of fairness, dignity and respect at the heart of a system that values its citizens and offers genuine equality for Scotland's women. I hope that the new Scottish social security system will begin to put that framework in place and I once again commend the work of the committee in bringing this report to the Parliament. I thank all the members of the committee for their work on this report. I think that we all know that the recession in particular has had a devastating effect on Scotland across the whole of the UK, but it has particularly affected certain groups, it has affected the young, it has affected disabled people and it has affected women, it has affected their prosperity and their sense of wellbeing. At that difficult time, our welfare system, instead of offering relief and support to women across Scotland, has made that situation more stressful. It has disproportionately failed vulnerable people and it has disproportionately failed women in our society. The reform committee has done a fantastic job in illuminating the failings of the system. In many ways, the report on sanctions, for example, pointed out that it has led to a climate of fear rather than encouraging people back into work. The report on food banks revealed the direct correlation between food banks and the welfare reform programme. Of course, on the bedroom tax, it was the research from the committee that illuminated the fact that some 80 per cent of those affected by the bedroom tax, the households affected, contained disabled adults. The report is very much continuing in that very powerful vein. I have to say that I was struck by some of the statistics in it and I think that they are worth repeating. Some colleagues have already mentioned it, but since 2010, some £26 billion worth of cuts have been made to benefits, tax credits, pay and pensions, and 85 per cent of those £26 billion has been taken from women's incomes. That is a staggeringly disproportional impact on women. The committee went on to quote figures from Engender, from Close the Gap and many others, revealing that women are twice as dependent on the social security system as men. There are fewer financial assets and that they are far more likely to be loan parents and carers. I think that it is right that we make common cause across this Parliament on this issue. Austerity and the welfare reform programme are bad for our economy, they are bad in terms of prosperity to individuals and to our communities. This is not frankly the kind of society that many of us wish to see. We want to see an end to punitive sanctions, to discrimination and to blaming people in need for their own misfortune. However, I hope that this afternoon we will do more than that. If all we do is blame the Conservatives and the UK Government, then we are not facing up to our own responsibilities nor are we using the powers that are at our disposal for the purpose that I believe they were intended. Like many members here, I know that I lived through the Thatcher years and I was frustrated by the fact that, here in Scotland, we would elect representatives of one particular party and a different hue in another part of the UK, but the answer to that is the Scottish Parliament. It is very difficult to imagine the poll tax being introduced now with the Scottish Parliament here, and the committee's own work has revealed that the UK Government cannot impose reforms on this country without us being powerless to do anything about it, and the bedroom tax in particular has revealed that. In fact, by acting on the bedroom tax, the welfare committee analysis showed that mitigation of the bedroom tax had particularly benefited women in Scotland. I want to give a couple of examples in particular for me in the time. I particularly want to mention motability. I don't know if members have recently received a letter from motability because clearly there are changes under way at the moment and there is a transition scheme in place. Motability, as most of the people who are here will know, is a scheme that allows disabled people to access or to lease a new car, a scooter or a powered wheelchair by exchanging their Government-funded motability allowance. You qualify if you get the high mobility payment under DLA or the new enhanced rate under PIP. I made some inquiries of this and I discovered that there are 519 people using motability in my constituency of Eastwood, which is 1,700 across the whole of East Wemfordshire. I was asking how many are expected to lose their allowance. I cannot say exactly, but they said that so far, some 12,000 of the people being reassessed, some 12,500—12,300, to be exact—have been awarded the same level of support and have retained membership of the scheme, but 9,000 have lost eligibility. That is almost 40 per cent. That is a huge number of people losing out on their motability allowance. I think that the disability news service has pointed out that more than 100 people a week are losing their motability vehicles because of the change from DLA to PIP. One of the parts of the footage report that I found most striking was the impact that this is having on disabled women. According to Close the Gap, disabled women are particularly affected by social security reforms because disabled women are far less likely to be in full-time employment than non-disabled people. The employment rate for disabled men, for example, is almost 90 per cent compared with only 40 per cent for disabled women. In Inclusion Scotland, the committee said that, in Scotland, over 55 per cent of those in receipt of the high rate of mobility—in other words, qualifying for a motability car are women—included that, as a result, women are far more likely to lose out. Why does that matter? We all know that, if the point of the welfare reforms is to gain access to work, the whole point of motability is to allow access to work and access to childcare. You need to talk to Close. It is said that, helping people into work, we are going to hurt women. I would ask the Scottish Government—there was not much in the response on this particular point other than that of working with motability. I would ask the minister if she can expand on that. You must close, please. Why does she look at the concessionary travel scheme, which currently does not apply to the low-rate but only to the high-rate? Many thanks. Christian Allard, I am afraid that I can only give you five minutes now. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have got enough for 20 minutes. I'll do only five minutes. And thanks to Ken Macintosh, I think he strikes right on when he said that the poor tax, the burden tax, will never be introduced in this parliament. We are in a different place here in Scotland. That brings me to Baroness Goldie, who is closing down for the Conservatives. Presiding Officer, we have a doctor who, in the room, somebody who, every week, every session such, time travel and goes from this parliament, Scotland, 21st century modern Scotland, down to Westminster. She's going back at least once or one or two centuries, at least back, maybe three centuries for the House of Lords. So maybe Baroness Goldie could maybe enlighten us and tell us how, for example, as a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, she can explain why your own party at Westminster is targeting the poorest of the poor. And I'm not going to give credit to Mr Osborne. I think a lot of members this afternoon gave a lot of credit to Mr Osborne by thinking that Mr Osborne, somehow, is targeting women. He's not. He couldn't care less if there are women with men. What he cares about is targeting the poor. So maybe Ms Goldie, Baroness Goldie, could maybe tell us how that will is going to do for equal opportunities here in Scotland and across the UK. If you target the poorest in society, and as we know, most of the poorest in society are women, not only this, but the aggravating factor is that the poorest of the poorest in our society are women. How can she explain that? How can she not go and speak at Westminster to whoever she needs to speak to, who will hear her, to say that having this kind of welfare cuts targeting the poor will stop any kind of progress to equality between men and women in Scotland? I'll even say further than this. I think this Scottish Government, this Scottish Parliament has made a thought that we do to try to narrow the gap with what's happening at Westminster and both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. What's happening in this place two centuries or three centuries ago, only a night travel of course, what's happening down there is really affecting what we do here, that we maybe only manage to keep the gap the way it is. Because let's not forget all the very thought that the Scottish Government do or the Scottish Parliament does and we do a lot of effort and we heard about it and I find the committee to be important a lot of it will be changed by that. Let's quantify this in this report and I read a lot of reports of the matter. One of the truth was said by the joint reports from Engender Scottish Refugee Council, Scottish Women's Aid, Closer Gap and Scottish Council for Voluntary Organization and that report was used to this report and what reminded us is women did not enjoy equality with men in Scotland before welfare reform. They didn't and they don't. So it's how to to narrow that gap and I talked a lot about that when we did our report on equal opportunities of women at work. I think we need to go a lot further than this. We need to talk about men at home and when I mean about men at home, I'm talking about of course social security is what it's all about. It's about how do we help the people who care for the children at home? How can we make sure that the careless that people who are not full at work or at low pay or only a part-time or at this, you know, enormous zero hours contract, which are incredible. How can we help these people just to make sure that we can have a gender balance? I will never have a gender balance if we don't do that, if we don't sort out this problem. And one thing I would say, Presiding Officer, is about the language. I want to congratulate the Scottish Government and the committee for the language because we shouldn't talk about welfare, but we should talk about social security just the same way that we should not talk about benefits or allowance. We should talk about entitlement is very important, but we change our language when we talk about it. Maybe more important than ever, let's talk about parenting as opposed to do agenda difference. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches. Sorry, I call on Annabelle Goldie, maximum six minutes please, Ms Goldie. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that this has been an interesting debate and I think that there have been genuinely some very thoughtful contributions. Let me respond to Mr Alard, who raised an important point because it is a point about political debate. I would say to Mr Alard in response to his question that my party in government has had to deal with an economic challenge that it has had to deal with. That is what is interesting. What I don't think anyone has disputed was the need to reform the welfare system. That is what I find fascinating. I hear a lot of criticism of what my party has done in government. That is perhaps predictable. I hear very little about what my political opponents would offer by way of substitute, but maybe we will get more of that as time proceeds. Can I say, Deputy Presiding Officer, forgive me that I really need to make progress? By way of context for all of this, in Scotland since 2010, we have got more than 170,000 more people in jobs. We have got over 2 million people getting more of their pay at the end of the week back because of tax cuts. I do not hear Mr Alard referring to that. I thought that my colleague John Lamont in his speech very usefully placed some of the changes to social security in context, outlining a number of the lessons to be taken forward in the committee's current work. That is undoubtedly an important period in the timeline of the social security system or welfare state in Scotland. We have seen extensive reforms at UK level, but, interestingly from my perspective, there is now a real impetus for this Parliament to consider our own approach to social security and not least the position of women within that. I did serve in the committee during the time of this inquiry. I thought that it produced a number of very important findings, conclusions and recommendations. Yes, it is the case that I dissented from some of those, where either they were in conflict with my party's policy, I think that, in Scotland, we are still allowed to have political disagreements, or I disagreed with the analysis. However, the inquiry report did make some important comment on aspects of universal credit. Paragraph 13, where I indicated a dissent, the chamber might be pleased to hear that I am repented. I have changed my mind and I think that there is a need for greater flexibility. I think that that would be desirable. On sanctions, again, I thought that paragraphs 16 and 17 are very powerful. I did manage to clarify, despite what one or two committee members were indicating, that I understand that no political party supports the principle of abolition of conditionality. I understand that the SNP currently supports a moratorium in applying it. However, if you believe in the principle of a system and you are not in agreement with how it is being implemented, you have to come up with your own suggestions as to how you think it should be done better. Having said that, I think that sanctions is a very important area. I think that more information and better information needs to be provided to claimants. I entirely agree that it is completely unacceptable where there has been genuine oversight on an unavoidable absence to attend a meeting perhaps through a carers responsibility or obligation. I think that it is unacceptable that a sanction should be imposed in those circumstances. The report also contains very constructive comments across a whole range of issues, including employment and job seeking support, carers, lone parents and women who are vulnerable for a variety of reasons, and the need to have a stronger link between the social security system and GERFEC. We have an important range of powers coming to this Parliament as a result of the Smith agreement, and I was privileged to be part of that. We are starting to see movement towards policy from the Scottish Government on these matters. There is one area in which we have detail, and this may stun the minister. I especially commend the Scottish Government for its approach in this respect. Almost three quarters of those in receipt of carers allowance are women, and those individuals are a vital part of our society, who are estimated to be saving the NHS and social care services billions of pounds as a result of their fantastic work. Joe McAlpine spoke very eloquently about that, so I welcome the First Minister's statement that she will support raising carers allowance to the level of job seekers allowance, giving a real boost to those extremely hardworking people. Indeed, I welcome that policy when my own party leader Ruth Davidson proposed it just a fortnight earlier than that at my party's conference. Can I just say briefly about women in employment, because it is worrying that, over the past quarter, we have seen a decline in that employment rate in Scotland, and the trend is the opposite direction across the UK as a whole. While that trend has only recently emerged, we should all be concerned about its potential to grow into a longer-term issue, and I hope that the minister will be able to address that and give the Scottish Government analysis for that trend and set out proposals to address it. As I have indicated, I too welcome the Chancellor's announcement on tax credits yesterday. I did have concerns, Presiding Officer, and I was public about those concerns, and I did right to the Chancellor expressing them. I am pleased that that decision has been made. I thought that the committee's conclusions on tax credits were balanced, but it rightly identified issues. I hope that those issues can be addressed as tax credits are brought into the structure of universal credit. In conclusion, we find that, for the first time in the history of this Parliament, our debates and social security are now moving on from simply offering a view on the decisions of the UK Government. Importantly, that was recognised by some contributors, not least John Mason, Willie Coffey and Ken Macintosh. That is important. Those things matter. I may not have agreed with every conclusion in the committee's report, but it is still a substantial body of work and a very useful step in ensuring that we have a Scottish welfare system at the next stage. Thank you very much, Colin. Neil Findlay, up to six minutes, please. Before I begin, I have to mention Mr Allard, who was speaking about someone from another Parliament time travelling here and ending up in this one. I have to commend him on his impeccable timing, because, just as he said that, James T Kirk himself walked in to the chamber following the unveiling of his new very regal portrait. I am sure that he remembers. Mr Findlay, we try to avoid nicknames in the chamber, please. I am sure that SNP members will buy in their copy for their fireplace for Christmas. The committee report was written before I became a member of the welfare committee. However, I would like to commend the committee on it and concur with the views expressed in it, especially in relation to the way in which welfare cuts have affected women. Many members, quite rightly, Michael McMahon, Joe McAlpine, Ken Macintosh and others have commented on the shocking statistics around the so-called reforms. They are right to do so, because women are bearing the brunt of Tory Government's all-out attack on working people. People have mentioned that 85 per cent of the Osborne's social security cuts affect women's incomes. That engender report, which was so important and contributed a great deal to the debate, makes grim reading, showing that women are twice as dependent than men on tax credits and benefits. Women in the lowest paid most insecure work, often part-time, often zero hours. It is much more likely to be carers having their hours cut to give up work altogether to take up that role, particularly at a time when the pressures on household budgets rise. Of course, all the time, the gender pay gap has shown little sign of closing. I have said for some time that Osborne and Cameron are engaged in a class war, but from this report it is crystal clear that it is a gender war too. Their so-called reforms promote the idea that the benefits budget, the funds for public services, the country's debt are all the fault of the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the low-paid and single parents. Several people have mentioned single parents, but 92 per cent of them are women. They are quite statlin statistics. I hear what he says, but would he not acknowledge that, in Scotland, where apparently we have more women in employment than we have ever had before, that is actually very positive progress? Of course, we would all welcome women getting into work, anyone getting into work, but if that work is typified by low-pay zero-hours contract, that is hardly a basis on which to build security for you and your family. That is the problem with the jobs that are coming in in Scotland. I even welcome Ms Goldie's U-turn on tax credits. She was there a couple of weeks ago in the House of Lords voting to abolish them. Now she is repentant, and I welcome the repentant sinner today. However, the fact that tax credits are going back is a good thing. Irrespective of who takes the credit for it, it is a good thing, because it is money going back into the pockets of working people. Of course, the whole agenda around the social security system sees the media enthusiastically embrace the negative view of a system buoyed by horrendous programmes like Benefit Street and Streaming tabloid headlines about the evils of single parents. I find all of that utterly disgusting. According to the DWP's own figures, the reality is that just 2 per cent of the entire welfare budget is spent on unemployment benefits and 18 per cent on family benefits such as tax credits. However, 42 per cent is spent on pensions, but facts like that do not fit into the prevailing narrative. It is against that backdrop and the backdrop of more cuts coming in, another £12 billion announced yesterday, and that frenzied negative atmosphere around the whole system that we are challenged with designing the social security system of the future. The first and foremost and central principle that I would support is that we need a humane system that treats people with dignity and respect and a system to make that full contribution to our society that we all want to see. That has been a constant theme of the failings of the social security system. We heard from women a few weeks ago who told us about the lack of understanding of their situation, whether it be a mental health condition, a care and responsibility or a training need. They also spoke of the failure of the work programme to recognise the value of self-help and voluntary work. The reality is that the main problem for women and men, young and old, is the lack of good quality full-time permanent jobs in the economy, rather than any issues around employability. We heard from people who appear to be more often than not hindered by the system than helped by it, of a culture of benefits and employability that seems to lack empathy and understanding. That is not a criticism of the people who work in the system who are under huge pressure, but the culture that is led from number 10 and 11 down the street and permeates down to the front line. On a whole range of other issues, such as the impact on carers, the cared for, women fleeing violence refugees, those with mental health issues and the effect on children, I share the committee's concerns. We have the opportunity to address those issues with the new welfare powers and we should take that opportunity. Many thanks and to now Collin Margaret Burgess, maximum seven minutes please minister. Presiding Officer, I think that this has been a useful debate and there have been excellent contributions from across the chamber and I'll touch on them shortly and respond to some of them. But again I want to thank the committee and the organisations that contributed to this report which has helped us all to understand how people really feel about the current welfare system and how it treats them and I would also pay tribute to the work that Michael Mahan has done on this report at the start and in previous reports on the committee. He was there at the setup of the welfare reform committee and the committee has produced a number of useful reports that certainly have helped informed government in how we take things forward. As I said earlier in my opening remarks, this government is absolutely committed to removing some of the barriers that women face. We are already taking forward a number of actions to support those goals but we are faced with the reality of our budget being cut by a UK Government taking a wholly different ideological approach to the one that we want to take. The news and tax credits yesterday, as I said earlier, was welcome but, as poverty alliance and the SCVO have pointed out, many members today have pointed out that there will still be some £12 billion taken from the pockets of some of the poorest people in society and many of those cuts will disproportionately affect women and children. What is worse is that it has the potential to impact on the progress that we have already made here in Scotland. Our 2015 annual report on child poverty strategy for Scotland showed that, using the powers that are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament, we are making progress on some of the main drivers that cause child poverty. In progress is at a risk, though from measures that will hit thousands of low-income working families. Peter Kelly from the poverty alliance said yesterday that the announcement and tax credits is welcome but families still remain under financial pressure. Families will still lose the family element of tax credit and working age benefits remain frozen until the end of this Parliament. We are now at a stage where there is nothing to cut. We are hurting the most vulnerable in our society. I entirely agree with his comments, but I will now respond to some of the points that were made in the debate. Jenny Marra talked about a summit to look at issues in social security. That is certainly something that we are happy to consider. There has been a range of discussions through the fairer Scotland conversations that we have been holding throughout Scotland, including in gender, the Scottish Refugee Council and the Scottish Women's Convention. That is something that we are looking at as we progress on our agenda. Michael MacMahon talked about the equality impact assessment in women. The cabinet secretary has already responded to that and said that that is part of the equality impact assessment on gender and also on maternity and pregnancy issues. That will certainly be looked at in any system that we are putting together. A number of members talked about carers and welcomed what the Scottish Government is already doing for carers and in carers allowance, which we have proposed. It is interesting that Anna Magaldi supports that in Scotland. I just wish her party would support it throughout the UK. We were not in that position that we are having to do with our depleting budget. A number of speakers spoke about sanctions and I think that there is no disagreement in what has been said in this chamber today in sanctions and the impact that it is having. I think that Joan McAlpine expressed it very well talking about the carers having been forced again to work because of perhaps the person in their care from losing their benefit and the impact that has on that carer at a tremendously emotional and difficult time for a family to then be faced with losing the only income that they have and sometimes being forced to food banks. I think that Joan McAlpine illustrated that very well. Margaret MacDougall and Willie Coffey spoke about childcare and both Margaret MacDougall and Willie Coffey acknowledged what the Scottish Government is already doing in childcare. We are working very hard with local authorities in our 600 hours that we have committed to childcare as we go forward and also about building the flexibility into it that we know is required. We are also committed to working with employers and employers representative organisations to look at flexibility in the workplace because we know that that will also help women and get women back into work. Kevin Stewart talked about the UK Government doing a cumulative impact assessment on the impact of all the welfare reforms and benefit cuts that has had on women. I would like to see that as well just exactly what that cumulative impact is. Ken MacIntosh talked about motability and we recognise absolutely the trust that people place in the motability scheme and what that vehicle getting a motability car, how it actually gets them out, gets them alive, gets them to contribute into society. The real concerns that people have when PIP-DLA is changing over to PIP and the Scottish Government's position has been very clear. We asked for the roll-out of PIP to be halted. We asked for the budget to remain the same and that is why the fiscal framework has to be really important. We all agreed with that earlier that we need to get the fiscal framework right for Scotland. We do not want to see people in a worse off position. There were a number of other contributions made about the sanctions, about the impact of Christian Allard, about women not being equal before the welfare reforms. That has increased the inequality of women in society. I want to say in closing moments some of the more meaningful action that the Government has taken. We have a strong record in taking action to support women and families. We support a range of gender organisations to the tune of almost 900,000 pounds. More widely, our current and planned funding will result in an investment of around £296 million over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16, and a significant part of that funding goes on helping to support women's groups. I indicated earlier some of the action that we have already taken in our existing powers, the mitigation of the bedroom tax, the Scottish welfare fund, and, in terms of community care grants, the more women get community care grants than men. As I said before, the Scottish Government is fully committed to working co-operative with stakeholders and members across the chamber so that we can achieve a system that better suits women and the people of Scotland. Many thanks for calling on Hugh Henry to wind up the debate on behalf of the Welfare Reform Committee. Mr Henry, you have nine minutes, which will take us to 5 p.m. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I join with Kevin Stewart and the minister in thanking Michael McMahon for his sterling work as convener of the Welfare Reform Committee? He helped, I think, to shape the influence that that committee has had over a long period of time. I know from the contributions that have been made that the members of the committee have valued his input to it. It has actually been a very good debate, but you would expect that. A lot of consensus. People agree with each other. I do not mean that this is a criticism, but much of what has been said echoed what Claire Adamson said in her opening contribution, in a sense reinforcing the points that she ably put forward. It is quite stark what is happening to women not just in Scotland but across the UK in the social security system. It is really hard to understand the scale of it. We live in a country where we keep saying that we take pride in 21st century Scotland Britain that there is equality before the law. Women are now treated equally. There is no discrimination. Well, yes, that is fine. We are up to a point. When you start to look at the reality that Claire Adamson and other speakers articulated, then you see that actually there is still discrimination. We are not all equal in this country. It is hard to get your head around the scale of it. 85 per cent of welfare cuts since 2010 are to women's income. If you were to pass a law that said that you are going to introduce discrimination of that level, there would be howls of outrage and yet somehow there is a complacency that the reality of the decisions that reflect in 85 per cent of cuts being impacted on women are acceptable. It is frankly unacceptable. I do not think that any decent society should tolerate that kind of discrimination. Yes, we are all equal before the law and no doubt in theory that the benefit system is supposed to treat women equally. However, as speaker after speaker pointed out, it is women that bear the burden of childcare rearing. It is women that have to take time off work to look after a child when the child is sick. It is women who, as a number of speakers said, have to give up their employment often to go to look after children. It is women, certainly. I thank the member for taking the division. I just wanted to give a warning across by saying it too often that it is women who do childcare. It is women who have the low pay job. It is women who have to go home to look after the children when they are sick. However, we may be reinforcing a stereotype and may be not encouraging men to do this. It would be absurd if we saw that the reality is that women do that, not to mention it in case we reinforce it. Frankly, the more that we say it, the more that we challenge it. It is unacceptable and being silent and hiding from it is not going to change things. It is women who have to be the prime carer in many respects. 74 per cent of people on carers allowance are women. 95 per cent of lone parents on benefits are women. Lone parents are more likely to be sanctioned than other claimants. Neil Findlay made a reference to this, not just being a class word but a gender word. In a sense, there is some truth. The committee started off from a perspective of trying to look at social security from a gender perspective, but you can come very quickly to the conclusion that it is a gender issue. It is women who are bearing the brunt of the cuts that are happening in the social security system, and that is just unacceptable. The fact that so many members have repeated much of what Claire Adamson had been saying reflects the reality that they are finding in their constituency post-pag. It reflects the reality of the case work. Margaret Burgess is quite right to say that the Scottish Government should be committed to a family-friendly, flexible society. However, as Jenny Marra had said, the claim that we are all in this together, the facts just belie it, is just not true. We are not all in this together. Women are bearing the burden of childcare. Women are bearing the burden of responsibility for care, and women are bearing the burden of the cuts to social security. As Jenny Marra had suggested, one of the things that I think the Scottish Government and the Committee would, I hope, would back this, is that the high-level summit to address the impact of the gender impact of cuts to the committee has made reference to the evidence that we have heard from a number of organisations talking about organisations coming together. Michael MacMahon mentioned that women are disproportionately affected by welfare reform, but he also pointed out that the complexity, often in women's lives, the complexity that speaker after speaker has mentioned. He paid tribute to the contribution that Engender made and talked about multiple identities, carers, disabilities, looking after our children and so on, and yet 51 per cent of the workforce are female. Nalyn Bell Goldie said that it is not something to be proud of to congratulate that so many women are now back in the workforce, and, as Neil Findlay said, yes, of course. However, when women are coming into the workforce on minimum wage, when women are coming into the workforce in zero-hour contracts, when women are coming into the workforce with no security of long-term employment, when women are coming into the workforce that they are the ones most likely to be paid off whenever there is a problem, then there is something still to worry about. It is not women coming into the workforce and rejoicing about the number of women that come in to the Scottish Parliament or go to Westminster into well-paid jobs with good pensions. It is worrying about the women in my constituency, in Linwood, in Barhead, in Johnson, in Nielsen, who do not know from week to week what their income is likely to be or what the future is likely to hold for them, and saying to them, as a number of speakers did, John Mason made the point, saying to them that you need to go to work is not necessarily the moral or right thing to do, because some women still have to look after the children and someone with a disability, and to say to that person, who often is already on a low household income, that you need to go out and work and enjoy the dignity and respect of work. Frankly, it has been inhumane to that individual when you look at the circumstances that they are having to cope with in their household, day in and day out. Frankly, we should be applauding them and encouraging them, and, as John Mason and others said, supporting them for doing the job that otherwise would not be done in caring for those who often are ignored and overlooked. There are double standards still in our country. John Mason is right to say that we need to nail this issue about forcing people into employment. Willie Coffey mentioned that women are more likely to have to give up work because of carers duties, and he made the link between food banks and sanctions. That has come out time and time again. Ken Macintosh made an interesting point about motability that needs to be explored further. I will finish with this point. It is all right morning and groaning about how bad things are, but I hope that this Parliament and the Scottish Government will do is take what the committee has said to form the basis of a future that is totally different from the one that exists just now. That concludes well for reform committees to be on women and social security. We now move to decision time. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 14791, in the name of Hugh Henry, on women and social security, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.