 Mae'r next item of prison is topical questions. I go to question number one from Christina McKelvie. To ask the Scottish Government when powers over social security benefits will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Minister, Jeane Freeman. The Scottish Government has consistently been clear that we will have a Scottish social security agency delivering the 11 devolved benefits by the end of this parliamentary term. panfioediau rhai oedd honganol gynhyrchu, ac mae oedd unrhyw algu ddygu gweld penethau yn gweithio. The biggest transfer of power since the revolution began was not only because it was not a lift-and-shift transfer of a complete system—much is what we argued for. It is the transfer of responsibility for 15 per cent of the payments that were made by an integrated welfare system that has developed in a piecemeal fashion over more than 50 years and is again itself currently undergoing further reform and change. The scale and the complexity is clear and everyone sitting in a democratic parliament knows that safely delivering this transfer is not possible without the underpinning of both a legislative framework and a robust delivery infrastructure. Members of the social security committee will be well aware of the need to work closely with the DWP to make sure that the Scottish and the UK systems are aligned. We are determined to work closely with the UK Government to iron out issues and resolve the complexities, but we are also determined not to allow the important transfer of powers affecting 1.4 million people in Scotland to be used as a political football. Christine McElvie Can I thank the minister for that detail on the transition? Can the minister tell us how the Scottish Government would ensure that no one transferring to any of the benefits that will be delivered by the Scottish Government slips through the gaps between the two systems in that transition? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Ms McElvie has, of course, gone straight to the heart of what is important, and that is the safe and secure transfer of the devolved benefits. Making sure that every one of the 1.4 million people who rely on this support receive the money that they are entitled to on the day that it is due. Throughout the three-month consultation that we have just finished, no one asked us to do this quickly. Everyone asked us to do it safely. That is why the current experience groups with lived experience of the current benefit system and the other expertise that we will draw on are so important and why we will make sure that this Parliament has the time that it needs to fully scrutinise the primary and secondary legislation that will be required before we can deliver the benefits. That is, as it should be, in the interests of people across Scotland—people, Presiding Officer, who wake up every day in a cloud of worry and anxiety brought on by the impact of the UK benefit system. It is deeply disappointing that, in recent days, both Tory and Labour have tried to score political points on the basis of unfounded assertions with an utterly careless disregard for the impact their words have on those people that they claim to represent. The minister herself gets to the heart of the issue here. It is about safety and security, and that is what people seek. How will the minister reassure those who have been victims of the conscious cruelty of the current system, those with motor neurone disease, those with long-term conditions and those with life-threatening conditions? How will she reassure those people who have been affected by the conscious cruelty of the current system that any new system in Scotland will not just replicate those failures but address some of the failures that those people have experienced? I notice that Ms McKelvie uses the words of Paul Laffordie, the writer of I, Daniel Blake, to refer to the DWP's callous conditionality and benefit sanctions regime. There is a great deal, Presiding Officer, that we will learn from the experience of the DWP and the UK benefit system, not least a rush to give timescales and commitments that are persistently not met. If we take the example of universal credit, which was announced in 2010, delivered in their act in 2012 and is still not expected to be completed in its roll-out until 2022, that is why not only the approach that we have taken in the consultation of directly listening to those with lived experience of being on the benefit system and those with expertise working with them and those indeed working in delivering that benefit system is exactly the approach that we will continue in the weeks and months following the consultation through the experience panels and the other matters that I have referred to. Unfortunately, with 15 per cent, we cannot change all of the unfairness in the current system, but with the limited powers that we have, we are determined that we will take the time, we will listen, we will not be bullied into false timescales or deadline dates. Within the lifetime of this Parliament, we will deliver a social security system for Scotland that everyone in Scotland can be proud of. The Labour Party has supported you when you have talked about a social security system with fairness, dignity and respect at its heart. Why has the Government chosen to delay assuming the powers and continuing a system in which the Government's own backbenchers are talking about a system of conscious cruelty? Why did the delay in leaving the powers with the DWP? I have to say to the member that to call this delay is to completely misunderstand the process of how you go about building a new public service. First of all, you need the legislative competence in order to bring before this Parliament the legislative, the draft bill that you will be entitled to scrutinise, as will everyone else, which then forms a framework on which we can begin to deliver on executive competence. I am surprised to be frank that Labour has chosen to join the Tories in an attempt to use this situation for political posturing and to make political points. You have broken the consensus and the agreement that we had that we would work together on this matter. You should know, sir, full well that we need to take the time, not only to listen to those who are currently recipients of the benefit system, but also to put in place the significant infrastructure on which it will depend. We need to test that infrastructure because the last thing that I want—and I would imagine the last thing that you want—is that a single person, a single one of those £1.4 million, falls through a gap simply because members in this chamber are so concerned with the interests of their own political party and are little concerned with the interests of those that we are here to serve. If there is confusion about whether there is delay here, perhaps that confusion has been caused by the Scottish Government's refusal to explain to this Parliament in a timely manner what they are asking for in meetings with the joint ministerial working group on welfare. The most recent minutes of which disclose that it is Scottish ministers, not UK ministers, who have asked for something called split competence with regard to the transfer of welfare powers. Can the minister explain for the benefit of this Parliament for the first time what exactly split competence is? Can the minister clarify whether split competence will apply only to tranche 2 and not to tranche 1? Can the minister clarify what impact split competence will have on the timing of the transfer or commencement of powers under sections 22 and 23 of the Scotland Acton? Finally, can the minister explain why none of this—none of it at all—was explained to the Social Security Committee until after Damien Greene gave evidence to us on 3 November? What do the ministers here have to hide? That is quite astonishing. Mr Tomkins is a member of the Social Security Committee. Let me just read you a few words from the cabinet secretary's appearance before it on 30 June this year. That is a number of months away. It is unfortunate that Mr Tomkins did not have his listening ears on. It is important to distinguish between the commencement and the delivery of powers. The legal commencement of powers is the first stage in a process and is some distance away from the delivery of new or existing benefits. I think that that is clear. I repeated it myself when I was there on 29 September. It has been repeated in debates in this chamber, so it is unacceptable if not to say downright disingenuous for any member, particularly a member of the Social Security Committee, to claim that this is news to them, that this was unknown. It applies to tranche 2, and I have already explained the difference between legislative competence and executive competence. Legislative competence allows us to bring to this Parliament the draft bill, which will be the framework on which we will establish a social security system for Scotland. Executive competence will allow us to then deliver the benefits within that system and from that agency. The difference is clear, and I would have expected that someone of Mr Tomkins' learning would have understood it. The minister clearly has her brass neck on today, because, in 2014, the SNP told the Scottish people that they could establish all the mechanisms and all the institutions of a new state within 18 months. Now we find out that they cannot even administer 11 benefits within the next three years. Was the claim made in 2014 a mistake? Was it a typo in that great organ of truth, the white paper, or was it just a blatant attempt to mislead the voters? I have no brass neck on today, but I have to say that Mr Finlay should be ashamed of himself. If he goes and reads that white paper, he will see that we were very clear that there would be a period of transition. If Mr Finlay would stop for one moment and pause and think less about himself and less about his own party and think about what it is required—I appreciate it sometimes since you were in power—and you may have forgotten what it is required in order to bring into being a new public agency for the first time in Scotland. It requires that we take the time to get it right, unlike the UK Tory Government, and that we have first and last in our sights our attention to those £1.4 million, people who will rely on us to deliver those benefits on time in the right place to the right account. For us, they are our first and last focus. How unfortunate that, for neither Labour nor the Tories, that is not the case. To ask the Scottish Government whether powers will be removed from councils by its local government review, and, if so, which? Ministerial colleagues and I are currently engaging with COSLA on a wide range of public service reform issues. We believe that local control by, rather than on behalf of communities, is key to delivering better public services and improving outcomes for all in Scotland. Scottish ministers are currently engaging with COSLA on a wide range of public service reform issues. Our discussions will include consideration of the scope and timing of a review of local government functions. That review will be an opportunity to build an emerging good practice to energise local democracy and to increase community empowerment. The Times reported on Friday that ministers are planning a major assault on town halls, with measures such as forcing councils to merge services, devolving services down to local areas, and stripping councils of some areas of responsibility such as roads. The idea of a national road service with no democratic accountability fills me with horror. The article further said that the plans were meant to be kept secret until after next year's council elections, and all this on top of raiding council coffers to pay for a national priority. Can I ask the minister for a straight answer to this? Was the article correct in any of its claims and, if not, can he guarantee that none of these things will happen? First of all, we do not have town halls in Scotland, and we should start from the very basic knowledge of how we do business here. Local government is essential to the health, wellbeing and prosperity of every community in Scotland, and we hugely value the work that local authorities do. Scottish Government and local government also share the same ambitions for stronger communities, a fairer society and a thriving economy. Local government is and always will be an essential and equal partner in creating a fairer and more prosperous Scotland, and that includes being a key partner in our work on community empowerment. Let me read you this, and I quote, we understand how difficult it is to throw off the shackles of the current way of looking at democracy. However, the reality is that, if we are serious about making Scotland fairer, wealthier and healthier, then we need to start putting local communities in control of what matters to them. That was Councillor David O'Neill after publication of the commission on strengthening local democracy and local government, and I agree with Councillor O'Neill in that regard. Graham Simpson. Well, thank you. The minister has not actually answered the question that I asked. I asked him for a straight answer, so I'll try again, shall we? The article said that ministers, presumably him, are planning to force councils to merge services and strip councils of areas of responsibility such as roads. Is any of that incorrect? Can we just have a straight answer to that? He mentions COSLA. Let's look at COSLA. COSLA is so engaged with this Government that it now doesn't even want to talk to you about the educational attainment fund because you do not want to engage with the whole issue of democratic accountability. You've stripped that away from local government. Presiding Officer, like Mr Simpson's knowledge of local government, I would say that much of the article in The Times lacks knowledge, too. As I have said already, we are engaging with COSLA at this moment in time. That, for me, is an opportunity to build on emerging good practice and energise local democracy. What I entered politics for was to ensure that people had a real say in the public services that are delivered, not public services that shouldn't be delivered to them, but public services that they have a real say in shaping. That is what we intend to do. That has been the way that this Government progressed during the course of the last parliamentary session with the community empowerment bill. We intend to go much further and we intend to do that in partnership with local government colleagues. Does the minister acknowledge that many local authority services are buckling at the seams under the financial pressure that they have been under for some time now? Over 27,000 jobs have gone on local government since 2009. The demand on those services and the pressure on those services, however, have not reduced so that you can imagine the pressure that is on the staff that are absolutely left. Public service reform is one thing, but it is set against a backdrop of increasing cuts in services. Finally, did the minister read the report by Spice, the University of Glasgow, and heard it walk university into the impact of the cuts in local government in last year's budget, which clearly showed that there was a disproportionate impact on the most poorest and most vulnerable in our communities? Will he, this year, in looking at the settlement for local government, ensure that there is a proper impact assessment on how and who it will impact most? The Scottish Government has treated local government very fairly. Despite the massive cuts to the Scottish budget from the UK Government—facts, absolute facts—it would be more apt for you to point the finger at them for continuing to cut our budget here in Scotland. Instead of carping from the sidelines, you should be joining us in fighting Tory austerity. Instead, your Westminster colleagues marched through the lobbies to sign up to George Osborne's austerity compact. You should be ashamed of that. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to research carried out by Herriot-Watt University regarding ways to reduce income and other inequalities. The Scottish Government pays close attention to research on reducing inequalities and welcomes the research that supports the rationale behind one of the Government's key priorities of extending the provision of free early learning and childcare. That includes increased provision for all three and four-year-olds to 600 hours per year, extended provision to include over a quarter of two-year-olds, and we are committed to nearly doubling free early learning and childcare entitlement to 1,140 hours per year by 2020. That will save families over £3,000 per child per year. In addition, our fairer Scotland action plan outlines 50 concrete actions that we are taking to tackle inequality and to create a fairer Scotland. John Mason. I am grateful that the minister talks about helping women into work through childcare and other such ways. Can she also confirm that the Government will be tackling the gender pay gap, which is mentioned in the report? Yes, absolutely. As Mr Mason rightly recognises the importance of childcare in alleviating pressure on family households and the cost of living with entitlement free at the point of need and also in terms of freeing women in particular up to enter the labour market. However, he raises an important point in and around the pay gap. The research that he mentions along with investment in early learning and childcare also identifies the importance and policies that close the gender pay gap. I am pleased to say that the evidence published by ONS a few weeks ago shows that the gender pay gap in Scotland is continuing to fall. We outperform the UK, but the fact that we still have a pay gap means that we need to continue with our work on occupational segregation. We need to continue the work in terms of encouraging public and private sector employers to publish information on the gender pay gap. We need to of course do the long-term work to encourage more women to pursue and remain in STEM-related careers. John Mason, I thank the minister for that response as well. I think that we all believe that we should grow the economy, but up until now the gap between those who have a high income and a low income, who are richest and poorest, has been unacceptably large. Can the Government confirm that, as well as growing the economy, we are committed to reducing these gaps between the richest and the poorest? We know that inequality has a very negative effect on economic growth and, according to the OECD, rising income inequality between 1990 and 2010 reduced the UK economic performance by nine percentage points. That is why inclusive growth is central to this Government's economic strategy and to our approach to a fairer Scotland, making sure that we tackle inequality so that everyone can benefit from a more prosperous economy. That obviously chimes with the research published by Herriot University, who, as well as talking about investment in early learning childcare and endeavours to close the gender pay gap, also talks about the importance of regionally balanced economic growth. That is reflected both in our economic strategy and the labour market strategy and also in terms of some of the work within the fairer Scotland action plan, which is very pragmatic and contains 50 concrete actions that are about tackling poverty and inequality in all its forms. I rise to make a point of order regarding an inaccuracy of factual information provided to Parliament on Wednesday of last week. As I understand the guidance, members, including ministers, have a personal responsibility to be accurate and truthful in their contributions during parliamentary proceedings. Parliamentary proceedings include answers to oral questions. The Minister for Transport and the Islands, in an answer to an oral question, told Parliament that his plan for a bill on railway transport policing was an SNP manifesto promise. He said, and I quote, that we were elected on a manifesto promise to do what we are doing. Following that answer, I checked the entire contents of the SNP manifesto upon which the minister was elected. Nowhere did any such promise appear. Can I therefore call Nade Demand, the minister, to come to this Parliament at 5 o'clock tonight to set the record straight at decision time this afternoon? I thank the member for his point of order and thank for the advance notice, too. I would first of all make a number of comments. If the member believes that any member has not been fully accurate in their comments, they are able to make a number of interventions. They can intervene on the member when speaking and ask them to correct themselves. They could put the matter in writing to the member and ask them to correct it that way. They could, if relevant, lodge a motion or a question for debate. Of course, it is up to all members if they wish to raise matters in the media. In terms of procedure, if any member realises that they have given incorrect information in the contribution of the chamber, they can request that information that is addressed in the official report. I hope that addresses...