 marriage of the welfare reform committee for 2015. Look if everyoneす? Make sure that the fort mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched to silent or airplane mode. Ur first item of business is a decision on whether to take item three in privateicem three is a discussion on a proposal for permission of research. Members happy to take that in private. That is agreed. Our second agenda item is consideration of the welfare fund yn Schifuland Bill Season 2 to remind the officials that they are not permitted to participate in this part of the proceedings. I remind everybody that they should have with them the copies on the bill as introduced the marshaled list of amendments and the groupings of the amendments, and the groupings set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated and the marshaled list sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be disposed of. I will briefly remind all those present of some of the main points of the procedure so that we are all as clear as possible—that� that is as clear as possible. That will help me quite a lot. There will be a debate on each group's amendments and I will call Members to speak in turn. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my eye or the clerk's attention. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press or withdraw it. If they wish to press it, I will put the question on the amendment, and if a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved they must seek o'r bwyll fod yn amlwytsi casangol. Ieith y cymaint sydd yn ddweud professionnes hefyd thisig y cymwydydd yn fwyfedumbol gyda'r amletmau ar taethau. Ifr bod sydd yn ddweud hynny'n ddweud hynny o'r amletmau when it is called to do so, sydd yn ddweud hynny. Pryddo, allan ffalu cymwydeadd wedi chi'n ddweud suchi yn amletmau. Ieith y cymwydeedd hynny, byddwn i'n ddweud hynny o'r amletmau ar y mae'r ysgolfydd. Y dyfodol i ddifu o ddifu o'r ddifu arwraith a fyddai cyfnodau o'r ddifu. Mae ddifu os ydym yn cael ei ddifu o'r ddifu yng Nghymru i ddifu, ddigonio i gyd, i gyd, i ddifu'r ddiw i'w ddifu, ac mae'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu i ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu i ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu? I gyd, mae'n ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu. Rydyn ni'n thritio niferpoedd, a eisiau i ddagai'r cwestiynau ar y Tathredol Cymru. Diolch i digwydd, mae'r ddagai siaradau yn neithio i'ch cyflengwys. Rydyn ni'n ddagai'r cyflengwys Cymru cyn y cyflengwys Cymru aethau ar benlyw sy'n gwneud einithwyr o'r newid o'r maen nhw i ddim ni, i'w ddim yn dweud o ddweud o gyd yn ddweud o'r maen. MargaretRaeth NED. Thank you, convener. I move both amendments in my name. General principals has laid out in exercising its functions under section 1 to 4, irrespective of an applicant for assistance and pursuance of section 2. A local authority must take reasonable steps to facilitate the following principles that the right to dignity of the applicant is to be respected and be that the particular needs and choices of the applicant are to be considered. This amendment ensures that while exercising its functions under sections 1 to 4 in respect of an applicant for assistance and pursuance of section 2, a local authority must take all reasonable steps to make sure that respect for and dignity of the applicant is taken into account and that the needs and choices of the applicant are considered. The principle is supported by organisations such as SCVO, the Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform, the Scottish Church's Parliamentary Office, Engender, the Poverty Alliance and others who, like me, believe that dignity and respect should be the cornerstone of our approach to welfare. It is crucial that we embed them principles of dignity and compassion within the legislation at this stage. Furthermore, in chapter 4 of the Scottish Government's document, Scotland's Future, there are numerous references to welfare and dignity such as the benefits system should be fair, transparent and sympathetic to the challenges faced by people receiving them, respecting personal dignity, equality and human rights. Section B relates to this point, as it means that the applicant has a degree of choice in the matter. As I have spoken to some people and I am sure that many others around the table will have had experiences of constituents whereby, in the old system, if they were provided with items such as a cooker that perhaps did not fit into their kitchen and a washing machine that does not suit their disabilities and they cannot operate it. If they had that degree of choice or were able to go and buy an item that suited their needs, it would allow them that option. The bottom line is that we are dealing with vulnerable people and people who have fallen on hard times to uphold dignity and respect. We also must uphold choice and the needs of the individual. One size does not fit all when it comes to welfare. Given the wide range of organisations that want dignity to be enshrined in the welfare system and that the Scottish Government's own document highlights dignity and respect in the welfare system as a key tenant, I think that it is reasonable and responsible to include this in the bill and have it on the front of the bill, because I believe that there already has been an example, for example, in the social care self-directed support that already is. The general principles are on the front page. That is amendment 24 on amendment— The Honour is speaking to amendment 34 of the Bargout group. Is he speaking to amendment 30? That is in the name of Kevin Stewart. No, he needs that to speak. We will come to the other amendment in another group, so Kevin Stewart is speaking to amendment 30. Thank you very much, convener. I, too, share the belief that applicants should be treated with respect and would like to ensure that their dignity is preserved at all times. We have seen with the changes that have come from Westminster and the use of language that has come from that place that folks quite often are not treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. I do have some difficulty with Margaret MacDougall's amendment round about choice. I think that we would all like to maximise folks' choices to the instigree, but the reality is that we have got a limited budget—some 30-odd million pounds—to deal with welfare cuts of £6 billion. I think that the more level of choice that we put in place means less people helped. I think that we have got to balance the site very carefully. I wish that this Parliament had all of the powers and all of the budget to deal with welfare. I think that we would deal with it much, much differently than is being dealt with by Westminster at this moment in time. We have got to recognise that we have limited abilities, limited room for manoeuvre and limited budgets. I think that, in terms of my amendment, that is a recognition of that. Although I would always want to go that much further, we have got to be aware of where we are at. I will open it up to other members. I will come back to Margaret MacDougall, but I will open it up to other members if they want to make a contribution. I have a lot of sympathy with both the intention and the objective of both the amendments. I have a technical concern. What is the sanction if a claimant feels that a local authority has failed to discharge its duties in accordance with the proposed amendment? I asked the question because there are two reasons. I am not sure how a court would interpret this. Secondly, I certainly do not want a local authority to be distracted from what we all want the local authority to be doing by facing defence of legal actions that are claiming that this amendment was breached. I am asking two questions. Are you satisfied about the ability of the court to interpret this? Secondly, what is the sanction? Margaret, you get an opportunity to wind up at the end of the discussion. I will come back to you after what I have had a debate. I have turned the microphone's officer and left the committee. Thank you very much, convener. I congratulate both members on moving these amendments and speaking in support of Margaret MacDougall in particular. It is particularly good that we are starting the discussion this morning with an overview of what the bill is trying to achieve and the principles underpinning it. In some ways, the bill is a very simple and pragmatic replacement measure for the social fund that preceded it, but the bill also offers us the Scottish Parliament an opportunity to lay down the direction of travel to put dignity and respect at the heart of our thinking for welfare as more and more powers come to the Scottish Parliament giving us responsibility for welfare. I think that it is quite important that we establish not just what we want to see from welfare but the kind of society that we want to build here in Scotland, and so I think that it is quite important that we put the principles in the bill itself. Now, as you see, both proposals before me would attract my support. The proposal on Kevin Stewart captures the words respect and dignity, and I would be interested to hear what the minister makes of that particular amendment. I was slightly concerned that Mr Stewart did not support Margaret MacDougall's amendment and particularly that he seemed to hesitate over the word choice. Now, I think again that if we are to give and treat people with dignity and respect, it is about allowing them to exercise choice. It is not choice to make demands on the social fund because that is simply choice within the decisions already made by the local authority. If you look at the way it is worded, it is choice after exercising its functions under section 1 to 4 in respect of an applicant. In other words, this is not the choice of an applicant to make demands. It is a requirement for us and the state to make sure that in assessing the needs of an applicant we offer them their views and allow them to make a choice from what the choice is open to us as a society. I have to say that I think it is quite an important word. Not only is it an important word, it is the word that was used by the Scottish Government in a previous measure. The reason that I believe that Margaret has placed this amendment is that it copies the wording and principles that the Scottish Government put in place when passing the Self-Directed Support Act. We thought that if it is good enough for the Self-Directed Support Act, then surely it is good enough for this act, too. In reply to the point made by Annabelle Goldie, clearly, like any act, it would be open for judicial review if an applicant felt that their dignity and respect was not upheld by the way they were treated. They would be open to taking it to judicial review. Now, that is a difficult course of action for Annabelle, but that would be the course. I have confidence that Annabelle does, too, in the ability of the courts to interpret our legislation. However, I certainly do not think that judicial review as a sanction is likely to be one that is abused by applicants. I think that it is more important that we state this as a principle and that, therefore, local authorities and those who are carrying out this act are aware of that principle on the face of the bill and aware that that sanction is at the back of their minds. I think that it will make them more focused in making sure that we do put these principles into practice. For those reasons, and the fact that it has been supported by the wider voluntary sector, the SEVO and many others that Margaret Coathead, I think that it is very important that we take this step. I particularly recommend that we support Margaret MacDougall's amendment 24. In respect of amendments 24 and 30, it has always been a priority that welfare funds should be delivered in such a way that the dignity of welfare fund users is preserved. I agree with the committee's suggestion that we have an opportunity to take a different approach to welfare in Scotland regardless of the funds available. Our services will be delivered with respect and understanding. This is an issue that I have been considering for some time now. We have been working with local authority practitioners through the series of decision making workshops that we have been running to raise awareness of the challenges that some of the applicants to the fund face and to try to ensure that decision makers put the applicant and the needs at the centre of their work. I have seen in my visits to local authorities the efforts that local authority staff make to ensure that applicants are assisted in a timely and appropriate way. That said, I can appreciate how important it is to send a clear signal about the need to treat applicants with dignity and respect. I have thought carefully about this matter for some time and I do believe that it is right to give priority to this aspect of the fund by including appropriate reference to it in the bill. However, there are, of course, two very similar amendments to consider today. Amendment 24, which has been proposed by Margaret McDougall, is laudable in its intention, but my concern with this amendment centres around the potential impact that it could have on local authority resources. It is the reality of the situation that, as Kevin Stewart said, there is a limited budget for welfare funds, which is coming under pressure. We have to acknowledge the demands that exist on the fund and the opportunities for savings that exist through local authorities about buying goods that they can distribute through the fund. This is alongside the added administrative burdens that local authorities would have to bear if we accepted Margaret McDougall's amendment. The guidance on the current interim scheme makes clear that where an individual has particular needs they should be met and I'm determined that this continues under the permanent arrangements. We will look again at the guidance for the permanent arrangements to see if there's more we can do to ensure that where applicants have a real genuine need for a non-standard product there is a clear understanding of how this should happen. I'm therefore going to support amendment 30, which I believe captures the essence of what stakeholders have been calling for without bringing additional pressure to be in local authority budgets. So I urge Margaret McDougall to withdraw amendment 24 and ask the committee to accept amendment 30. Okay, I'll come back to Margaret McDougall to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw. Margaret, do you have an opportunity to ask a point that you can raise? Yes, thank you. I mean, I think Ken answered the question on the Annabelle raised around sanctions and, you know, that the judicial review is there and also from the users point of view mean they can appeal as well. So I don't have concerns around that. I mean, Kevin Stewart and the minister raised that they, you know, there are limited funds available to local authorities, which we know, but I'm not asking for people to be able to demand an excessive amount or, you know, they go out and buy very best items. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't cost any more just to be able to have choice, you know, because it's just to give people that little bit more respect and that they can actually say, well, this is what I need. I've identified this as being it would suit my, for example, my kitchen or it suits my needs. This is how much it costs. And would the authority fund that? I mean, and if it's above a certain level, I think the local authority would be perfectly within their rights to say, well, no, that's out with our funding allocation. You can't have that. So I think that that's choice should be there and choice doesn't mean it's going to cost more. It actually might cost less at times. So I press with my amendment. That brings us to the question then that amendment 24, we agree to, are we all agreed? Okay, I'll put it to vote. All those in favour of amendment 24, in the name of Margaret McDougall, please indicate. No. You get the opportunity to speak, but you don't get the opportunity to vote. So we'll do that again. And those against. That amendment falls. Five votes to two. I move on now to call amendment 25 in the name of Ken Macintosh versus group with amendments 26 and 28. Ken Macintosh to move amendment 25 and speak to all our other amendments in the group. Okay, Ken. And as we know, the current bill places no restrictions on the circumstances in which a local authority can decide to make an award to an applicant in kind, that is, in goods or vouchers rather than in cash. The effect of this amendment would not be to prevent councils from doing so or would simply enable the Scottish Government to produce regulations detailing the circumstances in which a local authority could make a non-financial award. This power could be used to ensure, for example, that local authorities take applicant circumstances and preferences into account when deciding on the nature of the award. It could be used, and this follows on from a previous conversation, it could be used to ensure more say or more choice for the applicant in the process. And following on, it's clear from the discussion in the last group of amendments that all colleagues in the committee and the minister to share my belief that the principles of dignity and respect should underpin our approach to welfare in Scotland. But, on the other hand, it's unfortunately clear from the witnesses who gave evidence to our committee that a more common experience for those relying on state support here in Scotland at times of difficulty is one of feeling judged, stigmatised and of being made to feel small. Every bit is important, if not more so, than the principles that we state are the way that we put them into practice. We heard direct evidence that those using vouchers or tokens in local shops can be stigmatising, embarrassing and undermining applicants' sense of dignity. Yes, in some circumstances, non-financial awards may be the most practical and the most cost-effective way of meeting applicants' needs, but we also heard that such awards can be problematic and difficult. For example, we heard that issuing vouchers instead of cash can undermine a family's ability to achieve best value by budgeting, spreading payments or shopping around for goods. Items awarded do not always meet the identified needs of the applicant and the households. Is it not the case, for example, that disabled applicants and those with very specific needs may be better placed than the local authority to identify and purchase an item that meets their needs? For families in rural areas, the ability to find a shop to take vouchers is likely to be more limited as well as stigmatising. Surely our intention, with our approach to welfare in this bill in particular, is to build up resilience by, at the very least, leaving as much choice as possible in the hands of the recipient. I would say to the minister, you and I do not get paid in furniture or tokens and, in fact, if we were to do so, I think we might be offended or feel patronised. So why should we surprise that applicants for welfare might feel similarly? Are we trying to make people feel worse or give them the hand up at their time of need? I thought the SCVO briefing put it very well when it said, for many, having cash to buy what they need is by far the best option, not least because it gives people some semblance of control and dignity at a time when they can't control the factors which have led them into hardship in the first place. So whatever our good intentions, what is also clear from the voluntary sector organisations who give evidence is their concern that in-kind awards from the fund seem to have become the default position. Only half of all crisis grants and less than 20 per cent of community grant awards are made by way of cash, check or direct bank transfer. Now it may be that community grant awards where people are looking to furnish a flat, for example, and a whole pack of goods, it might be the best option, but this amendment does not rule that out. Just to be clear, it would not disbar local authorities from providing support in-kind rather than cash. What it does do is allow the Scottish Government to specify the conditions which would need to be satisfied before a non-financial award could be made. Such an approach would not prevent local authorities from making awards in-kind. It would ensure that proper consideration was given to the needs of the applicants in each case and that decision making was more transparent. It would also provide recipients with a clear basis on which to challenge unsuitable awards and any lack of consideration on the part of local authorities. I would like to move amendment 25 in my name—not 26 and 28 at this stage—to move amendment 25. I will open the discussion up to the committee and go to Kevin to be followed by Annabelle. We heard a lot during the course of evidence-taking and had a number of written observations on those particular issues. One of the key things that we need to put on record is that many of the folks who gave evidence were very thankful for the in-kind contributions that they received. The best examples are probably from some of the young folk who left the care sector who felt that the furniture packages that they received from the local authorities were the best way of dealing with the situation. I come back to the point that I made previously, convener, in the fact that we have a very limited amount of money to deal with cuts that amount to some £6 billion. My great fear is that, if we restrict local authorities from being able to strike deals to bulk buy goods, we will be helping less and less people. I think that the key thing in all of this is helping as many people in need as we possibly can. I have some sympathy for the intent of the amendments, but I do not think that the bill is the correct place to address the issues. In some regards, we have got to allow for the independence of local authorities and for them to apply common sense and logic to their day-to-day business in helping folks in need. I have no doubt whatsoever about the good intentions behind the amendment, but, going back to my observations in regard to Margaret MacDougall's amendment, I want local authorities, convener, to have the widest possible latitude and discretion as to how they meet need. I am worried that that would restrict that latitude and that brith of decision making. I just say my earlier concern that I alluded to about Margaret MacDougall's amendment. If you look at what her amendment would have achieved, she wanted the particular needs and choices of the applicant to be considered, but, perversely, if that had been accepted, the amendment would then restrict the ability of the local authority to respond to that. I am troubled that Mr Macintosh's amendment would be inflexible and restrictive on a local authority, and I am unable to support that. The other speakers acknowledged the good intentions of the amendment. It is important to remember that the people who we are talking about here are people who are facing absolute destitution. If the pot that we have to help them is limited to, I think, 38 million against 6 billion of cuts, then if we do not use that cost effectively, then other people facing absolute destitution will be deprived of help in the end. Although, in an ideal world, perhaps we would like things to be different, we have to be pragmatic. I also bow to my colleague Kevin Stewart, who was hearing and heard the evidence from people who found that very often payment-in-kind suited them. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment either. Margaret Macintosh's amendment. I have heard other arguments against that, but choice does not have to mean more costly. Some of those bulk purchases are set, and that is it, but we all know that sales go on. There are opportunities to reduce the cost. Ken made the point about vouchers, particularly in rural areas. How much would it cost a particular individual to travel to a city, for example, so that they could then use the vouchers, because they would not be able to use them in local shops? Local authority must have that discretion. We are saying that they should have that discretion, but they should give consideration to each individual on a case-by-case basis. I know that there will be times when individuals may well have had assistance in the past and not spent that money as they should have done. Therefore, that would be a case for local authority to provide with in-kind or vouchers. However, it is just to give an individual who is in that situation a little bit more control over their life, so that they can then decide what they want and what is best for them. Therefore, I support Ken's amendment. It was just to say that I have listened to some of the arguments in the area of choice not costing more. I think that that would find the face of the evidence that has been provided for COSLA as to some of the difficulties that might be involved, particularly in terms of what payment method would be available to some people, in terms of what kind of bank cards or post office accounts they have in those areas. I think that that is a concern. I also feel that the bill is intended to put the individual at the heart of the decision-making process. The examples that we have been given are vouchers in rural areas or washing machines or cookers that do not fit. I would say that they are not suitable as a failure in that process, but they are not something that should be on the face of the bill. I agree with my colleagues that they should be at the discretion of the local authorities who know how best to fit in their own individual areas in providing that fund. There are a number of considerations to take into account when we are considering amendments 25, 26 and 28, which, taken together, would result in the limits being placed on the circumstances in which local authorities could make non-financial assistance available to applicants. I would be interested in the evidence that the committee heard from users of the interim Scottish welfare fund, which came out in support of local authorities providing goods to fulfil community care grants. We also commissioned Heriot-Watt University to undertake an independent evaluation of the Scottish welfare fund as part of our on-going work to improve the interim scheme and the development of the permanent arrangements. The Heriot-Watt evaluation also suggests that there is support for rewards and kinds as long as they are appropriate for the needs of the applicant. Inequality, we heard for someone with young children or limited mobility having an item delivered and installed because there are also services provided by the local authority can be preferable to receiving cash, but it must meet their needs. I recognise that third sector organisations have concerns about the provisions of goods, however we have to acknowledge the pressures that exist on the fund and the opportunities for savings that exist through local authorities bulk buying goods that they can distribute through the fund. I am also aware that bulk purchase goods will not meet the needs of all applicants, and that is why the guidance for the interim scheme is clear that awards should meet the needs of the individual. This is something that I am absolutely positive will continue. We will look again at the guidance for the permanent arrangements to see if there is more that we can do to ensure that where applicants have a genuine need for a non-standard product that there is a clear understanding of how that this should happen. I am not minded to change our approach in respect of community care grants, but I have been giving some thought how awards are made for crisis grants, but it is initially that I do not think needs to be addressed in the bill. However, when we consult on the regulations and the statutory guidance that will support the act, we will explore how to ensure the principles of this amendment are taken in board in respect of crisis grant payments. Whilst understanding and having sympathy with the intent of the amendments, I do not think that the bill is the correct place to address these issues, therefore I do not support the amendments and I urge the committee not to agree to amendments 25, 26 and 28. Thank you, convener, and I can say that I was both slightly encouraged and a bit discouraged too by the contributions in the debate. First of all, I am slightly concerned that either I did not explain the meaning of this or that people have misinterpreted. This does not, this amendment or these amendments would not restrict the ability of a local authority to provide goods in kind. They would not do so. All they would do would be put the onus on at least considering giving an in-cash award first and it would allow the Government to stipulate the conditions under which in-kind awards could be made. It does not restrict feeding whatsoever. In fact, I did not follow Annabelle's logic. She suggested that it would restrict the choice in the previous amendment. It does not. It echoes or repeats exactly the principles that we were trying to get in place in the previous amendment about choice, dignity and respect, and it does not contradict them. It absolutely tries to put them. I am sorry. I think that Ken wants to take an intervention as a debate, so if you want to take an intervention. Why not, Annabelle? I was merely pointing out to Mr Macintosh that if that original amendment from Mrs McDoole had been accepted, it actually creates a paradox because, on the one hand, it is saying to a local authority that particular needs and choices of the applicant are to be considered. Well, that might be that the applicant could need goods or particular support or services, and yet what Mr Macintosh's amendment is doing is actually trying to restrict the local authority's ability to look at the overall holistic needs of the claimant. So that was the paradox identified. It is quite clear that Annabelle Goldie has totally misunderstood the effect and the intention behind this amendment. If that is what she thinks it does, because it does none of those things, it absolutely gives the local authority the ability to take all the needs of the applicant into account rather than patronising the applicant by deciding that the local authority knows best, and I would repeat again. This is exactly how to put dignity and respect into practice in our bill. If we actually mean what we see when we're talking about respecting people in our welfare system, then you have to treat them as you would treat anybody else in society and give them an element of choice. Throughout, I mean, all the voluntary, can I just tell you who supports this? Child poverty action group, the Poverty Alliance Scotland, SCVO, Inclusion Scotland, One Parent Families Scotland, Bernardo Scotland. We've heard evidence before from many people, Oxfam, I thought were very good, in giving support to any society. You are better giving people cash because it builds resilience, dignity and respect, and it is as true in Scotland as it is and true in any other country. In this case, we are not insisting—this does not insist—that people give cash. What it does is— It's taking the intervention. Yes, I'm happy to. I thank you for taking the intervention. I think that you've also got to recognise that there were a number of witnesses, including folks who have accessed the Scottish welfare fund, who felt that the package of goods that they were offered was absolutely the right thing. I think that we have got to take cognisance of the fact that in many, many places, the vast bulk of places, this is working well. The fact is that local authorities are being helpful in terms of what is offered. I think that the difficulty in putting common sense into legislation is that you can't. I think that what you are looking for is common sense, which I hope would apply across the board. As Clare Adamson has said, COSLA seems to be well aware of the logic that needs to be applied in those cases, and that's why they have the best practice group. I'm looking for far more than common sense. I'm looking to put dignity, choice and respect into a bill in terms of principles and practice. If I may give an example, I was in Aberdeen yesterday and I visited an instant neighbour who I'm sure Mr Stewart knows well. An instant neighbour is a fantastic example for an organisation of around 30 years supplying people with exactly those goods—furniture packs, furnishings, floor coverings and assistance when people move into houses. The local authority no longer allows applicants to use instant neighbour. It insists on bulk purchasing brand new items from a place in Broxburn. I'm sure that there's nothing wrong, but those are cheaply made, they're mass-produced and they don't last. The effect of that means that instant neighbours now end up putting all those reconditioned goods into landfill, so environmentally unsustainable, removes all the choice from the applicants, and an organisation that's been going for 30 years, that's a social enterprise, that's employing great people in Aberdeen, no longer gets this service, no longer gets that money going into the local economy. I have to say, these are the sort of choices, but either way—and that's an example of something where I'd question the decision—but either way, both choices under the amendments that I'm moving would be open to the local authority. This does not rule out. I've actually specifically stated that in many circumstances, for example, a young man moving into a flat for the first time once, he doesn't want money. What he wants is somebody saying, here's a pack of goods, here is the furnishings, the plates, the crockery, the cooker that you need, that's what they want, and they'd be able to choose that. They would actually have a choice, so in that situation they would be asked, and their views would be taken into account. In the end, the decision is still one for the local authority, but at least their choice would be considered, and that's what I'm trying to suggest in this case. Now, I thought that a number of other points were made. The Minister and Mrs Stewart, as well, both talked about cost-effectiveness and talked about as if this would somehow place extra demands on the system. This does not, in any way, increase the demands or increase the demands of the Scottish budget at all. In any way, this is already operating entirely within the cash limits of the system, and I'll end in this point, convener, if I may. At the moment, in health and social care, we are moving to self-directed support, specifically because we recognise that the personalisation agenda is very good for your health and your wellbeing. We recognise that if you give people more control over the carers they employ, it's actually good. Now, in this case, why can we not apply exactly the same principle in terms of welfare? We're not giving them any extra money. We're not giving them all we're doing is asking for their say, for a bit of choice, and if it's good for people's health, it's surely good for their wellbeing, too. To end on a very positive note, the Minister did say that she recognised the spirit in which this has moved. She did suggest, and I actually agree with her, that it's far more important for crisis grants than it is for community care grants, and I was very encouraged by her remarks that she would consider putting this in regulations, and I look forward to perhaps hearing more on this on stage 3. However, I hope that, having said that, she will not mind if I actually put this to the vote at stage 2. I move. The amendment has been moved and pressed, so I ask the question, amendment 25, be agreed, are we all agreed? I have to put that to vote all those in favour of amendment 25. Those again. That's two votes in favour of the amendment and five again, so the amendment falls. I call amendment 26, in the name of Ken Macintosh, which has already been debated with amendment 25, to move or not move? No, it's not moved. That takes us then to amendment 27, in the name of Ken Macintosh. It's in a group on its own, Ken Macintosh, to move and speak to amendment 27. Thank you, convener, third time lucky. The effect of this amendment would be to include families facing exceptional pressure amongst the list of groups classed as qualifying persons for the purpose of community care grants. The Interim Scottish Welfare Fund, introduced by the Minister and which this bill puts on a statutory footing, lists five categories of applicants who can be awarded a community care grant. Four of those categories are explicitly included on the face of the Welfare Fund Scotland bill before us this morning. The only group of applicants who is left out and who is not mentioned anywhere in the bill is that of families facing exceptional pressure. That would mean, for example, that individuals who are part of a family facing homelessness would qualify for an award, but someone looking after a disabled child would not. An individual at risk of ending up in prison would be given support, but someone fleeing domestic violence would not. Given that those very circumstances I have described would have offered families eligibility under the original UK social fund, as well as currently under the interim scheme, which ministers drew up to replace it, I am not sure that is what the minister intends. As members will be aware from evidence to the committee, there are many, particularly in the voluntary sector, who believe that this omission from the face of the bill could affect the health and wellbeing of some already vulnerable families. The Scottish Council for the Voluntary Sector, the Child Poverty Action Group and One Parent Family Scotland are just some of the organisations who have highlighted their on-going concerns that the proportion of grants made to families with children is already relatively low. For example, the annual Scottish welfare fund figures for last year show that only 20 per cent of those applying for a community care grant are categorised as being a family under exceptional pressure. The statistics are not directly comparable, but figures for the UK social fund show that this compares with more than 53.5 per cent of the community care grant budget, which was spent on families facing exceptional pressure in the previous year, from 20 per cent to 53.5 per cent. In fact, the figures strongly suggest that families are underrepresented amongst all the five current categories of community care grant claimant. Measured by those who are in receipt of child benefit, for example, possibly only around a fifth of all claimants are families with children. Carer Scotland are another group who are worried that the bill before us could make that situation worse, inadvertently or otherwise. They gave us some direct examples. They quoted one carer who said, My husband's movements and coordination leads to a high number of breakages, crockery, furniture and fittings. I constantly need to fix or replace items. Another described how the washing machine is on every day. It isn't designed for that sort of use, and that means that it breaks. When it breaks, I have piles of soiled laundry building up. Those are the occasions when community care grants are needed, and those are the very families who have little or no savings to respond to unexpected expenses and for whom the bill is a lifeline. I urge members to support the amendment. I commend Ken Macintosh for the reasons behind bringing this amendment forward. We recognise those situations. However, on examining the proposal, I do not feel that it is within the legislative competence of this Parliament to introduce another category. In the hope that we would present a bill that will be competent and go through the procedure, unfortunately, in this situation, I would not be able to support this amendment. I wanted to listen to the debate. I think that you have identified a category that could indeed be a situation of great distress to an individual or a family and is not adequately covered by the provisions as they currently define what is an exceptional event or exceptional circumstance. Whether or not this is all provided is with the act, I have no idea, but you know what, Mr Macintosh, I think that we should give it a shot and I am going to support you. It is very interesting in terms of the debate thus far, but what I would be grateful for is for the minister, during her comments, to talk to us about the legislative competence and whether that amendment would take section 2 beyond that competence. My understanding that there is a complication in terms of the wording of section 30 order, which grants the Parliament the power to legislate in this area. The last thing that I would want to see is us passing this amendment today and then for the entire bill to fall. I wish that we did not have to rely on section 30 orders and that we had complete competence over welfare, but at this moment that is not the case. I would be grateful for the minister's comments in that regard. I wish to speak in support of Ken Macintosh's amendment, because I think that it would add to the bill. If there is a constitutional reason why it should not be included, I do not get that at all. If you are a member of a family that is not presently covered by what we are intending in this bill, this then adds in, because certainly child poverty action groups, in particular, are very keen that this should be added in. I am sure that we have all had the same correspondence as I have. We are talking about the kind of families that are affected by this change. For example, my lone parents with young children who need household items following violent breakdown of a relationship, families in which sudden deterioration in the condition of a disabled child justifies an award for washing machine or families experiencing hardship as a result of a localised disaster and urgently need the replacement of essential household items. None of that is covered presently. If we included this further category, that would include all those. I support that amendment. I am very concerned about this, because I would want to support the amendment. Euro stands to reason why one would want to support families in these circumstances. If it is the case that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament, my natural instinct is to say so what, but that is not going to get us anywhere. That is the real risk. I am torn on this, because I would like to support the amendment, but at the same time I do not want to do anything that would result in the bill falling. I welcome the comments from the minister to explain why it is against the legislative competence of the bill. What are we going to be doing to help those families who are clearly in exceptional need? I ask a specific question, which I hope that we will be able to answer, around this competency issue. I would be grateful if you could clarify if this amendment was to be added and it was deemed to be outwith the competency of the bill. Who would challenge that? It would only be a challenge externally, which would bring the bill into dispute. Minister, I will answer the debate. I will respond to your point, convener. I can absolutely understand and see why stakeholders are pressing for families under exceptional pressure to be included in the bill. It is currently a descriptor in the interim scheme guidance. However, the Scottish Government does not have a free hand enabled to provide this explicitly in the face of the bill for everyone who might benefit from welfare funds. If we were to accept amendment 27, it is our view that it would take the provisions of the bill beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Section 2 of the bill replicates the amendment of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 made by the Scotland Act 1998 modification of schedule 5, number 2, order 213, which gives the powers to the Parliament to legislate in this area. That is commonly known as the section 30 order. You asked about competence. Anyone could challenge it. Section 2 of the bill reproduces the wording of the section 30 order. This means that it gives the fund the broadest possible scope to operate within the reservation. I want to say quite clearly that there is no barrier now or in under the permanent arrangements for families under exceptional pressure accessing the welfare funds by virtue of the wording of the bill. Regulations and guidance will ensure that applications from this group continue to be given priority. The examples that were mentioned there by both Ken Macintosh and Margaret McDougall, those examples are not currently excluded from the interim arrangements and will not be excluded under the permanent arrangements. The bill sets out a high-level framework for welfare funds and the details of how it will operate to be set out will be set out in regulations and statutory guidance. The current draft regulations that we produce to give an indication of the area that would be covered in regulations include families under exceptional pressure as one of the five circumstances in which a community care grant can be paid. It is my intention to retain this in the regulations and to work with stakeholders such as the child poverty action group to ensure that the guidance for the permanent arrangements captures the concerns of stakeholders and deals with them effectively. Finally, in relation to families under exceptional pressure, it is worth noting that the comparisons with the number of awards to families under exceptional pressure under the DWP social fund and under the Scottish welfare fund, like Ken Macintosh said, are not comparing like for like. There are significant differences between the Scottish welfare fund guidance and monitoring framework and that for the social fund. To me, the acid test is where the money is going and the Scottish welfare fund statistics show that under the interim scheme 38% of households receiving community care grants contain children, whilst the figures for crisis grants is 30%, but under the old DWP scheme for 2012-13, 32% of households awarded community care grants were households with children and for crisis grants the proportion was only 16%. I think this indicates that we are effectively targeting families under pressure now and it is my belief that we will continue to do so under the permanent arrangements and I would therefore ask not to support amendment 27. I come back to Ken Macintosh to wind up and to move and press or withdraw your amendment. I have to say that that was a far more encouraging discussion. It is quite clear that everybody around the table, minister and all the members included, clearly want families facing exceptional pressure to receive support from the welfare fund available, whether that be community care or crisis grants and I was actually quite pleased to hear the statistics that the minister quoted and I hope they are more accurate than the ones I was given from the SCVO and CPAC of others. However, there is also the main argument as far as I work out, I thought during my alpine put it properly, that we want to support this amendment but slightly concerned about the legislative competence. She is tempted to say so what and I would urge her in this case to do so but as far as I work out it is the only argument, the real argument against this was the legislative competence and I would just question whether or not that would certainly, I would certainly question whether or not in Kevin Stewart's word the entire bill would fall in this amendment. I just would not happen. The key thing here is and the minister did not really address this, the minister said that anybody could bring a challenge, now that's a theoretical possibility who exactly is going to bring a challenge, the families who are being denied welfare, I don't think so, the local authorities, the local authorities are they going to, is the government going to be, who exactly is going to bring this challenge on the basis that families under exceptional pressure is included in this and if I may say so as well, the minister and again I'm not going to stop her doing so, the minister currently has in guidance five categories which includes, specifically includes to help families facing exceptional pressure and she repeated to her assurance that she'll include this in regulations, well if I may say so, if the minister believes she has the authority to put it in regulations and that that should be implemented by local authorities what authority is she quoting because the only authority that this parliament has comes through the very act that she's quoting, in other words if it's out with the legislative competence to be included in the face of this bill because it's not in the section 30 order, it's out with the legislative competence of the minister to put it in regulations and there is no difference between the two because the same we get our power through statute and you can't quote one against this bill and then quote the other and say it's better off in regulation, if the argument applies to regulation it applies to the face of the bill and if the minister wishes to come back I'm quite happy to. Minister if you want. I mean I say this, I am not a legal person and I know that the legal people are not able to comment now at this stage in the process, however it is a subsection of what's in the bill and I'm told legally that is the competent way to do it. Now what I am willing to say today and I don't know if I can now that I've moved things is to look at this again and put it in more detail but I want to be absolutely clear that we intend the Scottish welfare fund to help families with exceptional pressure and believe the way to do it is to ensure that we've got the bill right to meet the section 30 order and get the regulations right as well and that is our clear intention that families for exceptional pressure will be assisted from the Scottish welfare fund or the welfare fund Scotland bill. Okay Ken do you want to say? I am very reassured by the minister's intentions in our words. I hope you won't mind however if I put this to the vote and test it. The amendment having been moved I put it to the committee so the question is that amendment 27 be agreed are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 27 please indicate and those against. That's four votes against three votes for so amendment 27 falls. I now call amendment 1 in the name of the minister and it's in a group on its own minister to move and speak to amendment 1. Thank you convener. Amendment 1 has been proposed in response to evidence that the committee heard during stage 1 in respect of concerns regarding the wording of section 5-2f of the bill. Section 5-2f relates to regulation making powers about the circumstances in which amounts may require to be repaid or recovered in respect of assistance that has been provided through a welfare fund. Concerns were raised that this regulation making power could be used at a later date to allow local authorities to administer loans through the welfare funds. This was never the intention and I've always been clear that awards under the welfare funds should not be provided in the form of loans. Amendment 1 puts this intention beyond any doubt by specifying that local authorities may not use welfare funds to make loans. I move amendment 1. Thank you. Does anyone want to contribute to the debate, Ken? It's worth noting that I'm pleased that the minister recognised this was flagged up to the committee and the committee put it in our report and I'm very pleased that the ministers recognised it. I think that we're all pleased that the whole intention of the bill to move from loans to grants and that we should support this amendment. Minister, do you want to make another comment? The question is then, amendment 1 be agreed, are we all agreed? That's been agreed. I call amendment 28, in the name of Ken McIntosh, which has already been debated with amendment 25. Ken McIntosh to move or no, it's not moved. That then brings us to the question that section 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I now call amendment 2, in the name of the minister, which is group with amendment 8. Minister, to move amendment 2 and to speak to both amendments in this group. Amendments 2 and 8 are linked. Amendment 2 removes section 3 of the bill, which relates to outsourcing of welfare funds and joint working across local authorities. The intention behind section 3 of the bill was to allow local authorities to outsource provision of welfare funds. I never envisaged this power being used to allow private sector companies to administer welfare funds. However, concerns were raised during stage 1 regarding the possibility of the provision of welfare funds being outsourced to the private sector. As the Scottish Government's response to the committee's stage 1 report pointed out, it's not possible to specify in the face of the bill that outsourcing should be restricted to third sector organisations only. So the options available to me were to retain section 3, which would leave open the possibility of outsourcing to the private sector or remove the relevant provisions. Given the strength of feeling that was expressed against private sector companies administrating the welfare funds, I believe that removing the option to outsource is the right thing to do. By removing all of the section 3 references to local authorities, jointly administering welfare funds are being removed from the bill. However, this amendment would not prevent local authorities making arrangements to administer welfare funds jointly, since section 56.5 of the local government Scotland Act 1973 provides a general power for two or more local authorities to discharge functions jointly. I move amendment 2. Can I just clarify with the minister, would the effect of this amendment also be to exclude charitable organisations? Yes, that would be the effect. There were arguments for charitable organisations themselves whose third sector said that it is not something that they would wish to do. There is no way to then separate it out. I think that I made that clear. It was removing it totally or not. There was a strong strength of feeling that we could not leave that in as it could allow private organisations to administer the funds. I am pleased that it has been moved by the minister. Ms Goldie makes a point about the third sector. While none of the committee was in favour of any private company taking over the running of welfare funds, we did talk about the third sector, but we eventually built into the report the fact that that may fall foul of European Union procurement rules. The best way to ensure that there are no challenges at all is to remove that provision. That still gives local authorities the ability to run funds jointly, which some smaller authorities may wish to do. I think that it is right and logical that that will be left in, but I am glad that the minister has moved what she had. If we had been left in a situation where the third sector could apply, we might have faced challenges from various bodies under EU procurement rules. Thank you very much. I also want to welcome the minister's remarks again for listening both to the evidence and to the committee. In fact, in this case, particularly for listening to the minority of the committee and our recommendation, rather than to the specific majority vote of the committee. I commend the minister for using common sense in this case. Can I ask the minister, has there been specific legal advice obtained with the Scottish Government that the bill is currently framed, would, contrary to European law? We certainly have specific advice on that, but it is about the levels that charitable organisations are able to bid under procurement that we would have to look at. The main reason that we took this out of the bill was because of the strong strength of feeling within committee members, the Parliament, when it came through stage 1 as well and indicated that I was doing this, and also within the third sector organisations themselves arguing very strongly that we should not have a provision for outsourcing in the bill with the potential of going to the private sector. Minister, it is for you to wind up the debate. I have nothing further to add to that. The question is then amendment 2. Did you move the amendment just to be on the same side? I moved the amendment. Okay. I am just making sure that we do not get these things wrong. In that case, the question is amendment 2. We agreed to, and we all agreed. The principle about the freedom of local authorities, so I do not support the amendment. I put it to a vote then. I had all those in favour of amendment 2. It goes against. That is six votes to one, so amendment 2 is agreed to. That brings us to amendment 3. In the name of the minister, group with amendments 5, 9 and 10, minister to move amendment 3 and speak to all other amendments in the group. This grouping of amendments covers local authority review of decisions that they have made on welfare fund applications. Amendment 3 creates a righted review of a local authority decision. This replaces a previous provision in the bill which provided that ministers may make regulations in this area. Amendment 3 also allows ministers to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which a local authority decision on a welfare funds application does not have to be reviewed, how applications for review should be made and setting time limits within which applications should be made. Amendment 9 is made in consequence of amendment 3. The substance of the provision that is removed by amendment 9 is recreated in the regulation-making powers that will be provided by amendment 3. Both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and this committee called for regulations made under the bill to be subject to affirmative procedure due to the fact that much of the detail of how welfare funds will operate will be set out in regulations and guidance. Amendment 5 changes the procedure for regulations made under section 4 which is subject to those amendments being accepted will relate only to reviews undertaken by local authorities from negative to affirmative procedure. Amendment 10 enables ministers to make provision in regulations setting out the procedure local authorities should follow in relation to reviews, applications for reviews and the timescales that would allow to apply to them when carrying out reviews. In summary, this group covers a range of amendments which are intended to clarify how the Scottish Government will approach setting out the framework that local authority reviews should operate in and remove amendment 3. Members first to comment. Minister, if you want to add anything... Further to add, convener. That means that we move to the question that is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That's agreed. Therefore call amendment 4 in name of the minister which is grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 4 and to speak to all of those amendments. Okay, thank you. The amendments in this grouping relate to the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in undertaking independent review of local authority decisions on welfare funds applications. The bill is introduced, had very few provisions relating to the role of the ombudsman. It was always our intention to come back at stage 2 with amendments, following discussions with the ombudsman and how best we set out their role in undertaking independent review. Amendments 4, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 16 don't alter the content or policy intention of the bill but are necessary to reflect structural changes to accommodate the substantive amendments that set out the specifics of the ombudsman's role. Amendment 21 is a technical amendment specifying the definition of the ombudsman for the purposes of the act. Turning to the substantive amendments regarding the ombudsman, amendment 15 creates a right to review by the ombudsman of a local authority decision on a welfare funds application. It sets out when, how and by whom an application can be made and the timescales in which an application should be made. It provides for the ombudsman to determine whether an application for independent review has been made and to make exceptions to the time bar and applying for independent review. Amendment 17 requires the ombudsman to prepare a statement of practice setting out the approach which he intends to take and carrying out the review function under the bill. He must consult local authorities and other persons as he considers appropriate before preparing and publishing such a statement. And if any revisions are to be made to the statement of practice, the ombudsman already has the power to consider a complaint about the way a local authority has dealt with an application. The new power to review that application will not change this. The ombudsman already has extensive powers to gather evidence in relation to complaints. And amendment 18 provides, amongst other things, that broadly the same powers will apply to reviews. And this is important because the legislation means that the ombudsman will have two due restrictions over the welfare funds. The ombudsman will be able to deal with complaints and reviews. In practical terms, it would be difficult for him if the ombudsman obtained information in relation to a review but didn't have the power to use that information in relation to a complaint about the same application or vice versa. This would be particularly problematic if the same document contained evidence relevant to a complaint and evidence relevant to a review or if the same people were required to give evidence in both relation to a complaint and a review. On the theme of matching the ombudsman's current powers, amendment 19 replicates for reviews of welfare funds decisions. The power he has in the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 in relation to obstruction and contempt by people providing information in connection with a complaint investigation. Going back to amendment 18, it also gives the ombudsman powers to hold oral hearings and make rules about when an oral hearing should be appropriate and the procedure to be followed. The ombudsman would have powers to administer oaths at these hearings. Where the ombudsman makes rules in relation to hearings, he must consult local authorities and any other persons he considers appropriate and must subsequently publish these rules. While hearings are likely to be extremely rare, it's important this option is available. We have been advised by the ombudsman that this scheme does not need to comply with European Court of Human Rights requirements, but ensuring that hearings are available when needed and also that rules are made about these ensures that this legislation does meet that standard. Amendment 20 requires the ombudsman to notify the applicant and the local authority of the result of a review. It also provides that the ombudsman may publish a report of the review. It doesn't require this in every case, but for unusual cases it will be beneficial for stakeholders to be aware of the ombudsman's view. This section also places limits on what information the ombudsman can publish and this is to protect the identity of those involved. Amendment 10-2 provides for consequential amendments to the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman Act 2002 to ensure read across between the powers the ombudsman will obtain under this act and current powers the ombudsman has under the 2002 act. These include obstruction, defamation, reporting, disclosure of information by the ombudsman and confidentiality. Amendment 22 also contains provisions in relation to confidentiality which will allow the ombudsman to use information gathered in consideration of a review in order to inform the investigation of a complaint and vice versa. The final part of the amendment updates interpretation provision of the 2002 act as a result of the changes made to that act by this bill. Amendment 22 reduces the risk of a situation where the ombudsman holds information but cannot use it and indeed needs to try to make a decision on the basis that he hasn't seen it. It also means local authorities have some clarity too as they will know that a request from the ombudsman for information has the same status whether it's a complaint or a review. While it's important for practical purposes to ensure the information gathering provisions are the same local authorities should be reassured that the requirements about what the ombudsman can take complaints about and ensuring they have a chance to respond to complaints before a final decision is made will remain. And I was pleased to note that during stage one proceedings there was support for the ombudsman taking on the independent review function for welfare fund decisions. Accordingly I trust that the committee members will support these amendments. I move amendment 4. Okay, thanks minister. I'll open up to the committee and go to Ken to be followed by Christina. Thank you much, convener. I've just got one query which is about the powers over obstruction and contempt listed in amendment 19. Chalphawd reaction group flagged this up. They felt that the powers here which are to take a proceeding to the court of session and where somebody didn't provide information that would constitute contempt of court that this was a bit extreme for such a relatively minor and quite technical matter. Under the old system, under the social fund there were no such powers. If somebody doesn't provide information and doesn't wish to participate in the process the local authority can make the decision anyway. It doesn't need to take action against them. They can just reach a decision. In this case, they are talking about threatening to take them to the court of session contempt of court. When we're talking about vulnerable people here who may not understand and may be scared and I have to say this seems way too heavy handed. The argument minister the argument minister seemed to put was she was assured by the ombudsman that he needs these powers. Well, that doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing argument. That's a bit like the chief constable telling us that police need to wear guns at all times. You know, it's not for him to decide, it's for us to decide for the minister. So, I would just ask her do we really need this? We've had the social fund operated for years without any of these powers whatsoever. No difficulty. Why are we introducing such huge powers for the ombudsman and we've got concerns about it anyway? And I would ask her maybe to reconsider article amendment 90. The point of view from my colleague Ken, one of the issues that I have in a constituency level is the element of trust that people have in the system. And I have many people who feel as if they have not had a fair hearing. I welcome the proposal to put in the review because I think the review is very, very important. I think for that to be done independently from the local authority is very important as well. I think on the human rights aspect of it, anything that has an appeal mechanism for me appeals because it should do to ensure that people are getting the fairest of treatment and build then build that trust back into the system. I think Duncan Dunlop and the evidence of which I wasn't here to hear but I've managed to try and catch up with the stage one evidence. He said that people don't have trust in a system where they've been rejected one time to go back to that system again and have any confidence in that. And I think that that's what they need to have and that's what these amendments give. A couple of questions I've got is around about local authorities. Can they be compelled to give information to the ombudsman should that be the case? And what would be the timescale for that? Because certainly my experience is that if people do attempt to appeal or they go to citizen advice or they go to other organisations for support and reapplication or appeal, then the length of time that that takes can put great pressure and certainly at that point in time maybe people aren't receiving any funds at all at that time. So the timescale for that as well because I mean not all local authorities but certainly some that I know would drag out that process and they'll hope that the person would just drop it and that's a concern I've got so I've come to a sort of a different point of view from Ken on this and the need for the ombudsman to be there. Thanks. Minister, do you want to wind up having any comments? I think I would say and this all came up when the ombudsman came at stage one as well that all of this was done and we've been under negotiation for some considerable time with the ombudsman service about and this is why it's on the bill because we wanted to do some of this in regulation but that was felt as they're independent that wasn't appropriate. So there has been a lot of negotiation going on for some considerable time with the ombudsman about taking on this role as independent decision makers or making it that people can go to. In terms of the point that Ken McIntosh raised about the extreme cases in court of session certainly that is not I mean absolutely great it's not something I would think is appropriate in terms of some of the vulnerable people that we are dealing with. The ombudsman requested that and the basis that required to have it because it matches the other powers they have in some of their other functions. I am more than willing to go back and look at them again if the committee is saying that they're not happy with that particular power but we have taken a long time to negotiate with the ombudsman to get them to agree to take on this role that they want to be able to maintain their independence they want their functions to be clear across the board with the services that they provide and that's the reason why that's in there and I absolutely accept that it does seem a very extreme situation and one that I would hope would never be used in the circumstances as you outlined. In terms of Christina McKelvie's point the ombudsman is required to draw up how they will handle appeals and they are very aware that timescales required to be on this that local authorities will be required to supply them with evidence if the ombudsman requests that evidence then local authorities will be obliged to supply it and we're very aware and think it can be done fairly quickly some of it through electronic means and the ombudsman is working on that just now about the timescales they will be looking at but they know their decision making has got to be quick as well because we are talking about vulnerable people very often in crisis situations. Okay. I'm just checking again, Minister, that you've moved that amendment if you don't mind doing so. That means that we go to the question on amendment 4 as amendment 4 agreed. That's agreed by the committee. I call amendment 5 in the name of the Minister already debated with amendment 3 Minister to move formally. The question is then amendment 5 be agreed to or will be agreed. And the question then is that section 4 be agreed to or will be agreed. I call amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 all in the name of the Minister all previously debated and I invite the Minister to move most amendments 6 to 10 on block. Moved. And ask members whether they object to a single question being put on amendments 6 to 10. Nope. Okay. If no member objects then the question is that amendments 6 to 10 are agreed. I will agree. I call amendment 29 in the name of Ken Macintosh and it's a group on its own. Ken Macintosh to move and speak to amendment 29. Thank you very much, convener. The effect of this amendment is to ensure that decisions on an application for a crisis grant should be made immediately where possible or if not then by the end of the next working day. And as committee members will know from the evidence we heard, under the interim Scottish welfare fund scheme, local authorities have 48 hours in which to process a claim. However, under the previous DWP scheme, that deadline was 24 hours. Now this first issue first came to my attention when we heard evidence and figures were presented to this committee which revealed that the interim fund was not as timious in meeting activists needs as the previous scheme had been. It's a point that's been echoed by the SCVO who would urge ministers to take all action necessary to ensure that 24-hour processes sometimes become the norm by quarriers who I think we quoted in our own report because they were particularly worried that if this 48-hour deadline applied over weekend then an applicant made in a Friday or a Thursday might not be processed till late in the Monday. But I thought the strongest evidence and arguments came from the CAB who described their citizens advice bureau who described their practical experience. And they said that in the experience of their advisers applications for crisis loans made over the phone were processed very quickly by the DWP. Delay was sometimes caused by difficulties getting through in the phone in the first place but once connected the process was generally very quick and decisions were often made at the end of the initial phone call and the claimant just told where to collect that day. And this happens with some though not all SWF crisis grant applications. And the point that the figures would show that within two days that the figures for the old system using the 48-hour backstop crisis loan statistics show 98.5% of payments under the DWP compared to 94% under the SWF. Now CAB advisers also suspected and this is more anecdotal that any lengthy delays processes in crisis loan applications that's under the old system were more likely after related to the need for decision about whether the applicant would be able to repay the loan rather than it's not about their eligibility or the priority and so on. And clearly that's not an issue. In other words it's counterintuitive to think that the new system should be slower than the old system if anything it should be another way around. And they concluded that they were there was no implicit reason that process in times should be relating to crisis grants should be any longer than they were for crisis loans and they believe that if you actually put in a 48-hour in regulations if you put in a 48-hour time limit once all relevant information is received it may actually lead some decision makers to request evidence when it's not needed. In other words that although it's clearly not the minister's intention the minister's made it abundant and clear that she expects all decisions to be as soon as possible. By putting in a 48-hour backstop the 48-hour backstop actually becomes the target rather than the backstop and so it inadvertently has the intention of slowing down the process rather than speeding it up. So I would urge members to support this amendment which would replace the 48-hour backstop with the original 24-hour one. And I move the amendment in my view. Okay, thanks Kent. I'll open it up to the committee if you want to... Annabelle, you want to comment? Hi, with Mr Macintosh. If I am... It sounds quite technical but if I understand your proposition correctly this is actually to put the situation on to the proven DWP position which has worked effectively in a 24-hour basis. Thank you. I think we've got to take a nice sense of the fact that the former system was a loan system and not a grant system and what the local authority must do is manage their funding effectively and ensure that the proper checks have been made or else we will have a situation whereby it may well be that folks are receiving grants which they don't pay back who should not be getting those grants at certain points. I think that we have got to be very careful here. The minister has already said and I would like her to indicate again today that she will do everything possible to ensure that the grants are paid as timeously as possible. Having spoken to folk and local authorities I know that that is what they are striving to do. What I would be scared of is if we move and set a timeline which is lower than the current one we might actually lead to a situation where folks are not actually getting the awards that they need and deserve. Margaret? I heard what the minister said or was it Ken who said that DWP's decisions were made very quickly on occasions and I am not saying that they are always made very quickly but certainly they could be made quickly. That we are moving to a grant system rather than a loan system therefore there shouldn't necessarily be the same requirement for investigation to see whether or not they can pay back alone. So they should therefore be able to process these applications quicker. I think that the 24 hours should be met rather than extending it to 48. Before coming to you, minister, I just wanted to make a comment on this. We did debate this quite extensively in the stage 1 report and you were very clear in your view that this would be an improvement and you gave examples from your own experience I think when you worked in that sector of the DWP taking up to three weeks to collate the information and then the one day or the 24-hour decision making period only kicking in at the end of that period and you clearly gave the impression that you thought that this process would be quicker and that the 48-hour process would allow decisions to be made more swiftly but evidence that was subsequently received indicated that the process for collating the information is very similar between the local authorities and the DWP and actually going from a 24-hour to a 48-hour decision making process could extend the period because the 24-hour decision making process as was with the DWP would not alter. It would be exactly the same the collation of information still takes and can take days now you would not want it to take longer than that but the time period for the decision only kicks in once the information has been collated so I can't understand why moving from 24 hours to 48 hours would speed that process up because the collation of information is taking exactly the same amount of time and in the evidence that we received it could in some cases be longer so over to you minister to wind up the debate Okay well in the amendment 29 seeks to impose a deadline in processing times and I know that some users of the interim funds suggested that local authorities weren't processing applications as quickly as they should and this has led to a call to introduce a legislative requirement for processing and we've been clear from the very start of the interim fund that speed is key because of the risk of harm to applicants the guidance in the interim fund requires local authorities to process a crisis grant as soon as possible and it requires that urgent applications for living expenses be prioritised the maximum processing time of two working days is to make it clear that long processing times are not acceptable it is in no way a target in waiting times and we know that under the interim fund 64% of crisis grants are processed on the same working day and that a further 24% are processed the next day and I've spoken personally to staff who've demonstrated dedication and commitment in dealing with all crisis grant applications to process them within the day especially on Fridays so that applicants are not left in crisis for extended periods and I'm mindful that local authorities have a complex job to do in considering an application assessing eligibility and need gathering and recording evidence to support their decision and considering and organising the other forms of support that the applicant might benefit from I don't think that this is more complex I do think actually it's more complex than just assessing the affordability as was with the crisis loans it was simply could afford to pay it back in setting timescales we need to recognise that a short target decision time could result in less scrutiny of cases and a poorer understanding of the applicant's situation and the move from crisis loans under the social fund to grants under the Scottish welfare fund means as was said by Kevin Stewart the funds are not recoverable and local authorities are therefore required to carefully balance their obligation to manage their budgets effectively and ensure that proper checks have been made and with a quick turnaround for applicants they've got to be satisfied that they're awarding grants to those who need them most but as the committee is aware along with COSLA we're monitoring the quality of decisions made by local authorities including processing times as part of our quality improvement measures and continue to share good practice across local authorities as we make the transition to permanent funds we will continue to work with local authorities focusing on the importance of quick sound decision making with the aim of increasing the number of applications processed within 24 hours we'll also be carefully considering target processing times as the regulations are developed and that's where I believe any target or processing time should be set not in the face of the bill but in regulations as in the 48 hours that Ken McIntosh referred to are actually in the draft regulations and not in the face of the bill and I think the regulations are the place for processing times and we're certainly that is something that we'll be looking at as we develop the regulations and it'll be an area we want to consult actively as regulations require a hard and fast timescale rather than more considered approach we have in the guidance present and as I've just outlined is a complex issue so in summary I don't believe that we should effectively effectively set a timescale for processing applications in the bill as this amendment seeks to do I believe we should think carefully about the issue consult more widely as we develop the regulations and guidance that will be produced under the bill and for that reason I urge the committee not to support amendment 2029 Okay, I come back then to Ken McIntosh to press or withdraw and wind up who to be Thank you very much, convener and again I welcome some of the comments I've heard quite interesting discussion this morning some of the things we've heard Annabelle Goldie revealed and I'm sure this is a first on this committee that yes, the DWP did this better than the Scottish Government that's got to be a first at this committee I'm sure but yes, the old system the social fund has a better record of paying out I mean we're talking about people in crisis we're talking about people and I'm sure every single MSP around those tables had the calls on the Friday afternoon when the social work office is closed and people come in in desperate needs and the poor do I go now and this happens all the time the old DWP system was a very prompt system in fact originally I don't think I had any timescale in it it was meant to be an immediate decision and they introduced the 24-hour deadline because to try and speed them up we're now putting in a 48-hour one which inadvertently whatever the minister's intentions it could slow them down Kevin Stewart I'm not sure I followed Kevin Stewart's argument but apart from the fact he sounded more like George Osborne than John Swinney which was very interesting has that all warning he particularly said that he talked about the importance of paying back grants I assume that was just a slip of the tongue clearly these are grants not loans and they don't need to be paid back okay and that is it was a slip of the tongue so I accept that but I didn't follow I did not follow his logic whatsoever then Margaret Madougill put the point right and give you the logic I will I'll be happy to Mr Stewart to write yourself for the previous mistake I think one of the key things in all of this is that we did have a loan system before from the DWP and folk did pay back this is a grant system I think that as the minister has rightly pointed out folk have got to make sure that those applicants are eligible for those grants and they are dealing with them as promptly as they possibly can that is certainly the case in the local authority that I cover in Aberdeen and I think one of the things which I think could happen if you put this on the face of the bill is it may well be the decision makers feeling under pressure and not having all of the information that they feel that they need in front of them may actually reject an application of someone who is actually in need Fail to follow that argument Mr Stewart often confuses assertion with argument and in this case I do not follow his argument whatsoever in the previous case of course local authorities I fully accept that local authority officials are trying to do the best job though I'm sure they're doing the best job under the DWP and currently it's a difficult job but we should try and make it easier and if they don't have to assess affordability of paying back loans then they've actually got one less criteria to meet one less assessment to make and it should be faster a point that Marvin McDougall and the convener both made now if I may say so I think just to return to the point that the minister made several times in which I absolutely recognise that the point of the system is to address people's needs at the point of crisis and that the minister is very keen that this is done as speedily as intimuously as possible and I do accept that I do accept that as the intention I'm slightly worried that it won't have the effect I was again very pleased that she's going to consult more wildly that she's going to look at the possibility of addressing this in regulations so I'm very pleased for by Byrn I was very pleased to hear those remarks and we're thankness for making that commitment but I still believe that until we actually see that in practice I think it's important that we this committee expresses a view and I would like to move the amendment in my name okay the question then is that amendment 29 be agreed to are we all agreed okay those in favour of amendment 29 those against so that's four votes against three votes for amendment 29 falls I call amendment 11 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 4 minister to move formally moved the question is then amendment 11 be agreed to are we all agreed and I call amendment 12 in the name of the minister which is in a group on its own minister speak to amendment 12 thank you amendment 12 makes regulations under section 5 subject to the affirmative procedure regulations under section 5 will set out in conjunction with the guidance we will produce under the act the detail of how welfare funds are to operate this changes in response to calls from both the delegated powers and law reform committee and this committee for regulations made under the bill to be subject to affirmative procedure and I move amendment 12 any comment from the committee minister back to you if you get anything else that you want to nothing further the question then is it amendment 12 be agreed to are we all agreed yes agreed and the question is that section 5 be agreed to are we all agreed I now call amendment 30 in the name of Kevin Stewart already debated with amendment 24 Kevin Stewart to move or not move move okay the question is that amendment 30 be agreed to are we all agreed okay I call amendment 13 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 4 minister to move formally moved and the question is that amendment 13 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 14 in the name of the minister which is in a group on its own minister to move and speak to amendment 14 amendment 14 adds the ombasment to the list of bodies that Scottish ministers must consult before issuing varying or revoking guidance produced under the act this amendment has been brought forward in response to a recommendation made by the committee in its stage 1 report as the ombasment will have to interpret the guidance when carrying out his review function it's right that he should have the opportunity to be aware of and comment on any changes that are proposed to the guidance and move amendment 14 any comments on the committee okay the question our minister do you want to say anything else nothing further uh the question then is that amendment 14 be agreed to are we all agreed okay I call oh sorry the question is at section 6 therefore be agreed to are we agreed I call amendments 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 and 22 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated invite the minister to move amendments 15 to 22 on block well I was going to come to a point again they can all be moved on block but I want to separate out some of the amendments to be voted on on block and some singularly if that's all right I was going to suggest that we agree to a single question on amendments 15 to 18 if members are agreed yep okay so I've moved then if they're all agreed I'll put the question then that amendments 15 to 18 be agreed to yes amendment 19 19 before stage 3 and discuss it with the ombudsman as well as outlined earlier in Ken Macintosh's discussion but you've moved the motion have I moved it yeah but she can withdraw you can't withdraw it do you want to withdraw it and I'm not saying I'll not bring it back at stage 3 but at this point I'm willing to withdraw it and have more discussion on it okay well I'll just check with the committee then that you were content for the minister to withdraw amendment 19 yeah there you go yeah okay and that allows us then to go to amendments 20, 21 and 22 which I'll vote on on block if members are agreed and members agreed then to amendments 20 to 22 that's agreed to the next vote I call amendment 31 in the name of Margaret MacDougall which is a group on its own Margaret MacDougall to move and speak to amendment 31 thank you convener amendment 31 relates to an annual report specifically it requests that the Scottish Government should prepare initial report giving information about the delivery of welfare funds the initial report should be before parliament on or before the 30th of June 2016 with subsequent reports being laid before parliament on or before the same date annually the initial report should include information on the following the amount paid out of the welfare fund the number of applications for assistance in pursuance of section 2 that have been received and the number of applications rejected and where financial assistance was provided and where assistance and where assistance was provided this information is the bare minimum that the report must include and the Scottish minister can include additional information if it considers it appropriate this is a pretty self-explanatory amendment that allows the parliament to conduct proper scrutiny of how the welfare fund is performing and its effectiveness it promotes openness and transparency and I would argue it is just a matter of good practice to make sure that these statistics are kept on record and reported to parliament annually in particular I think that it would be useful for the data to include how many cases were given financial assistance and how many were given assistance in kind given what we've been discussing this morning and while this practice may be occurring this amendment will ensure it is part of the annual report and will enshrine the annual report and legislation consistent annual reporting would allow us to see what is and isn't working while keeping parliament updated I would ask the committee to support this amendment even if it is solely on the principle of good practice I move the amendment in my name Thanks Margaret I will open up to the committee to make comments Ken Thank you I'd like to speak in favour of this particular amendment I think that it is important that the minister and the parliament in fact has the opportunity to keep this matter under review the minister I think that it's probably worth mentioning that the perhaps restating this point that this this bill receives are difficult sometimes to tell this from the way we're exchanging comments in the in the amendment stage but this bill has received widespread support certainly from colleagues from all parties and certainly within the Labour Party and the minister's approach to it has been broadly welcome she's been very transparent in the way that she's reviewed it and involved the voluntary sector and others in making sure that the interim scheme was effective before drawing up the statutory scheme and I think the key point here is to make sure that approach continues so I don't doubt that the minister will continue to keep this matter under review but there are all sorts of issues about gatekeeping about who actually gatekeeping in other words local authorities putting people off from a plan because they don't think they'll actually meet the criteria rather than assessing them formally and about who exactly is drawing on these funds and calling on them for example we had a slight not disagreement but slightly different takes on whether or not families vulnerable families were able to access these funds so I think it's important not just that the minister commits to this which she already is but that she does so formally and that because she does so formally that will involve the parliament and the parliament will have a role in that just remember remind ourselves again we're starting out in a new path here in Scotland where we're getting more and more responsibility for welfare powers and I think it's quite important that we set as we did earlier set the principles in place early the government actually already I believe put in place exactly this this idea that we have annual report in its welfare reform bill I can't remember I haven't got the data anyway in other words it's got a report already in place in one of the bills one of the measures that passed in 2012 so all we're effectively asking is that the minister repeats that practice and puts in an annual report for this bill and I think it would be welcome by all sides and all those involved in the sector I think we would all agree that we would want the fund monitored but my understanding is that the Scottish Government already has an established statistical always a tricky word a monitoring framework which covers the information that the amendment suggests should be in the annual report and in addition to that I think we all know that this Parliament will scrutinise the fund as well as will Civic Scotland not least as the new welfare powers are deployed It's a green principle with Joan we all want scrutiny and openness in what we do in government but my understanding is that this is already covered and I would welcome the minister's comments in that area and also to comment on what local authorities might be reporting and what the Ombudsman might be reporting given that they've all come into the scope of this as well Thank you, convener and the committee and the minister may be aware that of course just recently local government itself have put together a new suite of benchmarks and I would hope that this one could be added to that suite of benchmarks I think sometimes convener we have the habit of possibly over bureaucratising things and actually that leading to less scrutiny because you know you see the same things time and time again I think it's the job of this committee of this Parliament to ensure that the current monitoring that is taking place is scrutinised on a regular basis I'm quite sure that the public will do likewise and as my colleague Joan McAlpine says that's something that we are going to have to do more and more as new welfare powers come to this Parliament unfortunately they're not all of the welfare powers that I would have liked to have seen come here It seems to me that this is a genuine attempt to provide transparency this is a very important new system and none of us is quite sure just how it will work in practice we hope it will work well I think this is a welcome proposal to try and assist all of us understanding how the system is working and unless the minister were able to point to some impossible bureaucratic burden about the proposed timescales but frankly with electronic data now available I don't see that that's insurmountable then I'm very strongly drawn to supporting this amendment okay go to the minister to comment okay well regarding amendment 31 I tend to agree with the views expressed in the welfare reform committee stage 1 report which recommended that on-going monitoring was preferable to a review clause we've put a lot of time and effort into establishing a statistical monitoring framework which already captures the information that this amendment suggests we lay in a report before the Parliament in fact our latest quarterly publication which contains significantly more detail than the reports this amendment proposes has been released this morning and there's 91 pages and we release this quarterly and the detailed information is considerable and a lot more than was been asked for by Margaret Madugo the current statistical monitoring which we intend to continue under the permanent arrangements provides an excellent mechanism for highlighting any issues that arise within the operation of the Scottish Welfare Fund in fact some of the issues that were raised with the committee in stage 1 evidence came directly from the quarterly statistics that we publish third sector organisations have already been actively scrutinising the published statistics and feeding back thoughts and concerns we've also reported to several ad hoc responded to several ad hoc requests for further information to assist with the scrutiny of the fund and will continue to do this wherever possible In conjunction with COSLA we're undertaking a series of visits to local authorities to carry out observations of their case work these visits alongside the statistical publications should allow for both local authorities and the Scottish Government to respond to issues as they arise the introduction of an independent review of disputed local authority decisions by the Scottish Public Services Ombasman also provides a mechanism for scrutiny of the operation of individual local authorities and any patterns in complaints and reviews that indicate unintended consequences of regulations and guidance and I also envisaged that the workings of the permanent arrangements will be subject to on-going parliamentary scrutiny through the committee process and future consideration of Scottish Government budgets It seems to me to be inconceivable that the operation of the permanent arrangements would not be subject to scrutiny from both Civic Scotland and the Parliament as the Scottish Parliament considers Scottish Government plans for implementing the new welfare-related powers that will flow from the Smith commission process In summary I believe that sufficient opportunities for review exists through the Parliament through the Parliament Scottish Government statistical publications and from the invaluable input we all have from the third sector in Scotland to mean that on-going requirements requirements to lay an annual review in Parliament is not going to add significantly to the knowledge we have and how welfare funds are operating and we indeed divert scarce resources from the established continuous improvement work that's taking place on that basis I would ask Margaret Wood to go to withdrawal amendment 31 I'll come back to Margaret Wood to wind up the press of withdrawal for amendment part Right, thank you Yeah, I mean I hear everything that has been said but certainly the third sector have said that they do want this review to be taken forward and they were disappointed that it was left out so I mean and they say that the welfare fund is part of a wider welfare reform mitigation activity it could form part of the ministerial requirement to report annually under the welfare reform further provisioned Scotland Act 2012 so and the clause 4 allows for ministers to include whatever information they feel relevant in this report I mean I don't think it's asking that much more if the information is already there you're saying the information is already there and you're saying I'm not asking for any more I in actual fact I did say that the Scottish Government could include include what information it saw fit but to include the specific ones that I mentioned I mean there is certainly as I said the third sector feel that this should be happening and also it would perhaps provide more consistency across local authorities if that information could be looked at in one report and also if you're not minded to support this amendment what formal opportunity to scrutinise would there be for the Scottish Government if you didn't have this and if the minister wants to respond Margaret is winding up I mean I simply if I'm been asked to respond I would say the opportunity is an opportunity like this and this committee to scrutinise that we're publishing statistics quarterly which every quarter are looked at and scrutinised by all of the third sector and anyone else that wants to do so so I'm saying we are absolutely transparent about the Scottish welfare fund and continue to be so and we'll do it continuous monitoring rather than a once a year report Margaret do you want to finish off that area? We mean if that therefore brings it to the to this committee on a regular basis that would suffice So do you want to withdraw your amendment or do you want to press it? No I want to press the amendment just to test it In that case I have to ask the question of amendment 31 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes Those in favour of the amendment please show and those against So that's four votes against three votes for the amendment falls That brings us to amendment 23 in the name of the minister and it's in a group on its own in the minister to move and speak to amendment 23 Okay thank you amendment 23 is a technical amendment it removes the scope to make incidental supplementary or consequential provision in orders made by ministers to bring provisions of the act into force provisions in these areas can be made in respect of sections one to four of the bill if necessary under section five three b and then move amendment 23 Members of any comments on amendment 23 Do you have anything else minister to comment on? No, no container thank you And then the question is that amendment 23 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes That's agreed The question is then that section seven be agreed to are we agreed? And the question that section eight be agreed to are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to are we all agreed? And that ends stage two consideration of the bill Before going into private session I just point out our next meeting will be on the third of February where we will be having a discussion with David Wendell MP on the Smith commission and food banks I'd like to thank the minister or team and the committee for taking us through stage two amendments so swiftly we've finished ahead of schedule Thanks everyone I'll close the meeting at a point I'll suspend the meeting at a point