 Felly, dweud yn ddafci anghyddh math yn harwch Koreansd sesiol y swyddfyr interview arf tych droi ond am gystglydiaid yn y bryd Gladdy transition aches cymdeithasol ynglynfaedd ynglynfaedd y Ynglynfaedd ywiller amnym bod Syaithedol ynglynfaedd ynglynfaedd Fydd am fyng ond ar y Cynonwyr,a'r fynd i gyllid eu gyllideg 자꾸造 hyd slamellow ond rygwch aol ailwadol ar gyl молion Fyn Guidell-Mersdodi yn y pryd yn yn yn agynnydd maidradaethh yn canon yno newid am esgoladog y masreyn advances boidd o hyffordianni Maes beth. The question is that motion 1826 to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Before we move on to the bill itself, members will be aware that British Sign Language interpreters are present in the chamber and will be interpreting the afternoon's business, and I am sure that you will join me in welcoming them today. Felly, we move on to stage 3 proceedings on the Social Security Scotland Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have with them. The bill is amended at stage 2, that is, SP Bill 18A, the second revised marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon and the period of voting for that first division will be 30 seconds. After that, there will be one minute for the first division following a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call that group. We turn now to the marshal group of amendments. I call amendment 17, in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendment 18. Jackie Baillie, to move amendment 17 and speak to both amendments in the group. I wish to move amendment 17 in my name. It is a very simple one-word amendment on which I hope that the entire chamber can agree. Members will know that several equality groups called for the introduction of a principle in section 1 of the Social Security Scotland Bill, which would embed equality in our social security system. My colleague Mark Griffin lodged a number of amendments to the bill at stage 2 supported by the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights in Gender and Scottish Women's Aid. All, but this one, were agreed. I know in the way of those things that behind the scenes there have been discussions between officials of the Scottish Government and CRER in gender and women's aid, but no conclusion reached prior to the amendment deadline for stage 3. It is before the chamber today. I believe that the Scottish Government's intentions are good, but essentially the language within the bill as it stands is weak. The thinking is that, rather than promoting the goals of equality and non-discrimination, the Scottish social security system and, indeed, other public bodies should deliver it. Under the Equality Act of 2010, all public authorities are required to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant, protected, characteristic and persons who do not share it. That ties the principles into the Equality Act and provides legislative backing for that requirement. The principle would be considerably strengthened by that change in wording. That would not simply be about duplicating the Equality Act obligations, because research shows us that public bodies are not fully aware of their duties and often do not adhere to them properly. Having that on the face of the bill would align with the Scottish Government's equality responsibilities under the Scotland Act 1998 to promote compliance with equality's legislation. Above all, it would be the right thing for this Parliament to do. I move the amendment in my name. I call Adam Tomkins to speak to amendment 18 and the other amendment in the group. Amendment 18, in my name in this group, is designed to continue and, hopefully, to complete the work that was started at stage 2 when we were seeking in the Social Security Committee to clarify the legal effect of the principles on which the Scottish social security system is to be based. We all accept and agree with the Scottish Government's proposition that the Scottish social security system should indeed be based on a set of agreed principles that are listed at the beginning of the legislation in section 1, but turning that policy intention into statute law runs risks that there will be unnecessary litigation that is designed simply to clarify in courts or tribunals what the legal effect of those principles might be, even if we are all agreed on their political effect. Section 1A of the bill, which was added at stage 2, is designed to start that work, of clarifying what the legal effect of the principles is to avoid the risk of unnecessary future litigation, and amendment 18 is designed to complete that work. It simply clarifies that the statutory purpose of the Scottish social security principles is so that they can be reflected in the charter, which we will come to in a few moments, and so that the Scottish commission on social security can have regard to them when making recommendations as required by the various provisions of the bill that pertain to the commission. That is an amendment that has been agreed with the Government, and I would like to thank the minister for her help in having it drafted, and that is its point, and I move it. I am very conscious that we have a great deal to get through this afternoon and into this evening, so I am happy to simply say that I support both amendments in this group, both of which I believe provide additional strengthening to the bill. Thank you, admirable brevity. I call on Jackie Baillie to wind up. On that basis, I am delighted that I do not need to add anything else. Thank you very much. In that case, the question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. That is agreed. Can I call amendment 18, in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated? Adam Tomkins, to move or not move? Moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. That is agreed. I call amendment 19, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 19 and to speak to all amendments in group 2. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group are minor and technical adjustments to improve the structure of the bill, improve the consistency of expression across sections, add some clarifications and make some minor fixes. We have already provided detailed information to business managers, so I do not believe that I need to say much more about those amendments. However, I want to indicate my support for amendment 104, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and, having said that, I move amendment 19. Thank you very much, and Jeremy Balfour, to speak to amendment 104 and other amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, thank you. I very briefly move amendment 104, my name. It is a technical turning up, which gives clarity to the role of the law and upper tribunals and that of the commission. I am grateful to the minister and her officials for their help in drawing to the motion and I am happy to support all the other amendments in this section, which the minister has just moved. Thank you very much. Does the minister wish to add anything to the way of winding up remarks? No, I am fine. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Sorry, Jeremy Balfour. Technicality, I should have said at the start of this debate today that I should declare that I am in the sheet of a higher rate of PIP, which is on my end to declare that at this stage it is one of a benefit that we will be dealing with later. Thank you, Mr Balfour, for noting that for the official report. So we move on to the question. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move now to group 3, and I call amendment 1, in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pauline McNeill, to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have taken a strong interest in the question of whether benefits can be automated, so those who are entitled. We know from the DWP estimates that £13 billion a year are not claimed by people who are entitled to assistance, and in Scotland that could be as many as 500,000 individual cases. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Scottish Government and the Minister, Jeane Freeman, for working with me to put those amendments together. As I know that she is committed as I am to making sure that where we can make it easier for people to get benefits, they are entitled to. This will go beyond this bill, I know, and we did it in the child poverty act. Moving amendment 1, and speaking to amendment 11, amendment 1 is the recognition of the importance of the available data that simply means that ministers can use the data on the first application to ensure that they can use it to assess whether someone might be eligible for another benefit. Amendment 11 is the important amendment here, because it places a duty on Scottish ministers to either inform the individual that they may be eligible for assistance and provide information about how to apply for that assistance, or allow for a more automated determination of whether that person can receive that without making any more applications. I think that that is the important thing here, that once you have made an application then there is a duty on the agency to ensure that if you are entitled to any other benefits then the agency can assist you in doing that. Thank you very much. I call Ruth Maguire to speak to amendment 20 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 20 and 21 in my name. I am grateful to Mark Griffin for his support with this amendment, as well as the support that is provided by stakeholders, in particular the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, in encompassing all the information that the act requires ministers to make publicly available. The amendment would also cover information such as posters, information leaflets and appointment information, as opposed to only the more formal types of documents listed under 1D. Perhaps most importantly, in contrast to 1D, my amendment ensures that communication accessibility is mainstreamed and normalised, as opposed to only implemented on an individual and proportionate basis. Under 1D, a person would have to know where to go and then ask for accessible information. In addition, the use of the term proportionate implies that the provision of communication accessible information will be dependent on whether the agency decides the costs are worth it or whether the individual needs merit expenditure, therefore potentially discriminating against the interests of minority needs. By contrast, my amendment enshrines accessible information in the social security system as a matter of course. In that, it complements my previous amendment 1C on inclusive communication, which is about supporting individuals to use whatever ways of understanding are best for them. This can only be a good thing. No one has ever complained that a public system was too easy to understand or engage with. Inclusive communication and accessible information are crucial elements in building a system based on dignity and respect for all those who use it. I urge colleagues to support my amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Whenever one applies for a benefit, it can be, as we have already heard, for Ruth Maguire, a difficult procedure that often performs however simple we make them. People require advice and assistance to do that. I think that the amendments in my name, in this section, again clarify where the committee has been going on a journey. I think that it would be fair to say that, as we started our stage 1, there was within perhaps all of our minds some confusion in regard to what advocacy which we will come on to later was and what legal advice and assistance was. I think that it has been very helpful to welcome the Government's move in regard to this that we have now separated the two out and there is a clear distinction between the two. I think that it is very important that an individual has that right and that that right is independent of Scottish Government. I think that we are very fortunate here in Scotland that across the country, there are many groups, whether within local authorities or third sector, which are providing that advice and assistance, which is independent to claimants. Clearly, that has to happen through the whole process, from when somebody goes to find out whether they are entitled to a claim or the way through to if they have to go to a first tier tribunal. I am grateful again for the minister in just clarifying her support just to confirm also, Presiding Officer, that, in regard to the other amendments within this group, we will be supporting them as well. Thank you very much. I call on the minister, Jean Freeman, to speak to amendment 36 and the other amendments in the group. I am grateful to Ms McNeill, Ms Maguire and Mr Balfour for providing amendments that I believe strengthen in this section of the bill. I am pleased to support them all. They are about ensuring that people get all the assistance that they should through the Scottish social security system. The amendments that are not in my name in this group link to section 1b, which places Scottish ministers under a duty to promote take-up of assistance. In that way, they are linked to amendments 36 and 38. What those amendments do is build on the duty to promote take-up of assistance by requiring the Government to publish and periodically revise a strategy for promoting the take-up of assistance. That strategy, which will be produced through a process of consultation, will set out the Government's best estimate of the extent to which people are getting the assistance that they should be getting and what steps the Government will be taking proactively to boost take-up rates over the strategy's lifetime. Taken as a package, the amendments in this group, together with the provisions already in the bill, will enshrine in law that Government's commitment to ensuring that everyone gets the assistance that they are entitled to through our social security system. We will provide a mechanism for scrutinising the efforts of this and future Governments towards achieving that goal. Members will know that my party is not represented on the Social Security Committee, but I am very grateful to the Minister and Opposition members and the stakeholder groups for keeping us abreast of this. This group of amendments is very important to my party in terms of improving update. We know from Scottish Government statistics that as many as 500,000 families in Scotland are not getting the benefits to which they are entitled, so we heartily support all members' amendments in this group. I am proud of what we have all achieved in this group and in this section in the bill. I am pleased that it builds on one of the key and long-running agreements that we have had with the Government that the system should maximise people's incomes as much as possible. In 2016, we secured from the Government an agreement that there should be a statutory duty to maximise incomes. Although there has been some disagreement along the way, that now takes its form at section 1B. Two billion pounds of benefits go unclaimed every year. Most of that is reserved and that money could lift families and communities out of poverty and boost local economies. I know that the minister supports that approach. She has written in the daily record about how she envisages a Scotland-once approach, and this must extend to take up the same intentions to minimise forms and link best start-grat take-up to council service as an example that the minister has used. Pauline Neill secured agreement at stage 2 to have a system that would lead to the automation of benefits or the bonfire of benefit forms, as it was put. That progress is very welcome. Amendments 1 and 11 have the Government's support, and I am pleased that they will be in the legislation. Equally, I am pleased to support Ruth Maguire's amendments 20 and 21, which takes my section 1D and ensures that everyone using the agency gets the information, letters, advice and records that they need in the most inclusive and suitable form that fits their needs. We have some concerns with the Government's amendments 36 through to 39. My amendments at stage 2 set wide-ranging requirements on the Government to make its duty to promote take-up a reality and record progress and detailed areas where more work is needed. We had the Government's support at the time. Target-based strategy to boost take-up requires the Government to come forward with measurable outcomes for which statistics should be released regularly. I was disappointed to see that the minister wishes to remove those provisions. I have to say that we had discussions and I agreed with the minister on some changes that should have been made because of the potential impact on the fiscal framework, but I still felt that those targets should remain in place. In Northern Ireland, targets are being shown to work where they are boosting the incomes of those targeted by £65 per week. It would have been more helpful to see that part of the amendments that will pass at stage 2 would stay within the legislation to see real progress and targets and progress made against those targets to boost the incomes of low-income families in Scotland. Thank you very much. I call on Pauline McNeill to wind up on this group of amendments. I think that this is going to be a very important aspect of the bill in terms of the practicalities of running the agency, and I think that it will genuinely help people to uptake their benefits when the agency is finally set up. I am happy to leave it at that. Thank you very much. The first question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 20, in the name of Ruth Maguire. Ruth Maguire to confirm that she is moving. Thank you. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 21, in the name of Ruth Maguire. Ruth Maguire to move or not move. Thank you again. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call on amendment 22, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated. Jeremy to move or not move? Move. Moved. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 23, in the name of the minister, Jeane Freeman, already debated with amendment 19. Minister to move formally. Moved formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 24, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call on amendment 25, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. 26—Germie Balfour, already debated—Germie Balfour, to move or not move 26—Germie Balfour, already debated—Germie Balfour, to move or not move Rhywun i unig i— Grodd y ddanwr 27. Rwy'r dd yn ddod geto'r ddysgwys iawn? Rwy'r ddyn nhw'n deud?! Y cwylwyr mwyn 28, fel gymryd pepperau Jeremy Balfour, ar ddyddiw i'r ddysgwys iawn? Rwyf oedd o ddysgwys iawn Rwyf o ddysgwys iawn, Rwyf o ddyddiw i... Rwyf o ddysgwys iawn. Dyna, oedd ddysgwys iawn? Rwyf o ddysgwys iawn? Mae g recall, a ddysgwys iawn. Felly, I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister and this is grouped with amendments 31, 32, 34, 35 and 94. Minister to move amendment 29 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 29 and the others in this group make further provision in relation to independent advocacy services. I'm delighted to say that amendment 31 widens the definition of the group of people Allegwyswyl gael ei bod yn cyfleu gyda'r ddweudiau ddweudiau, a ddweudiau i nodi amgueddwyr mwyaf, ddim ddweudiau ddweudiau sydd yn ei ddweudiau gyda'r ddweudiau i ddweudiau gyda'r ddweudiau, dda'r ddweudiau i amgueddwyrmwyswyl gyda'r ddweudiau i ddweudiau i ddweudiau Ertw yn cywir mewn gwirwyddoedd 29, 32 a 34 ddweud i ddweudiau 31 yn gael. Roedd y casgliad ddarel i diseud y SES connectedle ir babyl eu ddefnyddio dim. Felly fe fydd â'r trafodaeth, derbyn wedi Yew zo'r gweldau Cymunedol, neu sgreddyw droswaith y FIF Fe Culwyr Cyn 발�adol iawn i luniad-fifith, i ddadlio Mhawdd eich se Fel Aelodig Cymtaeg i Bwyswyl-Gruoddfod of these and other organisations who have worked with us to develop and agree these amendments. But in providing for this advocacy support, we as a Government must ensure that it is available across Scotland and that a person can be assured of an equity of standards and service, whether you are in Dumfries, Dundee, Lerwick or Lothi Mouth. A report published last year by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance is clear that in relation to advocacy services across Scotland, provision for people with physical disabilities is patchy and was identified as a gap in many areas, as was provision for people with issues relating to benefits and changes to social security. The Scottish Commission for Learning Disability has told me of similar concerns that there are insufficient advocacy providers, that it is difficult to recruit advocates in remote areas and that a dispersed population makes for difficulties with service provision. We have to make sure that changes, so I have lodged amendment 35, which provides for advocacy service standards. That will ensure that those entering into agreements with ministers to provide independent advocacy services for those people who we are ensuring have a right to them will provide that consistency of service standards. That approach, central funding and agreements based on mutually agreed standards is exactly the same as we would expect of other services that we provide funding for, services such as the national standards for information and advice providers, which are used in the money and debt advice sector. In developing those standards, we will make use of existing models such as SIWA's advocacy code of practice and their independent advocacy evaluation framework, because it would be foolish not to. We will do what we always do, which is to develop the standards in consultation with relevant organisations and, importantly, with the people who currently access advocacy services. We want to ensure that we meet the expectations that people will have in exercising that new right. The Social Security Bill has, within it, many important and exciting innovations. Enshrining in law the right to independent advocacy services, as we set out in those amendments, is one of them. So, too, is ensuring that the regulations that will govern the standards will be approved by this Parliament. Instead of introducing service-level agreements across the country, we want the service standards to be agreed by this Parliament. That is why amendment 94 specifically inserts a reference to the new section on advocacy service standards into section 55, which governs the regulation-making powers in the bill to ensure that regulations to set out the advocacy service standards will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will, therefore, be scrutinised by this Parliament. I hope that members will agree that those amendments represent significant progress in the area of social security and provide a significant package of support for people who would otherwise struggle to access the support that they need and the entitlement that is their right. I move amendment 29. Ruth Maguire to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. A great deal of skill, knowledge and sensitivity is required to provide quality independent advocacy support to people. We have a range of high-quality services operating in Scotland, not least Ames, in Stevenson and my constituency. With the substantial additional requirements and investment in line with our new social security system, it is crucial that we ensure that those high levels of service are maintained. The Scottish Commission on Learning Disabilities is currently carrying out a scoping study into advocacy services, which highlights the need for consistent standards of services right across Scotland to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live, can access the same standard of advocacy services. That is backed by similar evidence from the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance's map of advocacy across Scotland, which highlights lack of consistency in some services. Introducing advocacy service standards will ensure equity of standards and service for all people in Scotland. I support the fact that those standards will be produced in consultation with the sector and those who rely on the services and, crucially, that they will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure to support the amendment. Thank you very much. I call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Mark Griffin. I welcome the minister's remarks and the movement that the Government has made over the past number of weeks in regard to that. The definition of disability or being disabled is a much better and stronger definition than was agreed at stage 2 by the committee. I think that we now have to work as a Parliament and as a Government in regard to when the regulations are drawn up, to make sure that we understand what we mean by that definition. I think that there is work out there to be done with advocacy groups, with disability groups and with others within the third sector. However, I think that that definition allows the Parliament to know that advocacy will go to those who need it, and that is the key thing. Not everybody needs an advocate when we go through this process, and to simply open it up to everyone, I think, would disadvantage those who need it and would put extra pressure financially on the Scottish Government and on advocacy groups. I do think that there is a challenge of how we will deliver this in time for when the regulations are up and running in different areas, because there is, as I have spoken to different groups, and as the minister has said, quite a different picture in where you go in Scotland. We are very fortunate here with the Malovians that there are many good groups who are already up and running and will be able to provide the service. However, having talked to other groups in other parts of the country, that will be a challenge, and we need to make sure that they have the appropriate resources and training to do it. It is also very important to read the amendments that were approved previously that an individual will have the right to have somebody of their choice all the way through the process, which is different from what is happening at the moment. That is a very positive step forward by the Scottish Government. It also means that, often, an advocate will not be required because the individual will have somebody there that they know already who can be that advocate and that support. It would be fair to say that amendment 35 is perhaps the most controversial in that group. We will be supporting the Government on this afternoon, because we need to have a standard that can be applied across the whole of the country. There is a danger that, in part of the country where, perhaps, there are not good advocacy services, you end up with individuals simply jumping up and saying, I could be an advocate, can I have money, please, and that would be the wrong way forward. We need to be able to meet the right standards, we need to be able to give the appropriate service to those that require it. I do very much welcome again that the minister's remarks that she has made this afternoon, that she will consult with the groups that are already doing it and with those that are interested in it, as those regulations are drawn up. Again, I think that, ultimately, it will be a decision for this Parliament as to whether we approve or not approve these regulations. I suspect that this might be a common theme as we go through this afternoon into this early evening. This is simply the start of the journey. We do not finish today by simply passing this into an act. The regulations are going to be key for individuals, and this area is something that my group and my party would be very happy to work with the Government on to make sure that we get them right for each individual across this country. I congratulate the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance and the third sector for getting this right to advocacy into the bill. In terms of social security across the UK, they should be proud that because of their work, there will now be a right to advocacy in legislation. That is a measure that makes the legislation in itself groundbreaking. I feel that it is key to the approach of Scottish Labour to the social security bill. It has been a clear desire to ensure that a right to independent advocacy is included in the legislation. In our submission to the stage 1 consultation we agreed that provision was needed. We said that, even if there are fewer face-to-face assessments and the private sector is removed from the system, we recognise that independent advocacy is vital to ensure that the system is responsive to the needs of disabled people. That support, along with the voices of voluntary and advocacy organisations, significantly shifted the Government's position on the right to advocacy. When Jeremy Balfour had his amendment that he chose not to move at stage 2, I think that the committee still made clear that aside that the Scottish Government's proposal to limit to mental health conditions was a starting point and not the end point in what we expected to see in the legislation, the minister's new amendment states that those with a disability will be able to access independent advocacy. As that will cover those who have the most significant needs, I will apply to the agency under the most complex processes flown from the bill and meets our test from the stage 1 submission. We support the Government wholeheartedly. We have heard concerns that amendment 35 puts the independence of advocacy organisations at risk and could set a precedent for Scottish Government influence over third sector providers. Advocacy organisations already have a code of practice and they have real concerns that an independent organisation outside of government who would advise applicants or perhaps people who were appealing against decisions of an arm of government should be wholly independent and would not like to see service standards being set by that Government. They would rather see independent standards being set for those organisations and it is for those reasons that we will not be supporting amendment 35. George Adam is followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. As always, I will take that on in a practical manner because I am a very practical individual. When you look at the whole idea, I take on board what Jeremy Balfour has already said that he believes, excuse me, if I am paraphrasing you, that there could be a case where people could just set themselves up as an advocate in any high street anywhere across the country if there was not any kind of standards there as well. That is a concern because of the quality of the actual advocacy that they get. With practicality, and it is just a question directly to the minister, is not the case that amendment 35 is standard practice currently anyway? The Scottish Government already produces guidance for commissioners of independent advocacy, which includes the set of principles and standards that are developed by the SIAA, that commissioners are used to ensure that the organisation individuals provide independent advocacy services. At this point, when we are looking at providing a better service and providing more money into advocacy, why would anyone not want to ensure that they had that standard across Scotland and that that standard was available throughout the country? The standard to protect people and also protect those organisations, providing a good standard of service for people, and that is one of the most important things. Let us not get into a stage where people's professionalism is possibly doubted, because there might have been other people saying their advocates when they have not been. It is very important to have this here. The minister could answer those questions. Alex Cole-Hamilton is to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Given that, in the passage of the act, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society, sometimes existing on the edges of our society, many of whom may have complex communication difficulties, the provision of an advocate to help to navigate through the landscape of the benefit environment and to communicate the views and needs of the people who are applying for those benefits is absolutely vital. Liberal Democrats are delighted to see the provision of advocacy on the surface of the bill. We certainly support the Government's amendment 31 in expanding to whom that applies. That is a very clear and very important improvement. We have come on a bit of a journey in this country in the provision of advocacy, since it was first properly defined in law under the terms of the 2003 mental health act. I was very involved with a range of stakeholders in the passage of the Children's Hearings Act, which saw a right to independent advocacy for young people coming before the children's panel. We have done that before, and we have not felt the need to have Government-defined standards in its provision. Indeed, advocacy is, by its nature, adaptive to the circumstances around it. It changes the needs of people who require it, change from rurality to urban populations. There is a range of different organisations providing it, sometimes on a voluntary basis. It is already well self-regulated. I would say to George Adam in his last remark, his question to the cabinet secretary about the fact that the Government already provides guidance. It certainly provides guidance. There is a very clear difference between guidance and standards, and I think that this takes the reach of government abridge too far, which might actually close off the provision of advocacy to those who need it, so that the Liberal Democrats will be opposing amendment 35. I, like others, very much welcome the right to advocacy within the bill and rise to speak in favour of all the amendments in the group in the name of the minister. I speak particularly to amendment 35, which I also support for a number of reasons. First of all, in my view, it is important that amendment 35 is passed in order that we ensure that Parliament, MSPs, will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulatory framework proposed by the Scottish Government. I think that why would we not want that opportunity to scrutinise this matter, particularly in the interests of making sure that there is a consistency of standards applied across the country, that the same standards that are delivered by advocacy services to a high quality of my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland are consistently delivered going forward. The fact that we are putting the right to advocacy on the face of the bill makes the necessity of standardisation and a consistency in professional service of higher importance and higher priority. We need to be able to assure those who use those advocacy services that they are getting a high quality service and a proper service, and through consultation with advocates and consultation with others involved in the sector, I think that the proposal that those regulations would be brought to Parliament, scrutinised and taken forward, is absolutely the right and proper and professional way to go about implementing the right to advocacy. Therefore, I urge members to support all the amendments in the group, and particularly amendment 35. I thank Mr Balfour for reminding us quite rightly that, even when we pass the legislation, our work is not done. There will be a great deal more to do for all of us in drafting all the regulations that will flow from the bill, and the regulations that we are discussing here are one of the most important set. There are indeed many groups to thank for getting us to this place. I would particularly like to single out Inclusion Scotland, Camp Hill Scotland and DAS for the hard work that they have put in to help us to refine our position on advocacy support to a much better place than we were at stage 2. Let me turn to amendment 35. There is nothing sinister in that amendment. It is entirely about ensuring consistency of quality and delivery across the country, which is, of course, entirely consistent with a rights-based approach. To Mr Adam's question, he is, of course, right. We have guidance for commissioners on independent advocacy, which includes a set of principles and standards that they are required to comply with. We also have produced financial support to the Scottish legal aid board to manage the accreditation process for the Scottish national standards for information and advice providers. What we are trying to do here is to add extra to that. We already have standards for services that we provide across the country to ensure consistency of service and high quality, but I want this Parliament to be able to look at the regulations that describe what those standards are, which we will have reached having had that wild consultation, having started on the basis of the professional expertise and experience that already exists in the advocacy world that my colleagues have already referred to, but then ensuring that it is this Parliament as it should be that provides the scrutiny to that and approves those regulations when we bring them forward. I urge members to support amendment 35. It is entirely consistent with a rights-based approach that says that if you want to provide a service, you need to make sure that every single person in Scotland who is entitled to that service can trust that they will receive the same quality of provision as any other person. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 30 to 34, all the name of the minister, all previously debated, minister, to move amendments 30 to 34? Move formally. Thank you. Does anyone object to amendments 30 to 34 being voted on block? No, they do not. Good. The question is, therefore, that amendments 30 to 34 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call the minister to move amendment 35? Move. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. This is the first division of the day, so there is going to be a five-minute suspension of what we call members to the chamber, so a five-minute suspension. Thank you. That is the suspension over. We will now proceed with a division on amendment 35. This will be a 32nd vote on amendment 35, and members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 35 in the name of Jeane Freeman is, yes, 90, no, 33, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 36? Move. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 36 in the name of Jeane Freeman is, yes, 90, no, 31, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 37? Move. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we are not agreed. We will move to a division, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 37 in the name of Jeane Freeman is, yes, 97, no, 26, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 38? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a division, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 38 in the name of Jeane Freeman is, yes, 97, no, 26, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 39? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 39 in the name of Jeane Freeman is, yes, 97, no, 26, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 40? Move. Thank you. That is moved. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We turn now to group 5. I call amendment 41 in the name of Adam Tomkins, grouped with amendments 42, 2, 46, 66 and 15. Can I ask Adam Tomkins to move amendment 41 and to speak to other amendments in the group? Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group pertain to section 1J, which is introduced into the bill at stage 2, and is a statutory restriction on the involvement of the private sector in assessments for disability assistance. There was a concern amongst a number of us that the wording of that section, as introduced at stage 2, was drawn so tightly that it would inadvertently prohibit the involvement of certain medical experts in the involvement of assessments, particularly if they had self-employment relationships with the NHS rather than were employed as a matter of employment law under that technical definition of employment. After I lodged amendment 41 in my name, the minister lodged amendment 42 in her name, and if she moves that amendment and presses it to a vote, I will happily withdraw amendment 41, because I think that the minister's amendment will not press amendment 41 to a vote, because I think that the wording of amendment 42 more accurately captures the policy intention that I had in seeking to bring amendment 41 to the chamber. We will support amendment 42 in the minister's name, and indeed we will also support the other amendments in this group. Thank you very much. I call on the minister to speak to amendment 42 and the other amendments in the group. The amendments in this group deal with the important issue of assessments. We have an opportunity in this bill to do things differently and to sweep away what is a failed assessments regime from the DWP. I am pleased to say that now, in not pressing his amendment, I would be happy to support all the amendments in this group, now that Mr Tomkins is not pressing his. I have always been clear that profits should never be a motive or play a part in making decisions in assessing people's eligibility for disability or any other kind of assistance. That is why I brought forward an amendment, now section 1j, that says that an individual cannot be made to attend an assessment by someone who is not employed by a public body. Amendment 42 is a technical adjustment to section 1j to ensure that individuals can be taken on by public bodies as assessors without necessarily having a formal employer-employee relationship. For example, they may indeed be self-employed. Amendment 42, to be clear, in no way allows for a public body to contract with private sector operators to employ assessors as the DWP does. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us to shape amendments 2 and 15 lodged in his name. It is right that, where assessment is deemed necessary, individuals will be assessed by professionals who understand their conditions and the impact of those conditions, so I am happy to support Mr Griffin's amendments. I would also like to thank Alison Johnson again for working with us to shape amendments 46 and 66 lodged in her name. I have always been clear that the Scottish Government will reduce face-to-face assessments by using existing and relevant information to get decisions right for us time. It is important that, where an assessment is necessary, the Scottish Government gives consideration as to how it can be undertaken to reduce any impact on the individual. I am therefore very pleased to support Mr Johnson's amendments 2. Given that Mr Tomkins is not pressing his, I urge all members to support the amendments in this group. We will support Alison Johnson's amendment in this group, although we cannot support the ministers and would not have supported Mr Tomkins' attempt to weaken the hard-won legal ban on the private sector from delivering assessments. Although I can see the meaning in the minister's letter, the flexibility that she is seeking, we feel, would allow gig economy assessors, people on zero-hours contracts, to provide assessments. That is not a change that we can support. Amendments 2 and 15 in my name. I am glad to have worked with the Government on those, bringing back the policy intent from stage 2. We will ensure that the assessors are suitably qualified for the condition that they are assessing. That is supported by SAMH. The original impetus behind the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 was to ensure that those who have a mental health condition are assessed by someone who has suitable professional experience. Just now, 39 per cent of PIP recipients have a psychiatric disorder. All too often, the assessment experience is poor and has contributed to a lack of trust in the system. We have met a lack of understanding and an apparent inability to understand fluctuating conditions and stigmatising attitudes, so I ask members to support amendments in my name and in the name of Alison Johnson. I will be pleased to support Mark Griffin's amendments in the group. I, too, have concerns regarding the casualisation of Labour with regard to the Government's amendments, so we will not be supporting those in the group. I would like, however, to thank the minister and the Government very much for the positive constructive way that they have worked with me on tabling those amendments. Fundamental changes to assessments for disability benefits are essential to building a new social security system that is really based on the principles of dignity and respect, and it is essential that the current approach to assessments does not continue. Those assessments are often highly stressful and, in many cases, can exacerbate the individual's health condition or disability. In an alarming number of cases, the subsequent decision is then overturned because of the poor quality of that assessment, so clearly something is very wrong indeed. No wonder, then, that a survey of several hundred citizens advice, Scotland clients and advisers showed there, and I quote, Highest priority for the Scottish social security system was that the number of unnecessary medical assessments for disability benefits is substantially reduced by making the best use of existing evidence. Members of the social security experience panels made similar comments, and that is what amendment 46 does. If evidence is available through other routes, such as existing evidence from GPs and social care professionals, it is sufficient to corroborate what the individual has claimed on their application form, then the Scottish Government will not be able to require them to undergo assessment. That is aimed at significantly reducing the number of assessments, currently standing at around 96 per cent of all PIP applications. If assessment is required, amendment 66 requires ministers to explain to the individual why that is the case, to also take into account options other than a face-to-face assessment, and if such an assessment is required, it must be within a reasonable distance of the individual's home. No longer should applicants have to travel long distances on public transport that is not as accessible as it should be. For the avoidance of doubt, the intention here is absolutely not to stop assessments from being done when they are required to determine entitlement, nor if the applicant thinks that they will benefit from having one, but where evidence can be obtained in a way that is less intrusive and less stressful, then the new principles of the new system dictate that this must be done. Clearly, amendment 66 is only the beginning of such an approach. It will not have the intended effect on its own. Ministers will need to facilitate information sharing, in particular, designing evidence forms issued to GPs, for example, that more clearly relate to the benefit criteria than they do now. I am sure that the minister will be aware of how closely so many people, myself and the thousands of PIP and DLA recipients in Scotland, will be watching how that provision is implemented if passed by Parliament today. To close, if we are to find this new system, as the Scottish Government is rightly intending, on the principles of dignity and respect, then protecting applicants from unnecessary assessments that can cause distress is one way to do so. I move amendment 41. Grateful to Adam Tomkin's remarks about his own amendments on amendment 41, we had anxieties in the Liberal Democrats about that. I understand his points, but I still think that it would open the door once again to elements of the private sector coming into this process. I think that on balance 42 gets that right, so we will be backing the Government amendment. I hear what my colleagues in the green and labour benches are saying on that, but for the Liberal Democrats that strikes the right balance. I certainly support Mark Griffin's amendments around quality standards and training in the process. I think that it is absolutely right that people have confidence in the assessment process and that people who are carrying it out are trained to a high enough standard that people can understand and have confidence in that process. I think that Alison Johnstone's amendments add a very humane element to this aspect of the bill. It represents an important and well-timed departure from how things have been conducted traditionally by the Department of Work and Pensions in terms of assessment, particularly around disability benefits. It is certainly putting the applicant at the heart of the process and, in many cases, in the driving seat. For that basis, she will be assured of our support for her amendments in that regard. Thank you very much. I will call on Adam Tomkins to wind up in this section. I will clarify to press or withdraw amendment 41. I have to formally check whether anyone else is ever happy that Mr Tomkins withdraws amendment 41, or that no one else wishes to move amendment 41, I should say. No one does, that is good. The question is whether amendment 42 will be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. Will we move to a division on amendment 42? I must make answer votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 42 in the name of the minister is, yes, 96, no, 26, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 43 in her name? Moved. Thank you. The question is whether amendment 43 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 44? Moved. Thank you. The question is whether amendment 44 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call on the minister to move amendment 45 in her name? Moved. Thank you very much. The question is whether amendment 45 will be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I now call on amendment 2 in the name of Mark Griffin, who is already debated with amendment 41. Mark Griffin to move or not move. Moved. The question therefore is whether amendment 2 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call on amendment 46 in the name of Alison Johnstone, who is already debated. Alison Johnstone to move or not move. Move. That is moved. The question is whether amendment 46 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Before I turn to the next section of groupings, members may like to know that we are just slightly behind. We are about five minutes behind our time schedule. I did exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A-C to allow that debate and that group to continue and to finish in the time needed. Moving on to group 6, I call amendment 3 in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments 4, 5 and 6. I ask Pauline McNeill of Bowfarn to move amendment 3 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 3 in my name and I speak to amendment 4, 5 and 6, preparation and approval of charter. I launched a series of amendments at stage 2 aimed at making the charter subject to form a parliamentary approval. However, the effect of that would have contradicted the need for a clear and accessible charter. I agreed not to move those amendments at stage 2 and to work with the Scottish Government to come forward with something that would involve some parliamentary approval. The charter being a critical document and various amendments at stage 2 will ensure that it will be a more critical aspect of the new social security system with reference to the charter. Amendment 4 means that the Government may not make the charter unless a draft has been laid before Parliament with parliamentary approval. Amendment 6 is clear that if ministers decide to make changes to the charter, that must also be laid before Parliament. I think that this is the right way for Parliament to be involved in the approval of the charter. I move. Thank you very much. I call on the minister to speak to the amendment in this group. I am grateful to Ms McNeill for working with the work that we have done together to bring those amendments forward. I am very pleased to support them. They will cement the charter's status as a fundamental part of the Scottish approach to social security and give Parliament its rightful place, making future Governments accountable for any attempt to alter the nature of that approach. Thank you very much, minister. Does the Parliament wish to add anything by way of conclusion? There is nothing more to add. Is the amendment 3 agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendments 47, 48 and 49 all the name of the minister, all previously debated, and I can invite the minister to move amendments 47 to 49 on block. Does anyone object if I put all those questions at once on block? Anyone objects? Therefore, the question is that amendments 47 to 49 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 4, in the name of Pauline McNeill, who is already debated with amendment 3. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call on amendment 5, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call on amendment 50, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 19, minister to move formally? Move formally. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call on amendment 6, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated, Pauline McNeill, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call on amendment 51, in the name of the minister, minister to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We turn now to group 7. I call amendment 52, in the name of Adam Tomkins, in a group of its own, and Adam Tomkins to speak to and move amendment 52. The bill includes a definition of the Scottish social security system, and that definition is important because the principles that we have already talked about and the charter that we have just talked about will apply within the scope of the Scottish social security system as defined. It has been my view since the bill was introduced last year that the definition in section 7 of the bill of the Scottish social security system is deficient, but deficient in just one technical particular. We know that there are a number of benefits. There are 11 benefits that are devolved in full. In addition to that, there is the power to top up any reserved benefit, and all those powers are included within the definition of Scottish social security system as provided for in section 7. However, there is also a third element of devolved social security, and that third element of devolved social security is in section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, and that is the power to create new benefits that do not otherwise fall within the scope of the 11 devolved benefits or the power to top up. The force of my amendment 52, which has been drawn up with the assistance of the Government and the Government's lawyers for which I am grateful, is just to ensure that that additional element of devolved social security is for the purposes of the definition of Scottish social security system brought within that definition, so that the full definition of Scottish social security system will embrace not only the benefits that are devolved in full and the power to top up reserved benefits, but also the power to create new benefits. In that sense, there is a technical amendment that I hope will attract the support of the chamber. I am pleased to support Mr Tomkins' amendment 52. It does, as he said, implement his long-standing view that the bill ought to better reflect the scope of the social security powers devolved to this Parliament. It does so in a way that ensures future schemes to be added to the Scottish system will be introduced through acts of parliament with the robust scrutiny that process requires and clarifies that ministers should be held accountable for any future schemes that they choose to introduce, so I am happy to support the amendment in his name. Thank you very much. Adam Tomkins to wind up. To press. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. That is agreed. Turn now to group 8. I call amendment 7 in the name of Mark Griffin in a group on its own. Mark Griffin to speak to you and move amendment 7. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendment was lodged in a previous form at stage 2, and I am glad to have worked with the Government to bring it back at stage 3 in a form that we could all support. The amendment seeks to give people a right to cease receipt of assistance at any point and effectively say that they no longer wish to receive that assistance. The child poverty action group highlighted that, as is currently allowed under UK law, it is important that people are able to withdraw their application once they have an award. There are circumstances when a person might want to stop getting a particular benefit, even though they are still entitled to it. For example, that may happen when a person or a couple has a choice between two benefits but can only get one of them or a couple has a choice about which of them makes the claim. The child poverty action group highlighted that a couple of people care for their disabled child. One gets carers assistance for their child, but has their own health condition, they get universal credit. In universal credit, there are extra amounts for someone who gets a carers benefit and for someone who has a health condition, but not both unless these are different people. If they could not withdraw their claim for the other partner to then claim it, they could be over £150 a month worse off because their universal credit will not include a carer's element, so I am happy to move amendment 7 in my name. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for drawing this matter to our attention and for bringing forward the proposition that he made. I believe that it is now a practical amendment with a sensible purpose that recognises that an individual should have the choice to stop receiving assistance with a defined process for requesting a cancellation that should also ensure that there is no obligation to treat a determination as cancelled if there is any ambiguity in the request. I am pleased to support the amendment. I ask Mark Griffin to wind up if he wishes to or to press a withdrawal. Simply to press the amendment. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group number nine. I call amendment 53 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 111, 111A, 111B, 148, 113 and 114. Minister, to speak to amendment 53 and all amendments in the group. I have said before that the issue that we now turn to has been the most challenging issue that I have faced in all of the work for this bill. Support for people who are terminally ill is a complex, sensitive and difficult issue. I am very aware that behind the decisions that we make, there are thousands of people who we must put front and centre of our decisions and our actions. The central principle is that a person who is terminally ill should have the support that they need quickly. I have lodged amendment 148 as an alternative to amendment 111, which I will not be moving. Amendment 148 has been framed carefully to ensure that the sensitive and difficult conversations between an individual and their clinician, which are required in these difficult circumstances, are held when medically necessary to allow for optimal focus on the patient. I believe that providing for maximum clinical judgment is the best way to achieve that. The amendment sets no arbitrary timeframe to the definition of terminal illness, but recognises that it is the skill and expertise of the registered medical practitioner that is needed to determine a terminal diagnosis. To support that critical decision making, the amendment allows the chief medical officer in consultation with registered medical practitioners to set a framework in guidance. It is this guidance that will decide when an individual has a progressive disease that can reasonably be expected to cause that individual's death. Both the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer, as our national experts, have reviewed and fully supported this amendment as the best way to achieve timely support for those with a terminal illness. Amendment 113 creates special rules for terminal illness cases. Those guarantee terminally ill people quick access to disability assistance, ensuring that an individual does not have to satisfy a qualifying period in relation to their diagnosis and that they will not have to undergo further assessments to prove that they have a terminal illness. Their awards will be calculated at the latest from the date of application and they will automatically receive the highest rate of financial support to which they are entitled. That is in line with our commitment to the principle of providing support when it is needed and it maintains fast tracking for those with terminal illness to remove any barriers to their receiving support as soon as possible. I understand that that will mean that Mr McPherson's amendments will automatically fall but I want to absolutely assure him that my new amendment will cover all people of all ages. Amendments 553 and 114 are minor adjustments needed to make amendments 148 and 113 work. I call on members to assist those with terminal illness by supporting the amendments in this group and I move amendment 53. Thank you. I am going to call on Ben MacPherson to speak to amendment 111A and the other amendments in this group. The reasons behind why I laid the amendments that I have was to extend the definition of terminal illness to ensure that regulations be framed to include anyone under the age of 18 with a progressive disease that very sadly is likely to cause death. My amendment sought to make sure that for those young people special rules would apply so that they got the highest rate of benefit quickly and with no assessment. Doing all that we can to help such young people, those young people and their families is of course very important to us all and that's why, as the ministers just said, I'm glad that the new amendment 148 and amendment 113 in the name of the minister would enable what my proposed amendments intended to deliver and would account for the policy intention to enable anyone under the age of 18 with a progressive disease likely to cause death to receive the highest rate of benefit quickly and with no assessment. Therefore, given the minister's new amendments will enable this change based on the balance of views of different parties and guidance based on the input of clinicians and given that the minister will not be moving her amendment 111, I do not move and seek to withdraw amendments 111A and 111B and instead encourage all MSPs to support the minister's amendments concerning terminal illness in order to deliver the change that my amendments sought to seek. Thank you very much. I call on Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Mark Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think, as the minister said, this has definitely been the hardest part of the bill for all of us to get right. It has been a journey that I think we have all been on as a committee and as a government and I think we have ended up in the right place for those who are most vulnerable in our society. The reason that I introduced the two-year stage at stage 2 of the bill was that, from my previous experience sitting on tribunals, there were sadly cases that came before the tribunal where someone who had made an application was terminally ill but was going to live beyond the six-month period, which sadly died quite quickly after that period, did not get into the special rules and did not receive the money that could have helped them to provide better services towards the end of their life. From my perspective, the six-month rule was simply too short a period of time. I welcome the Government's discussion with different groups and other MSPs on that. I think that to take away the time limit completely is the right way forward. Whatever time you come up with, whether it is six months, one-year, two-year, five-year, it is clearly going to be artificial and clearly some people will get in and some people will not. Having been lobbied heavily by my older brother, it is very difficult for GPs sitting in their room to say with any definition or clarity, sadly, that they might live for less than six months or two years. As well as given that diagnosis, they also have to deal with that patient with so many other things that are going on in their life. Clearly, it is important that people get the right benefit, but it is only one of the things that a GP or a consultant or a nurse has to deal with individually. We have made progress. I think that we are on the right course. The guidance again will be very important. I welcome the minister's assurances that she will work with the medical officers, with the medical profession and with those who work in the sector, from the first sector. Can I play a particular credit to Marie Curie and MND for the work that they have done around this and for the helpful information that they have given? Clearly, no one wants to make this a party political issue. This is what surely, as a Parliament, we come together to do the best that we can. Can I pay respect to the minister for doing that, for trying to take all of us with her, but, most important, for helping those who have been given a diagnosis that none of us would ever want? Presiding Officer, we will support all the amendments that are going to be pressed in this group. In particular, I thank the minister for bringing forward the amendment on special rules and taking forward the policy from the moment that I lodged at stage 2. While we were pleased with the changes that were made at stage 2 to increase the definition of terminal illness to be used to two years, the removal of all time limits is a victory for campaigners and those who are terminally ill. Ultimately, the change is very welcome. That change to move to base a word on clinical discretion and the needs of the terminal ill was not expected just a matter of months ago. MND and Marie Curie, who have representatives in the gallery today, should be particularly proud of the work that they have done to secure this change. I want to sound at a word of caution while the change in policy is welcome. We have to learn lessons as to how those changes came about. The lessons that we need to learn are that processes cannot and should not be a template for how ministers are going to set up the new system. We are expecting sways of regulation that will include intricate policy design of nine forms of assistance. For the campaigners and for the people for whom the social security system is meant to be an investment, they need the assurances that more detail and policy will be done out in the open, while in advance of decision making in the months ahead. Alison Johnstone, why Alex Cole-Hamilton? I entirely agree that that is one of the most sensitive and challenging issues that we have had to discuss during the bill process, if not in this Parliament. I am very pleased with the outcome. I welcome the improvements that have been made through the minister's amendment, and we will support all amendments in the group. There were many MSPs on the committee and organisations involved with the bill. They have worked hard to find a way to resolve the complex issue. The Scottish Greens are pleased that the new amendment clearly places the sensitive, difficult decisions in the hands of clinical experts. In a previous letter to the Scottish Government, the chief medical officer stressed that decisions about when to fast-track people's benefits should focus on the health of the individual, not on the medical condition or on the timescale. I think that removing that restriction on timescale and allowing medical practitioners to exercise their expert judgment in its fullest capacity is the best way forward for both patients and clinicians. We very much welcome this change. I, too, would like to express my thanks, in particular, to Mary Curie and MND, whose input in the process has been invaluable. Presiding Officer, I am sure that every single member in this chamber would agree that the measure of a civilised society is the compassion with which it treats those given the hardest of news, whether that is in a doctor's surgery or a hospital. I want to thank the Government on this. I think that they have worked the hardest to build consensus. I know that the work was going on late into the weekend of the wording around this consensus amendment, so I absolutely rise in support of 1.48 and 1.13. I think that I can understand the drivers behind amendment 111, but we would have stuck with the original stage 2 iteration of this, because we felt that it just simply did not extend enough support. It also put doctors in a very invidious position of having to decide not only at that time of that heartbreaking conversation, but whether that meant that somebody got an award or didn't. Policy around end-of-life is entirely, is always very, very sensitive, and we owe it to all those people faced with that devastating news that we will strip out the party politics of it. So it's right that we put this in the trust of our clinicians, who I know I and everybody in this chamber trust implicitly under the guidance of our CMO, and I'd just like to finish by adding my voice in thanks to MND and Marie Curie, who spelt out in very important personal and visceral detail just what this means to so many people in our country. So I thank the Government again for the distance that they have travelled on this. George Adam. I am only too aware of being on the committee and, for other reasons, how complex and sensitive and difficult this issue has been, and I commend the minister and other colleagues for the fact that we have been able to come to where we are today as well, because it's a difficult conversation that everyone has had to have during this whole debate on terminal illness, and most members will be aware of my wife Stacey as MS, and along with 11,000 others, she's celebrating MS awareness week. Now, that's a progressive disease, but you may think the way she's been bullying most of the MSPs today that she's quite healthy and carrying on with things, but it's MS itself that we could be in a position in that time eventually where that could affect us. That's one of the things that we kind of look at all the time when I'm looking at issues like that as well. I also look at the fact that the constituent that I spoke to last week in Paisley, who actually said to me when we were having a discussion about her own individual circumstances and this debate and these amendments in particular, and her argument was the fact that she was looking to have no timescale because she thought that there shouldn't be the timescale that should be up to the clinicians to decide how we go forward. Just in closing, Presiding Officer, I think that we've got ourselves to the right place because it's not for us as politicians to decide an arbitrary figure in time, it's up to the clinicians and giving them the scope and ability to actually be able to make sure, and we have to take into account as well if someone gets, if we used an arbitrary figure like two years, three years or whatever, that an individual will make life-changing decisions when they get that actual terminal illness diagnosis. Your average clinician is not going to want to put someone in that position, so I think that we've got to a very good place. I think that we've got to a place here now where we've got the public on our side. Just in finishing, Presiding Officer, I think that in the real world, in people's lives, this is what we've been dealing with and I think that that alone has shown that this Parliament can come to a level of maturity and deal with an issue like that. I call the minister to wind up in this group. I will be brief, but there are a couple of things that I want to say. I genuinely appreciate the collective effort and the input from medical professionals, from stakeholders and from my fellow MSPs to find the best approach to telling our owners for our new social security system in Scotland. In all our discussions, people have always given careful consideration to the issues and the complexities involved. I know that we can all agree that the central principle in our approach should be to ensure that those who have to confront all the personal and psychological issues that come with a terminal diagnosis are provided with the support that they need when they need it. Medical practitioners will play a vital role in implementing this important change and I am grateful to the medical professionals for providing their views and for their offer of support in developing the guidance to deliver this new position. I am also grateful to my fellow MSPs for their very considered approach to this complex issue and for continuing to discuss it with me. It is clear that we all agree on the best way forward and I welcome the cross-party support. I believe that we have arrived at the right solution to ensure that people who are already in extremely difficult circumstances are able to access the maximum level of financial support that they are entitled to quickly and with the dignity and the respect that they deserve. Thank you very much and we move to the question that is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn to group 10. Can I call amendment 54 in the name of the minister? Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 54 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group will create a right to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against a decision to reject an application for assistance or redetermination on the grounds that has not been validly made. Amendments were agreed at stage 2, which would require the process for applying for assistance to be put in regulations. The amendments from Mr Griffin explained that his intention with those was to give people a right to appeal against a rejection on an application on grounds of technical invalidity. In fact, putting the application rules in regulations makes no difference to whether the rejection of an application can be appealed against. My amendments in this group do what the Social Security Committee wanted to do at stage 2, by creating a right to appeal against the rejection of an application. They also go further and create a right to appeal against the rejection of a redetermination request 2. Requiring the application process to be set out in regulations gets in the way of creating an application process that meets the aspirations around accessibility and inclusivity of communication that members have already voted to support this afternoon. I do not believe that anyone thinks that regulations are a good way of getting a public message across. People should not have to get their heads around a lot of legal ease with all respect to my lawyer colleagues to find out how to apply for assistance. They should be able to pick up a leaflet or go to mygov.scot website and get a straightforward plain English explanation of how to apply. They should be able to trust that, if they follow those instructions, their application will be valid. People should not be tripped up by a rule buried away in the regulations. If we are to meet the aspirations for the Scottish social security system, which I know is shared across this chamber, in terms of having a system that allows people to make applications in the way that best meets their needs, it does not help to limit the ways that applications can be made to form specified regulations. I urge members to support the amendments in this group so that the process for applying for assistance can be made as straightforward and accessible as possible, so that, in the event that there is a dispute about whether an application or a redetermination request is valid, the dispute can be resolved by appeal to the tribunal. We will not be supporting amendments 54 and 55 but intend to support the rest of the group. Amendment 54 and 55 seek to reverse the effect of my amendments, which the Opposition agreed to at committee. Those amendments, which mandated that the Government must provide in regulation clarity on what a satisfactorily submitted application must look like, were supported by the child poverty action group at stage 2 and the principle is still supported at stage 3. The aim was clear to clarify the process of making an application in relation to whether or not it is validly made, and I believe that those should remain a duty on ministers. We are rehearsing the issue again, as we did at stage 2, but whether the application is validly made should mean simply that the questions on the form or asked on a phone call have all been fully answered. That is what regulations should say in relation to the manner in which an application must be made. The ministers' amendments 56 and 58 are welcome and it complements what is now at section 21 in the bill. Making that clear in the bill in regulations will ensure that processes are fit for purpose and provide certainty for people using the system, not certainty for the Government that they can flex the application system as they require. The existing provisions would not require either the bill or regulation to specify the exact types of evidence that is required, a query that is raised by the DPELR, and it will not reduce the ability of the system to be flexible and responsive to the evidence received. In the UK system, before such an appeal right was explicitly provided for in legislation, its absence was ruled incompatible with human rights. Accordingly, I ask members not to support amendments 54 and 55. Does the minister wish to wind up? Let me just repeat. People should be able to trust that the application rules publicly communicated in plain English are the real rules for applying. The idea that regulations saying how applications can be made needn't be complex and over legalistic is belied by the evidence. Anyone who doubts that needs to look at the UK Government's claims and payments regulations. Those run to some 122 pages of closely typed text, a substantial part of which is exclusively about the process for applying for assistance. They have been amended extensively and are fiendish in their complexity. The public, and I suspect many members, are weary of the increasing volume of regulations produced every year. Setting out application forms and regulations was fine a number of decades ago when there was only ever going to be one paper-based form specified and putting it in regulations ensured a sort of national distribution. The world has moved on and legislation should move on too. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed, so we'll move to division. This will be a one minute vote. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Members may have cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 54 in the name of the minister is yes, 94, no, 26 and there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. I now call amendment 55 in the name of the minister. Already debated. Minister to move. Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 55 in the name of Gene Freeman is yes, 95, no, 26 and there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 56 in the name of the minister. Minister to move. Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Turn now to group 11. I call amendment 57 in the name of Mark Griffin. Grouped with amendments 62 and 70, Mark Griffin to move amendment 57 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 57 in my name. The amendments in this group were lodged previously in a different format at stage 2 and I'm glad to have worked with the Government to bring forward that policy in a format that has the Government's support. A key call from Paul Gray in his second independent review into personal independence payments was that applicants should have the right to have a clear and thorough notification of why a determination has been made. Specifically, the amendment requires ministers to provide a copy of an assessment report when someone requests it. Adding in the choice element is a key change since stage 2 after the minister rightly raised concerns that the automation of that may pass on health information that the applicant was not aware of and perhaps did not want to be aware of. Broadly, the aim is to enhance transparency and subsequent redetermination and appeals processes and ask members to support the amendments in this group in my name. Thank you very much and I call on the minister. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us on this set of amendments and I'm happy to support all in this group. Thank you very much. Mr Griffin, to wind up or to press or withdraw amendments. Simply to press, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 12. I call amendment 8 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments 9 and 10. Mark Griffin, to move amendment 8 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. Thank you Presiding Officer. I move amendment 8 in my name. Again, those amendments in this group were lodged in a previous form at stage 2. I'm glad to see that the Government and I have been able to work together to bring those back again in a form that we can agree. The amendments in this group were much like group 11. The amendments seek to ensure that the person with a decision has the maximum information available to aid their redetermination and appeal, but also, if they have an award, how they use it to prove their entitlement or access other passported benefits. The original amendment was lodged with the support of the child poverty action group and sought to ensure that, as standard, a notification is made in writing, although, relatively benign, the minister rightly pointed out that that could cut across provisions to ensure that people had inclusive and accessible communication that we lodged. As proud as we should be about the challenge that we have set for the new agency, someone should have their preferred communication as default by braille, audiophile, email or, indeed, in writing. We know that other organisations and companies, in spite of their duties, are not as progressive in accepting those forms. We could never leave anyone in the position that they could not access a passported benefit or that they would not be unable to prove their source of income because the organisation refused their preferred method of communication. There is clearly more work to do to make those organisations and companies to upgrade and update their practices. We need to have that backstop in the system and ask members to support the amendments in this group. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us on this. Those amendments ensure that individuals will have a tangible record of why their determination or redetermination has been made without limiting the capacity that we have to communicate in the most effective way or to embrace new technologies. I am happy to support all the amendments in this group. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 58, 59, 60 and 61, all in the name of the minister, all previously debated, and can I invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Can I ask if any member objects to the question on these amendments being put on block? No one does. The question is that amendments 58 to 61 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 13. I call amendment 124, in the name of Jackie Baillie, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings, and Jackie Baillie to move amendment 124 and to speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to speak to amendment 124 and all other amendments in this group. Amendments 124 to 131 all relate to the question of appeals to the first-year tribunal. Amendment 132, from my colleague Pauline McNeill, is about the collection of statistics that will inform future policy about access to appeals tribunals, and I would urge support for that amendment. A variation of amendments 124 to 131 were first brought forward at stage 2 by my colleague Pauline McNeill. Although the Scottish Government did not agree with them at the time, they sought to improve appeals to tribunals. The Government's amendments are to be welcomed, but there still remains an issue of concern. Those have been highlighted by Enable, the Child Poverty Action Group, Disability Inclusion Scotland, Disability Agenda for Scotland and the Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform. I apologise if I have missed anybody out of that rather lengthy list, but let me turn to the substance of those amendments. This two-stage access to an appeal tribunal was first introduced by the Conservative Government in 2013. Since then, there has been an 83 per cent reduction in appeals, and much as we might like to think that that was because they got the claims right first time, this is unfortunately not the case. According to Enable, around 86 per cent of cases that undergo mandatory reconsideration do not change. 72 per cent of those who had the right to appeal did not appeal, but when they did, 60 per cent of those who did were successful. If you take those figures together, that means that as many as 20,000 people across Scotland are missing out. I think that this establishes that there is a barrier faced by people appealing to tribunals, and if you need to be convinced even further, then let me point to the evidence from the Government's own social security experience panels. Those are the voices of lived experience and here are some of their comments. A number of people unable to appeal due to the stress associated with the process and therefore accepted what they felt was an unfair or inaccurate decision. Another comment, I know that their decision is wrong, but I do not have the time or energy to fight this further. Again, suffering with depression and anxiety and being made to jump through hoops made me 100 times worse, so they did not appeal. The report from the experience panels containing those views was published after stage 2, so members did not have a chance to consider this before voting on amendments, but they are clear. There are barriers to the system that have not been addressed. The amendments before you today attempt to address those barriers. As it stands, someone who has had their case rejected twice by the agency must actively appeal to the independent tribunal service. It is that requirement to appeal twice that is actually the problem. Those amendments make the process of challenging decisions smoother, but reflect the minister's desire, which is right, for a rights-based system where the claimant is in control. The agency has the opportunity to refute decisions, but where a redetermination comes back with no change, an automatic appeal to the tribunal is triggered. That removes barriers to appeal with the option to withdraw at any point. Finally, I am aware that the Scottish Government is not comfortable with those amendments. I am disappointed, but I would of course be a reasonable person be prepared to consider withdrawal if amendment 132 in the name of Pauline McNeill is supported, because that requires the Government to collect and publish data in this area, so indeed we can return to that again. Thank you very much. I call on Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 132 and the other amendments in this group. I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for bringing this matter to stage 3 of the proceedings, because I do think that it may well be unfinished business. As Jackie Baillie said, there is evidence that when the mandatory redetermination was introduced, tens of thousands of claimants dropped off the system and did not proceed to appeal. Prior to redetermination, of course, a claimant would have had the right to appeal directly to the first-year tribunal. You can understand why people might understand that being a clear system of appeal. As Jackie Baillie says, confusion, stress and the vulnerability of any claimants is a concern, I think, for us all if there may be reasons as to why people drop off after the reconsideration. We should be concerned about this issue. There is strong support amongst the organisations that are already mentioned for a one-stage appeal that would mean that if a redetermination failed, the appeal would be automatically sent directly to the tribunal system from the agency. I will take an intervention from Jeremy Balfour. I am grateful that the member agrees that there is a danger that, if those amendments were passed, we would end up with lots of people's cases going to the first-year tribunal, but they would never turn up and decisions would be taken a lot longer to be delivered by the first-year tribunal and a system being blocked for those who want to appeal. I appreciate that there was a concern about the bureaucracy of a system that would mean that the appeal would be automatically sent from the agency direct to the tribunal system. I believe that I had designed something that would prevent any confusion because the person would be told that the appeal was already in the system. To be honest, Mr Balfour, I am still more concerned about the number of people who may not proceed to appeal, and I hope that you would be too, and I will get to the question of how we might be able to come back to this question. Indeed, in a recent evidence session—and you will have heard this too—the organisations who have been in discussion with the Scottish Government about the issue remain unconvinced by the redetermination system. I pressed them hard on that question, so there still remains a very serious concern out there. Whether the Scottish Government's approach to the which they say a redetermination will be carried out differently from the DWP system, because a new official will look at that claim. We do not know whether that approach will actually work, but, to all intents and purposes, it is still mandatory. However, my amendment 1.3.2 would at least require the Government to contain information in the annual report that is required to do in any case. My amendment would mean that the information contained in the annual report would include the volume of appeals, and we could look at the data that would allow Parliament to monitor that. In my view, this is the very least that Parliament can accept on this matter, because, if those concerns are brought to bear, then at least the Parliament has a chance to readdress in the future. I thank the minister, Jeane Freeman, for working with me on the very question on amendment 1.3.2. I move my amendment, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I call on the minister to speak to the amendments in this group. I cannot support the amendments in Ms Bailey's name in this group, but I am happy to support those from Ms McNeill. I want to go through my reasons, though, why I cannot support Ms Bailey's amendments, because I think that it is important to be clear on the record why that is the case. During stage 2, we debated the appeals process in detail, because no one, least of all me, wants to see anyone losing out on their entitlements because of a complex or confusing system. That is why the amendments that I brought forward at stage 2, which were unanimously supported by the committee, addressed the concerns about potential barriers to appeal, while retaining—and that is the critical point—the individual's right to decide for themselves what they wanted to do in their case. In the bill, as it currently stands, the agency is required to help people who decide they want to appeal and to help them every step of the way. To give the individual information about their right to appeal, ask them to fill in and return a form, the agency will send them if they want to appeal, tell them all about what they should expect to happen next and give them information about local organisations that can provide them with independent support. If the individual decides that they want to appeal, they simply send a form back to the agency and the agency will then send that form and all the materials that it uses to make its decision on to the tribunal and the tribunal system, of course, takes it from there. So far, so rights-based and so straightforward. The individual retains control of deciding what they want to happen in their own case. Precisely, I have to say, what the experienced panel members who have made comment on this have said they want. So the difficulty that I have with Ms Bailey's amendments is that they remove a degree of that control from the individual. They set up an automatic appeal system that only puts the agency in charge and the individual only comes back into play on their own case in a negative way by pulling out of an appeal that has been automatically triggered. Ms Bailey's amendments state that the appeal process is automatically instituted where the redetermination is the same as the first determination. But what does the same mean? Some of the benefits have different levels of financial award within them. Is that what the same means? How, more importantly, and why, should it be the agency that decides if it is to be appealed against? That strikes me as fundamentally wrong. With no information other than the agency trigger, the tribunal would start with no information, not least the grounds of appeal, other than that the redetermination was the same as the determination. I appreciate the intentions behind Ms Bailey's amendments to remove unnecessary barriers so that we ensure that, where someone disagrees with the agency's decision, they are advised of and supported to challenge that decision through to First Trailer Tribunal if that is what they want to do. We have worked hard to do that and have positively introduced provision to ensure, via short-term assistance, that an individual is not financially discouraged from exercising that right to challenge. I am not complacent about this and that is why I am happy to support Ms McNeill's amendment 132 to monitor and report how the process currently in the bill is working so that we can continuously look to improve. I believe that that is the right way and would ask members to support Ms McNeill's amendment as Ms Bailey not to press hers, but if she does, I ask members to oppose. I would ask Jackie Baillie to wind up in this section and to move or withdraw her amendment. I know that I do not have the support of the SNP or the Tories for those amendments, so I intend to withdraw them. Equally, let me place on the record that those amendments were devised having reflected on the stage 2 debate and have been changed accordingly. The individual retains their right throughout, that is simply the case, that we do not make them appeal twice, because we know that under the previous legislation set up by the Tories in 2013, with this 2-appeal stage process, 83 per cent fewer appeals were lodged. That tells you, I think, all you need to know. Can I address very briefly Jeremy Balfour's point, because if the objective is to get more decisions right first time and I hope and believe that that will be the case, it does not follow that the first-year tribunal will be swamped with cases or that people would not somehow show up. 20,000 people in Scotland could be missing out on their correct entitlement because the Government remains wedded to a 2-stage appeal process. Some more cynical than I would say that redetermination is the current mandatory consideration, but just by another name. Whilst I welcome the improvements by the minister, the barriers remain. I hope that people will support amendment 132 from Pauline McNeill so that we can collect the evidence to support the changes, which, in my view, are still badly needed. Thank you. Jackie Baillie wishes to withdraw amendment 124. Does anyone object? No one objects. Amendment 62, in the name of Mark Griffin, is already debated with amendment 57. Mark Griffin to move or not to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 9, in the name of Mark Griffin, is already debated with amendment 8. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 125, in the name of Jackie Baillie, to press withdraw? Not moved. Amendment 126, in the name of Jackie Baillie? Not moved. Amendment 10, in the name of Mark Griffin, is already debated. Mark Griffin to move or not to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 127, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is already debated. Jackie Baillie, to move or not to move. If it would be helpful, Presiding Officer, I'm happy to not move on block amendments 127 to 131 in the interests of time. Does any other member wish to move any of the motions, the amendments that Jackie Baillie does not wish to move? No one does, in that case. Thank you very much. Amendment 63, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 54. That is moved. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 64, in the name of the minister, to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 65 already debated? Move. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 66, in the name of Alison Johnstone, is already debated with amendment 41. Is Alison Johnstone to move or not to move? Move. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Amendment 67, 68 and 69, all in the name of the minister, and I invite the minister to move the amendments on block. Move to on block. Thank you very much. Does anyone object if we put a question on these three amendments together? No one objects. The question is that amendments 67 to 69 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 70, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated? Mark Griffin to move or not to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 71, in the name of the minister, to move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 14, and I call amendment 72, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in this grouping. Minister, to move amendment 72 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 72 and the others in this group, in my name, are technical amendments. They clarify that overpayments made as a result of an individual failing to notify a change of circumstances after being told what changes of circumstances to notify may be a recoverable. Amendment 80, also in my name, is similarly technical. It provides that payments made in error after a person has died can be recovered from their estate. It is based on the principle that a deceased person cannot have spent the money and equally there is no reason for it to be available to the beneficiaries of the estate. I cannot support Mr Griffin's amendments in this group. The bill is that stands only allows overpayments to be recovered if the error causing the overpayment to be made was either the individual's fault or an error so obvious that the average person would notice it. Mr Griffin's amendments 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5 and 1, 3, 6 are, I suspect, intended to change that approach so that an overpayment will only be recoverable if it can be proved that the error causing it would be obvious to the individual who received it. I do not believe that the test for recovering an overpayment should be subjective in this way or would be equitable. People should be treated equally under the law. Why should someone who keeps a close eye on what they are receiving be liable to repay while someone who does not gets to keep public money that they should not have been given? In drafting his amendments, Mr Griffin seems to have overlooked the fact that a proportion of people receiving assistance will not be managing their own affairs. They will have a guardian or an appointee acting for them. Mr Griffin's amendments would mean that even very large overpayments that are perfectly obvious to the person managing an individual's affairs could not be recovered because the individual personally could not be expected to have noticed the error. Mr Griffin's amendment 1, 3, 4, in my view, defies common sense. The bill currently provides that an individual can be held liable to repay an obvious overpayment. Agreeing to amendment 1, 3, 4 would introduce an inherent unfairness to the system. It would mean that an individual would not have to repay an obvious overpayment if the fault lies in determining entitlement but would if it is a clerical error in processing a payment. That seems to me a fundamentally wrong approach. Section 36A already makes an overpayment unrecoverable if a mistake in determining entitlement is not reasonably obvious. If a mistake is reasonably obvious, it is unfair that recoverability turns on how the error was made. Finally, I am happy to support Mr Balfour's amendments 1, 4, 6 and 7. I am grateful to Mr Balfour for bringing them forward in place of amendment 1, 3, 7, which I cannot support. Mr Balfour is suggesting that all decisions about recovery of overpayments are taken by the First Tier Tribunal and I can see the sense of it. Of course, transferring a jurisdiction from the sheriff courts to the First Tier Tribunal is not a step to be taken lightly, but the amendment 1, 4, 6 provides space to consult and refine the approach in light of any issues raised during the consultation, and I am therefore pleased to support it. I move amendment 72. Mark Griffin, to speak to amendment 133 in the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will support all the amendments in this group. We will all promote the ends of having a clear process of dealing with overpayments in a way that is fair. Although there were changes at 36A, it has required considerable change since the bill was lodged. My amendments in this group 1, 3, 3 to 1, 3, 6, along with Mr Balfour's amendment 1, 3, 7, are submitted with the support and advice of child poverty action group. In this group, I am seeking to ensure a fairer test of liability for recovery of overpayments. There will be occasions when, as a result of agency errors, individuals are overpaid assistants. It is important that people have the right to challenge decisions no matter what Mr Balfour's amendment covers. The amendments mean that, in many cases, people will not have to repay overpayments that were not their fault. In the current bill, the test of liability to repay is still too strict and is stricter than nearly all UK-wide DWP benefit restrictions. Those amendments ensure that individuals would only be liable to repay an overpayment resulting from an agency error, where it would be reasonable to expect them as the individual to notice taking account of, for example, the distress or their own personal circumstances at any given time and not where the error is an error of decision making by the agency for which the individual has no control. As the bill stands, decision makers would consider whether a notional, reasonable person would have realised an error. Instead, my amendments would require decision makers to assess in a far more person-centered way whether the individual themselves could have expected to notice errors. I think that that is more in keeping with the overall aims of the whole process and treating people with fairness, dignity and respect that we treat applicants as individuals that we take into account—their personal circumstances at the time that they may have received an overpayment. I ask the member to support all amendments in the group. Annacoll and Jeremy Balfour speak to amendment 137 in the other amendments in the group. We will be supporting the Government's amendment, but we will not be supporting amendment 133 to amendment 136. I am grateful to the child poverty action group for the help that they have given on me. If I can be done, I will not be moving amendment 137, but I will be moving amendment 146 and 147. The confusion that I think has been caused within some of that is due to my thought and perhaps my lack of draft and skills at 1.37 and maybe confirms why the legal world was never going to be a career for myself. What we all want to do here is achieve the right thing. If somebody has an overpayment which the agency has decided that they have, in my view, and I think probably the Government's view now and the other opposition parties, if that decision should not be decided in the shower of court as a small-claim debt, it should be decided by the first-tier tribunal and then make the decision which would then allow the claimant to know where they are in regard to that and have the right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal. Having spoken to a number of lawyers, 1.37 simply does not allow that to happen. If we were to pass 1.37, the agency would not be bound by the first-tier tribunal's decision and the agency could then again go back to the shower of court and take that action. That seems to give to me two bites of the cherry to the agency, which is not the way forward. What I think 146 and 147, if we can get it right after the consultation and get the regulations written correctly, would make it very clear that it would not be a debt recovery action in the first-tier tribunal, because that would not have that power. It would simply be a decision of whether that claimant has had a valid decision made by the agency, yes or no. I think that that is a much better place to do in the shower of court. I think that it allows those who can give advice and assistance to help people through that action. Of all, the first-tier tribunal can be a place that people feel concerned about. It does a much better place than the shower of court, which can be very intimidating indeed. I think that we all want the same thing here. I believe that if we support amendment 146 and 147, we will get there. I would leak your permission, because I think that it will add confusion and not be helpful going forward in regard to that. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to be followed by Alison Johnstone. The Liberal Democrats will support all amendments in the group that are pressed forward. We have some concerns around amendment 80 and the recovery after death, given the brutal application of some benefit rules that have happened in the past with constituents known to us on the death of a parent with dependent children. Sometimes the application of legislation, no matter how well-intended, can have very human consequences, so we would like to see strong guidance underpinning that as to how that should be recovered. We also support the amendments in the name of Mark Griffin. I think that there are some very helpful changes to the language that would make this section far fairer and, again, add some of that humanity that we have discussed earlier in the debate. Finally, just to lend my support to Jeremy Balfour, I, too, have been very effectively lobbied by the child poverty action group and made very important points about the fact that we already have a process for peeling the recovery of overpayments through the DWP. We need something similar in Scotland, and I think that 146 and 147 hit the right note. I can confirm that the Scottish Greens will support all the amendments in the group with the exception at the moment of amendment 80, and I will reserve judgment until I hear the minister's response, because we, too, share the concerns that Alex Cole-Hamilton has just raised. Amendment 80 allows Scottish ministers to recover assistance paid after death. I was struck by the absence of limits on that power. It does not specify appropriate periods of time. In particular, it would empower to reclaim even small sums that were paid very soon after death. Can the minister give assurances that that power will be used sparingly with humanity, and in particular with regard to people's individual situation? I do not particularly want to speak on any of the amendments, but I think that the issue that I want to raise is in relation to those amendments in this group, and it is connected to another piece of legislation that goes through the Parliament. It gives the minister the opportunity to address that. That is the prescriptions bill that has come through and has come before the Delegated Powers Committee. It raises the issue of overpayments. It is relating to benefit overpayments, and the period that those overpayments remain liable to the person. In England, that period is a period of six years. The prescription bill proposes a period of 20 years, and the Scottish Government does not propose to change that. In relation to reserved benefits over which the Scottish Government has power over prescription of that overpayment and over council tax, will the minister commit today to look again at the 20-year period of prescription for those overpayments? Thank you. There is a piece of legislation going through the Parliament that is relevant in this case. Can I ask the minister to wind up or to press a withdrawal? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the scale of the payments that we will eventually be making, which will be more in one week than we currently do as a Government in a year, it is entirely possible that mistakes will be made. The Government has a duty to be responsible with public money and to recover overpayments where it is appropriate to do so, but that must be balanced against fairness to the individual. The bill guarantees that people will be treated fairly because an overpayment can only be recovered if it was caused by the individual's fault or is so obvious a reasonable person would notice it. The Government must consider the financial circumstances of the person who owes the money deciding if, when and how to recover it. An overpayment can only be recovered through deductions from future assistance payments either with the agreement of the individual or if the individual unreasonably withholds agreement at a rate that is fair having regard to the individual's financial circumstances. Mr Griffin would like the bill to say that the recipient of an overpayment specifically has to have noticed it and also to make recoverability turn on hair splitting about different kinds of error. I have explained why it would be unfair to have a subjective test for deciding whether a liability exists and that Mr Griffin's amendments would result in public money being unrecoverable in circumstances that I do not think the public would either understand or consider fair. At stage 2, Mr Balfour and Mr Griffin both suggest that it might be better if debt recovery were pursued through the first tier tribunal rather than the sheriff court. That will already be the case where recovery is sought through deductions from future assistance payments. It is only where ordinary civil recovery processes are being used that a case would go to the sheriff court. As I said, I have listened to Mr Balfour and to what he has had to say and I can see the sense in his argument for having all cases go to the first tier tribunal. There will be work to do in order to ensure that the transfer of jurisdiction in that way is done with full understanding and reflection and consideration, but I am very happy to support his amendment and to undertake with him and others to work in that way. With respect to Ms Johnson, yes. I am grateful to the amendment 146 and 147 that the minister is supporting. Can the minister say for the record if she believes that amendments 146 and 147 create a right for individuals to appeal the decision on liability at the point that the decision is made under section 36A? Where the agency decides that an individual has been overpaid, the agency has done that on the basis of a determination. Such a determination is appealable, as we have already discussed in chamber this afternoon, when we discussed the process by which an individual can pursue a challenge to the agency's decision. We have had this discussion many times in committee and in the chamber, and I think that the position is clear. In respect to what Ms Johnson asked in terms of the amendment around recovery from a deceased estate, we are seeking to have that option in our primary legislation and will then work to produce guidance for the agency and otherwise working with others to ensure that the agency is clear about the balance that it needs to strike should it wish to pursue that power that it would have. With respect to Mr Finlay's question, which I am afraid caught me in, I suspect others, unawares, I have little knowledge of what he is talking about. I think that it is unfortunate that he appears to have little knowledge about what we are talking about today, and I am unable to answer him. The minister to press amendment 72. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Order, please, just in order, so that we can hear the votes. Can I call amendment 73 to 75, in the name of the minister, all previously debated, and invite the minister to move amendment 73 to 75 on block? Moved on block. Does anyone object if I put these questions on block? No one objects. The question therefore is that amendment 73 to 75 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 11, in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. 11 is moved. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 76, 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the minister, and invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Moved on block. Thank you. Does anyone object if I put this question on block? No one objects. The question is that amendments 76 to 79 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 133, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated, with amendment 72. Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, and this will be a one minute vote first in the section. Members, we cast their votes now on amendment 133. The result of the vote on amendment number 133, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 31, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 134, in the name of Mark Griffin? Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 134, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 32, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 135, in the name of Mark Griffin? Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Let's move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 135, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 32, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 136, in the name of Mark Griffin. Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 136, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 32, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 137, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 172. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. That's not moved. Not moved. Mr Griffin, very well. Amendment 37, so we'll move to a question on amendment 137. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 137, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is yes, 32, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 80, in the name of the minister, already debated. Minister to move. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 146, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And we turn now to group 15. Can I call amendment 81, in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pauline McNeill to move amendment 81 and to speak to all the amendments in this group. Presiding Officer, I hope that the chamber will be patient with me. That is a quite complex aspect of the bill. I move amendment 8. I will speak to amendment 82, 82, 85, 86, 82, 77, 88. Those amendments deal with chapter 5, sections 39 to 42 of the bill, which set out the offences for benefit fraud. The bill describes the offences that can be committed by a person providing false or misleading information, at least to an error in the determination of assistance. Consequences are set out regarding the levels of fine and custodial sentences available to the courts. Those sections also set out offences when a person causes another person to fail to notify a change in circumstances resulting to a change in benefit entitlement and the same individuals within an organisation can be held responsible. Those are vital clauses to ensure that a zero tolerance approach to benefit fraud, but we must make sure that those provisions do what they are intended to do and that they do not criminalise an honest mistake. The policy intention is not to criminalise genuine errors made by individuals, but the policy note states that the provision is framed to provide that it is sufficient in law that a person knew of the error or ought to have known that it might lead to less assistance, and it is the phrase ought to have known that it might that concerns me. I am sure that we all agree that there is no fairness in a system that should lessen the prosecution of those who have made a simple mistake. It was just as Scotland, who highlighted this in a briefing at stage 1 of the Social Security report. It highlighted that the Social Security Administration Act 111 is the most commonly used in the Scottish courts, and it will be immediately appreciated that there are significant penalties imposed in relation to a failure to notify changes affecting entitlement under complex social security regulation. For example, the issue of whether a couple are to be regarded as cohabiting is one example of the difficulties that the courts have to resolve. It is against this backdrop that the courts have interpreted the legislation strictly requiring proof of the criminal standard of all the elements of the offence, and in particular that the prosecution would require to prove that a claimant knew that a change in circumstances would affect benefit. The UK legislation does not use the phrase ought to have known that it might have led to less assistance, and rather it uses the term knowingly. If a case of alleged fraud for a reserved benefit such as housing benefit claimants will be prosecuted under this UK act, but if it is a devolved benefit such as care resilience, for example, it will now be prosecuted under the new Social Security Act, but with a different form of words. My concern is about the drafting of those words. We prosecute in the courts day in, day out on the section that I outlined. Across the UK, £1.9 billion has been recovered in benefit fraud, so it does work. It would have made more sense to me to use the same drafting as the UK legislation for the avoidance of any doubt, so I want to ensure that the new provisions that are drafted differently do not prosecute people for genuine error. CPAC, the Citizen at Rice organisation, and several others still have concerns about those provisions. The minister will know that I have spent some long hours over which I am very grateful to her officials in trying to understand the reasoning behind the wording in the act. The policy memorandum draws a distinction between the criminal offence of error and the unintended error by an individual. As the policy intention is not to criminalise genuine errors and suggests when it is shown that the individual misunderstood the element of the application that is made a genuine error and prosecution will not follow, so that is good. However, according to Justice Scotland, section 39 does not appear to specify that the person actually need to know that the statement was misleading. It is not in line with the policy intention. It is over-broad in their view, and if you read the wording, it creates an offence that does not require the criminal intent on the part of the accused's criminalising behaviour, rather careless or negligent. Section 40 creates an offence of failing to notify, which is punishable up to five years in prison, where it states that the person knew or ought to have known that the change might result in an individual seeking to be entitled to less assistance. Again, Justice Scotland is concerned that, in its present forum, it is over-broad. It has the potential to penalise conduct that has not been in the circumstances as it might affect benefits. In conclusion, perhaps I and the Scottish Government are at one about the intention of section 39 to 42. My concern is in the draftings of the provisions. I think that it would have been clearer to use the same wording as the UK statute, which would be prosecuted in the courts day in and day out. I also would like to thank the minister for a letter that she issued to me on Monday following a conversation that I had with her officials. It would helpfully set out to me the Government's intention in this regard that, with the defence of reasonable excuse, there is not the intention to criminalise an honest mistake. I would be prepared not to press this, but I need to outline my concerns on the record. If the minister is clear in her summing up that there is no intention in the framings and the drafting of section 39 to 42 to criminalise an honest mistake and that the insertion in stage 2 of the defence of a reasonable excuse is to be proven in the balance of probabilities, she can give me those assurances, then I would be happy and content that there were at one about the actual intentions of section 39 to 42. Ben Macpherson Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just want to reiterate my concerns with the proposed amendments that were stated at stage 2 in that I would have concerns about the amendments with regard to the burden of proof. What would prosecutors be expected to prove, and how would that evidencing be undertaken? Of course. Pauli McNeill So this was raised what would the prosecutor be required to prove if you have to prove that the person knew. What amystifies me about this, this is exactly the language of the UK stat, you are referred to section 11a, which says that you must show exactly that, but yet we prosecuted in the Scottish courts day in, day out and across the UK have recovered £1.9 billion, so why would that not be good enough for Scotland? That is what amystifies me about it. Ben Macpherson I just refer to what was discussed at stage 2 in that the concept of knowingly in order to evidence that whether false or misleading information had been knowingly given or not is a concept that is legally problematic. Reassurances were granted at stage 2, and I think that the reassurances that were in the letter to the minister, and I acknowledge that Pauli McNeill has stated that she would not press these amendments if further reassurance was given again by the minister in summing up, but I reiterate my points around the fact that I think that the concept of being able to prove in the courts around whether false or misleading information had been given knowingly or not is legally problematic. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to lend the support of those benches to Pauli McNeill's amendments, I think that a very welcome language shift in here, recognising that genuine mistakes do happen, we shouldn't, if we're building this as a humane, more humane social security system, then we shouldn't penalise people for errors they genuinely make, but if she is satisfied by the assertions of the minister in her summing up, then so too shall these benches. The minister to speak to the amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As has been said, the amendments in this group were rejected at stage 2, but they relate to an important issue, so I can understand why Ms McNeill wished to raise them again. Before I put our position on the record and for the record make it clear what is in the bill, I should say that I can give, of course, Ms McNeill the assurance and indeed Mr Cole-Hamilton that it is our shared intent not to criminalise where an individual has made a genuine mistake or has a reasonable excuse, and again to be clear the term reasonable is a term widely understood across our courts and justice system. I remain firmly of the view that these amendments from Ms McNeill are unnecessary. Our policy is clear. We will treat people fairly with dignity and respect, but we cannot be naive. Social security fraud is a risk and public funds must be protected, not least so they are available to give assistance to those who are generally entitled to it. Section 39 makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information with the intention of obtaining assistance that the recipient is not entitled to. The offence already requires intent. There is no reason to add the word knowingly as amendment 81 would do. Section 40 makes it an offence to fail to notify a change of circumstances in breach of a duty to do so if and only if the failure results in someone receiving assistance they should not and the person has no reasonable excuse for the failure to notify. What that means is that if an individual claims to have a reasonable excuse, the legal burden to prove that it is not a reasonable excuse falls on the prosecutor. But before a case even gets anywhere near a prosecutor, there will of course have been an agency investigation. If a person has a reasonable excuse, they can give it then and explain any other mitigating circumstances. Those factors would be taken into account before officials concluded the investigation and where a genuine error had happened then the matter would rest there. Where there has been a genuine error and it goes to the fiscal service, the fiscal service is unlikely to prosecute because they apply a case marking test that asks whether prosecution would be in the public interest. Even if someone were prosecuted, having a reasonable excuse will mean that they are exonerated. Ms McNeill's amendments to section 40 and section 41, which are similar, risk making the offences so difficult to prosecute that nobody would take the risk of prosecution seriously and open up the system to intentional fraud. Finally, we come to section 42. This allows a senior figure in an organisation to be convicted of an offence committed by the organisation if the criminality can be attributed to the officials and I quote connivance, consent or neglect. Amendment 81 would remove the word the element of neglect. Section 42 is worded in the usual way for a section of its kind. Examples can be found in many other acts of this Parliament. I have to ask why should a company director not be held personally responsible if he neglects his duties, tons of blind eye and allows a company to commit social security fraud? I think that a director in that situation should have a case to answer and I therefore do not support amendment 88. All that said, I recognise that a consistent approach must be taken by agency staff in reporting cases for consideration of prosecution and I am happy to put on record that detailed guidance and training will be developed for our agency staff. That will complement the code of practice on investigations that the bill already requires. The code will set standards of conduct for investigations and explain how we will ensure during investigations that a person's dignity is respected. It will be consulted on so that Ms McNeill and others can see what it will provide and will be able to contribute to its development. For the reasons that I have given, I cannot support Ms McNeill's amendments to the group. I would invite her not to press them, but if they are pressed, I would urge that they are not agreed. I will wind up and also to indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 81. Nothing more to add, Presiding Officer, except that I will be seeking withdrawal of the one that I moved and not moving the others. Thank you. Ms McNeill wishes to withdraw amendment 81. Does anyone object? No one objects. And Ms McNeill does not wish to move amendment 81 to 88. Does anyone object? Does anyone wish to move any of those amendments? No. Very good. Thank you. I call amendment 89, in the name of the minister. I have already debated. Minister to move, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I turn now to group 16. I call amendment 90, in the name of the minister. Grouped with amendments as shown in this particular grouping. Minister to move amendment 90 and to speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendments 90 and 91 are technical amendments to the upgrading provisions in section 44A. They clarify that the duty to consider the effects of inflation will apply to current rates of assistance, but not to rates that may remain in legislation for events that have happened in the past. The best start grant is an example here. For a time, there might be both an older and a current rate prescribed in regulations. The older rate applying to births that have happened, but for which an application has not yet been made. The older rate will already have been reviewed and it would serve no purpose to review it again. Amendments 12, 13 and 14, in the name of Ben Macpherson, would commit the Scottish Government to increasing any relevant figures in the funeral expense assistance regulations to take into account the impact of inflation. At present, that is expected to affect the flat rate element of the payment, which has been capped by the DWP at £700 since 2003. We have already committed to widening eligibility for funeral expense assistance to reach around 2,000 more people per year at an estimated cost of £3 million. Although there are significant pressures on the Scottish Government's budget, I recognise that the value of the capped element of the current funeral payment has eroded over time. I will therefore support Mr Macpherson's amendments so that there is no further reduction in the value of this part of the payment to bereave families. Amendments 13, 9 to 14, 1, in the name of Mr Griffin, seek to adjust the calculation of the carers allowance supplement to take account of inflation. Carers allowance supplement already provides an increase of 13 per cent in 2018-19 to support for carers significantly more than inflation. That represents an additional investment of over £30 million per year. I estimate that Mr Griffin's amendments will cost a further £30 million over the next five years, which will need to be found from within the Scottish budget. However, I am happy to make that commitment in recognition of the vital role that carers play. I move amendment 90. Thank you very much. I call on Ben Macpherson to speak to amendment 12 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When passed this historic bill, we will successfully transition and deliver the 11 benefits devolved under the Scotland Act 2016, and that will undoubtedly make a meaningful and important difference all across our country. One of the many important differences that this bill will make will be the delivery of funeral expenses assistance. That will replace the UK Government's funeral payment, providing critical financial support to people at a very difficult time. Funeral costs have risen significantly over the last 10 years. That means that individuals and families are more likely to experience a financial shock as a result of having to pay for a funeral, especially where the person who has died has made little or no provision for the cost of that funeral. That can push people into unsustainable debt, which can have a negative impact on the already difficult grieving process and on mental and physical health. The Scottish Government has already undertaken a number of actions working with stakeholders to alleviate funeral costs, and I am absolutely aware of that, including measures in the fairer Scotland action plan and the funeral assistance plan. The delivery of funeral expenses assistance under the new social security system has the potential to build on previous progress. An important way to enhance that would be to up-rate funeral expenses assistance for inflation going forward. That is, of course, not just my view but the view of many others, including Citizens Advice Scotland. As drafted, the bill currently envisages up-rating carers assistance, disability assistance and employment injury assistance, all of which I very much welcome. If past amendments 12, 13 and 14 in my name would add funeral expense assistance to that list, making sure that, in the years ahead, funeral expense assistance would keep pace with inflation, keep up with funeral costs and deliver critical financial support to people at a very difficult time. I believe that amendments 12, 13 and 14 are important. I am grateful to the minister for her support and would welcome the support of other MSPs. Mark Griffin, to speak to amendment 139 and the other amendment in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will be supporting all amendments in this group. We welcome the Government's substantial movement on this issue, while it has always been their policy intention to provide up-rating to disability assistance until Christmas the position has been that up-rating should not be in the legislation. That is a welcome change, and we want to support that and improve on what the Government has offered. At stage 2, I amended the Government's amendment to afford carers the same protection that they enjoy under the UK system. At stage 2, I also raised a discrepancy with the carers supplement that the formula at section 47 would mean that ministers will pass on the UK Government benefit freeze to carers. In amendments 139 to 141, I am seeking to rectify that. Briefly, Presiding Officer, the link to jobseekers allowance means that the supplement will be frozen. The minister would be required to as part of their up-rating process. He has determined what the inflated value of the combined supplement and underlined carers allowance should be and so ensure that the higher amount is paid. As I explained at stage 2, without that adjustment, the discrepancy would mean that the Scottish Government would save its sale £5 million in 2019-20, while carers would lose out in real terms just a year after that very welcome boost that the Government has congratulated for of 13 per cent. I welcome the minister's support for those amendments and the fact that the Scottish ministers will take full control over carers allowance to iron out at this anomaly when full competence for this benefit is taken on by the Government. Scottish Greens will support all amendments in this group, but I would like to put on the record that we regret that there is no commitment to upgrade all benefits in line with relevant costs. That was a debate that we had, and I lost at stage 2, but we will continue to ask the Government to pay the closest attention to that. We simply cannot have a system that suggests that it is based on dignity and respect if people do not have enough money to have a reasonable standard of living. I would urge the Government to continue to look at that. If living costs increase and benefits are frozen as they have been, that will make life incredibly difficult for people. The benefit freeze has taken £300 million out of the pockets of £700,000 of the poorest people in Scotland, and I really think that a social security bill should upgrade benefits automatically. I will ask the minister to wind up and to press or move through amendment 90. I will wind up formally, Presiding Officer, and press the amendment. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 91 in the name of the minister to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed to? Thank you. Can I call amendment 12 in the name of Ben Macpherson? Ben Macpherson to move or not to move? Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 13 in the name of Ben Macpherson? Ben Macpherson to move or not to move? Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 14 in the name of Ben Macpherson? Ben Macpherson to move or not to move? Rwy'n credu'r cwestiynau, mae'n mynd i ddod â amser 14. A wnawn i ddod â hynny? Rwy'n credu'r cwestiynau, mae'n ddod â hynny. Fy roeddwch yn 17, ac mae'n mynd i ddod â hynny 138 yn deall, yn y cyfnod Mark Griffin, yn cyfnod a'r amser 142 a 143. Mark Griffin, mae'n ddod â hynny 138, ac yn cyfnod â hynny 15. Rwy'n credu'r cyfnod a'r amser 138 yn ddod â hynny. I'm seeking to return to my amendment, which would put in place the mechanism to top-up child benefit by £5 per week and give effect to the Give Me Five campaign call. That follows the announcement before Easter that the Government will now pursue the delivery of an income supplement to boost the low incomes of families and lift children out of poverty. That announcement is welcome if not overdue, but detail will be in short supply for over a year, and for the children suffering in poverty now, they will have to wait until 2022. I want to touch on some of the points that I made at stage 2, but it is clear to the full chamber that there are few options open to the Government and that it is only the top-up of child benefit that can deliver in the immediate and short term. Last year's child poverty act confirmed that this Parliament refuses to just turn a blind eye. The time for acting on those sentiments, however, is now. In the face of the transition to universal credit, the benefit freeze and further austerity, we can and we should set a different path. The situation may now be falling but the weight on family weekly budgets is still too much to bear. Only yesterday, the Trussell Trust published new data that showed 170,000 people had to ask for a food parcel last year, showing just how much families are struggling. With child benefit losing its value for another year, that would assist over 500,000 families struggling from the impact of a Tory Government. More importantly, 30,000 children lifted out of poverty instantly. The IFS predicts that, by the time of the next Holyrood elections, one in three children will be in poverty. A key to the Give Me Five campaigns work is the recognition of the near universal uptake and eligibility criteria of child benefit make this the most appealing option to have the most immediate impact. Indeed, the commission noted in recommendation 23 that the Government must consider, and I quote, the greatest financial impact alongside other relevant factors such as cost and complexity of delivery, take-up rates, income security and potential disincentives to move into work or increase earnings in order to identify the most effective option to impact on child poverty. Alongside that, the complexity of topping up the means-tested system, which is going through a period of huge transition, is beyond belief. That alternative topping up child tax credit would also require the Government to top up universal credit and income support for the medium term. The modelled impacts based on 100 per cent take-ups are of no use when 100 per cent take-up remains an impossibility in the medium term. The complexity, not to mention the risk, to any supplement by endorsing the Tory shambolic universal credit system is enormous and the Government itself has cautioned against it. Finally, I heard comments at stage 2 about this amendment cutting across the budget process. I said then, as I said again, that I and my colleagues behind me would happily ride roughshod over the Scottish Government's budget if doing so would lift 30,000 children out of poverty and I would do so every single day of the week. Until next year, at least the parents of 200,000 or so children in poverty have no idea when they will get the support that this Government now wants to commit. For that reason, I press amendment 38, the only proposal on a table to lift 30,000 children out of poverty. Alex Crawl Hamilton, to be followed by Alison Johnstone. The Liberal Democrats certainly have a lot of sympathy with the motives behind this group of amendments but, unfortunately, cannot support it. We attended many of the stakeholder events around the suggestions for this campaign and certainly agree that universality has its place in terms of the extension of benefits to vulnerable families but our anxiety is that the taper up to which the threshold of which child benefit is paid, if that represents the spectrum of need, we would far rather see that money concentrated at the sharper end of that taper. We think that there are better ways of doing that, considering the number of very affluent families that would receive such a benefit and, as such, with regret, cannot support this group of amendments. The Scottish Government supports the principle of universality when it comes to higher education. I welcome that. It supports this principle when it comes to prescriptions. I welcome that. I cannot think of a more important area in which to support that principle than making sure that children in Scotland have enough money. This Parliament is committed wholly to closing the attainment gap. Children who are going to school who have maybe not had the best breakfast, who families are struggling to heat their homes, cannot attain to the level at which they might expect to. I think that this is a very important amendment and one that I wholeheartedly support, as do the Scottish Greens. The child poverty action group tells us that, in 1989, it was realised that child poverty action was worth less than it had been in the 1950s, and John Major's Government chose to slowly restore its value. That process went on, and progress was made. However, the benefit has been decreasing in value consistently since 2010. It is not worth what it was. All we are looking for here is a very sensible measure to restore some of that value. I wholeheartedly support the Give Me Five campaign, and I wholeheartedly support that amendment. I would ask colleagues across the chamber to do so, too. On 28 March this year, the Scottish Government's tackling child poverty delivery plan was published. It sets out a clear commitment for a new income supplement for low-income families to tackle child poverty. Of course, I recognise the rationale behind proposals to top up child benefit by £5 a week, but to deliver it would cost at least £200 million every year, and yet only £3 out of every £10 would go to low-income households. What is more, the top-up would have more limited effects on lifting families out of poverty than other options set out in the poverty and inequality commission advice that we asked them for. That is why I urge members to oppose those amendments today. We want to effectively target children who are living in poverty, and we will look at all measures to do so, but the proposals to top up child benefit do not do that. The Institute for Public Policy Research conducted modelling earlier this year and its clear conclusions reflected in the poverty and inequality commission advice, where the increasing child benefit is not the most effective way of reducing child poverty. The commission also rightly gave its expert independent advice that we should not only consider the most effective use of resource, but we should also give careful consideration to deliverability and to be able to get the money to those who need it as quickly as possible. It is a false premise—if I can finish this point—to put before the chamber that passing this amendment will instantly see a £5 top-up, because the whole question of deliverability within our social security powers, as Mr Griffin and his colleagues well know, is part of a planned, very careful and incremental programme to ensure the safe and secure transfer of benefits for £1.4 million. Mr Griffin may be happy to say that he would ride roughshod over the Scottish Government's budget process. Actually, he would be riding roughshod over this Parliament's budget process, and that is not something that I would countenance. Our income supplement will demonstrate our commitment to reducing child poverty and that funds are used to best effect, to reach those families most in need. I urge members to oppose those amendments today. I am Colin Mark Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 138. The point has been made repeatedly by members who oppose the method that there are better ways to spend that money. What are those better ways? Where is the amendment that is going to lift children out of child poverty in this bill that stands up against a £5 uplift in child benefit? The arguments against that policy are universal and not all money goes towards families in poverty. I do not receive any child benefit for any of my children. No member in here receives any child benefit for their children. It is not completely universal, but we do not hear any arguments against universality, as Alison Johnstone pointed out when we talk about tuition fees, when we talk about prescription charges. The amendment should be something that I would expect the Government to be able to wholeheartedly get behind, given their previous support for universal benefits. The minister has also raised the low-income supplement, and I will welcome the debate around the policy choices when it comes. There may be an option that the minister puts on the table in two, three, four years' time, but the option on the table right now is to increase child benefit by £5. No other option will lift 30,000 kids out of poverty right now. I ask members to support that amendment. We move to the question on amendment 138. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote, and the member must be cast her votes now. This is a one-minute vote. The result of the vote on amendment 138, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 26, but there are no abstentions. Amendment 139 is in the name of Mark Griffin. Are �� Mark Griffin to move or not move? Amendment 140 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are you all agreed to? So,ugo plays out there. Amendment 141, in the name of Mark Griffin, to move or not move, that is moved. The question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 142, in the name of Mark Griffin, to move or not move, that is moved. The question is that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members be cast their votes now. This is a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment number 142, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 26, no, 96. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 143, in the name of Mark Griffin? Mark Griffin, to move or not move, that is moved. The question is that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 143, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 26, no, 96. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I turn now to group 18, and I call amendment 92, in the name of the minister, grouped with the amendments as shown in this grouping. Minister, to move amendment 92 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group are about housing assistance. Amendment 148D already provides for regulations to be made, allowing councils to deliver housing assistance. Amendments 92 and 93, in my name, would extend that power, allowing councils to also deliver short-term assistance where it is to be given as a run-on of housing assistance. Amendments 119 to 122 are a response to the announcement by the DWP that they have abandoned their policy of denying support for housing costs to some 18 to 21-year-olds receiving universal credit. The DWP may well have dropped that policy because it has failed to realise significant savings, but I nonetheless cautiously welcome this U-turn. Amendments 119 to 122 alter schedule 8 so that ministers are not obliged to make housing assistance regulations to mitigate the effects of abandoned DWP policies. The amendments cover the U-turn on 18 to 21-year-olds and also future-proof the bill for the day if that ever comes that a UK Government drops either or both their bedroom tax and benefit cap policies. To be clear, the amendments only remove the duty on the Scottish Government to provide housing assistance to mitigate those DWP policies if and for so long as the DWP is not pursuing them. I can assure members that the existing mitigation scheme for 18 to 21-year-olds will remain in place for as long as it is required. It is regrettable that the Scottish Government and local authorities have invested both time and funds over the last year in mitigating a policy that was always unfair and unworkable. I wish that the UK Government had listened to the sense that we spoke at the time and that this inconvenience and waste could have been avoided. Amendment 92 I thank you very much, Minister, and there are no other members wishing to speak in this particular section, so I think that we will go straight to the vote. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 93, the name of the minister, is to move. Move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 132, in the name of Pauline McNeill, debated earlier with amendment 124, is to move or not move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 144, in the name of Mark Griffin, in a group on its own, is to move and speak to amendment 144. Amendment 144 seeks to place in law a requirement on ministers to bring forward regulations under section 30 of the Scotland Act, which ensures that payments of universal credit are automatically split between both members of a couple, allowing an opt-out should a couple wish to retain a joint payment. I am pleased that amendment has achieved a broad coalition of support from organisations including the SCVO, One Parent Family Scotland, Advocard, Poverty Alliance, Scottish Women's Aid, Engender and the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers. The amendment transposes the restrictions included in the Scotland Act and requires the regulation to follow a set policy objective to automatically split the payment. Those split payments can be requested under the current system, they are massively underused and underpublicised. Now, the focus of the Work and Pensions Select Committee split payments are getting the attention they deserve. Last month, the EHRC released research that universal credit single household payments to couples had contributed to a drastic shifter income from women to men as a result of the introduction of universal credit. As I indicated at stage 2, the policy would follow that proposed by the minister's colleague, Philippa Whitford. At Westminster, Ms Whitford is pursuing a member's bill to automatically split payments, but was just last week told that this is not supported by a callous Tory Government intent on maintaining the single payment mechanism within universal credit, a system criticised by the United Nations. In the consultation on social security, there was overwhelming support for universal credit to be split between the members of a household from 99 per cent of organisations and 78 per cent of individuals. 74 per cent believed that payments should be split automatically. That would aid gender equality in the Scottish social security system by promoting financial autonomy and helping to protect women and children from financial and domestic abuse. As much as I would want it to, the amendment does not require ministers to rush to establish a split payment scheme and removes the timescale included at stage 2. The amendment rightly requires the minister to continue her consultation with the DWP. That is in itself a requirement of the Power in the Scotland Act. In recent question responses, the minister said, a year after the cabinet secretary first promised progress in this area that officials are discussing with the Department for Work and Pension the feasibility, operational and cost implications of these different policy options. To date, we have not been told of the progress of these meetings and discussions and I would appreciate it if the minister can say when they started and what stage they are at since clearly the DWP officials that we had at the Social Security Committee, unfortunately, were not able to. I am, however, thankful to the minister's discussion with me on the matter of split payments. I am content that she too wants to see split payments delivered and the precise commitment on whether she wants a choice to split or automatically help women and their children. I hope that she can give the support today by supporting amendment 144. Ruth Maguire, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton, to be followed by Ruth Maguire. I support the introduction of automatic split payments. The situation that we have at the moment with a joint payment unless otherwise specified is problematic on two levels. Returning to a single male breadwinner model is damaging and regressive in general, but it is particularly dangerous in the context of domestic abuse, where financial coercion is often used as a tool by perpetrators. Eighty-five per cent of domestic abuse survivors who spoke to the Charity Women's Aid said that the act of applying for split payments could anger their partner and make the abuse worse. The Scottish Government is in on-going discussions with the DWP on how it can introduce automatic split payments in a way that is both technically feasible within the IT systems and financially viable and justifiable for the Scottish taxpayer. It is clearly a complex and time-consuming task. At last week's social security committee meeting, a DWP representative in answer to Mark Griffin reiterated the complexity of the issue and stated that there is no timetable for when an agreement might be reached. That delay and complexity could of course be avoided if the UK Government could be pressured into fixing the issue at source. There is also another far more important reason for calling on the UK Government to fix this issue at source, and that is that domestic abuse does not stop at the border. That is an issue for all women, and the best outcome is not the Scottish Government negotiating an exception from the rest of the UK, but one where the UK Government fixes the problem at source for the whole of the UK. For both those reasons—for the complexity of negotiating an exception and the importance of the issue to women across the UK—I urge Mark Griffin and his colleagues to redouble their efforts on pressuring their UK colleagues to call on the UK Government to fix this issue at source. They can, of course, do this, not least by supporting the private members bill that was published last month by my Ayrshire colleague, Philippa Whitford MP, which calls on the UK Government to make split payments default. That would be the best outcome for women across the UK. Alex Cole-Hamilton is followed by Alison Johnson. I am grateful that Mark Griffin has brought this very important amendment forward. I served for three years on the ministerial task force on violence against women, and I am absolutely committed to this as a policy shift, because financial dependence is used as a tool of coercive control in abusive relationships. This is a very important step to eroding that dominance that men who abuse their partners can have. I am absolutely grateful to Mark Griffin for bringing this forward and assuring the support from those benches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I feel that, sadly, this is more of the same thoughtless, mindless attack on women that we have seen so often from Westminster. We know that 70 to 85 per cent of cuts are being targeted at women, because that level of cut cannot be accidental. Who, in this day and age, would introduce single household payments? I really think that that is a serious concern. There is a lot wrong with universal credit and this is just another aspect that is not fit for the times in which we now live. In 2013, as in gender and the other organisations who have contacted us on this important issue, the United Nations Seedaw Committee found that the universal credit single household payment poses a risk of financial abuse of women due to power imbalances in the family, particularly if payment is made to an abusive male spouse. It is incumbent on us to do everything that we can to change that. I absolutely agree that the best thing that could happen is that we get rid of the system across the United Kingdom. However, how long is it going to take the United Kingdom Government to take that action? Although we have a devolved Government here, I think that there are times when it is incumbent upon us to take those UK policies and improve them as quickly as we possibly can with the knowledge and experience that we have here. Fundamental change is required on this issue, and I will be supporting the amendment for us. I do not believe that there can be any doubt of this Government's commitment to use the remaining flexibility that we have with universal credit to introduce split payments. We have been clear on that. We have talked about it. We have made that commitment publicly, and we have been working with the DWP for some time now to do that. However, the fact of the matter is that this is a reserved benefit, and universal credit is a reserved benefit. Therefore, the delivery of split payments to our household has to be negotiated with the DWP because, at the end of the day, they are the ones who will deliver that or not. We have continued to have those discussions, but, as members will be aware—not least members in the Social Security Committee—we had an agreement with the DWP about the abolition of bedroom tax at source. We had an agreement around a date about the abolition of bedroom tax at source. The DWP, under pressure for other priorities that they considered more important, have now moved that date back a year. I make that example, and I draw members' attention to that, because, while I am prepared to support this amendment, the chamber needs to be crystal clear that I can bring forward regulations but they cannot be enacted without the DWP's agreement. That negotiation is complicated and technical and will involve the Government paying the DWP to deliver that split household payment. I concur completely with what my colleague Ms Maguire said. Not only does domestic abuse not stop at the border, but the way to resolve that properly is to continue to press the UK Government with all of the members in the House of Commons, our own benches and Labour benches and others, to come together and press the UK Government to introduce that for the United Kingdom, from which our members and our women in this country will benefit. In the meantime, we will, of course, continue those discussions. I will support that amendment, but I want once again for this chamber to be absolutely clear. It is not at our hand to deliver that. That is a consequence of the Scotland act, which members in this chamber are not on these benches, but others absolutely definitely support and would not like to see us have any further powers. Of course, if we had all the powers over social security, we would not need to be having this debate at all. I thank members who have spoken in support of the amendment. I give Ms Maguire an absolute assurance that members of the Labour Party in this chamber and in Westminster will be redoubling our efforts to see the solution that we are proposing across the whole of the UK as the ideal solution. In the absence of any movement from a seemingly uncaring Tory Government who wishes to perpetuate a system where women are put at risk of financial domestic abuse, it is right that we take the action that we can hear. I ask all members to support the amendment in my name and redouble their efforts to implement it across the whole of the UK. The question is that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 15, in the name of Mark Griffin, is already debated with amendment 41. Mark Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 94, in the name of the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 95 in the name of the minister to move? Thank you. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 147, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is already debated with amendment 72. Jeremy Balfour to move or not to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 20. I call amendment 96 in the name of the minister, grouped with the amendments that are shown in this grouping. Ministers to move amendment 96 and to speak to all the amendments. Amendment 96, 97, 99 and 100, in my name, increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny for certain regulations from negative to affirmative procedure. The Government undertook to make these changes in its response to the delegated powers and law reform committees stage 2 report. The regulation making powers affected are the powers to identify people that the Scottish Commission on Social Security can require to provide it with information and the similar powers about information sharing by and with the Scottish ministers. Amendment 19 from Pauli McNeill removes the ability of the commission to decide that there are types of proposal that it does not need to consider. I said during stage 2 that the Scottish Government was happy to remove that power from the bill and I am content to support Ms Neill's amendment. Amendment 101 from Mr Tomkins is to ensure that the proposals that are sent to the commission for scrutiny under section 55A are sent in the form of draft regulations. As that has always been our intention, I am happy to support it, as I am happy to support amendment 102 from Mr Tomkins. Amendment 145, lodged by Ms McNeill, proposes that all regulations made under the bill, no matter how minor, with the sole exceptions of commencement and ancillary regulations, should be subject to additional scrutiny by the commission. That is a position that I oppose. I believe that it is an odd position for Ms McNeill to be the one that is moving this amendment. During stage 2, she was reasonably, I thought, particularly anxious that the commission should not be over mighty relative to the Parliament, but the amendment that she is now pressing reflects a view expressed by the child poverty action group that any regulations not subject to scrutiny by the commission will be subject to no independent scrutiny at all. The implication is either that the Parliament is incapable of effectively scrutinising regulations or that it lacks independence. I do not accept either of those. To be clear, those regulations that the bill does not require to be put to the commission will still be scrutinised by the Parliament in most cases through affirmative procedure. The purpose of having a commission of experts on social security is, among other things, so that the Government and Parliament will receive expert advice on complex matters of social security policy, the interaction between the Scottish social security system and the UK system and so on. Just because regulations are made under a social security act, does it necessarily mean that they raise issues that require social security expertise? For example, the issues that will be raised by regulations under section 43, conferring investigatory powers, are just as matters. Regulations under subsection 2 and 5 of section 48C are about data sharing. The Parliament is well able to scrutinise regulations on those matters and a wide range of others. It has been managing that for coming up to 20 years. If Parliament wanted the commission's help particularly, the bill allows it to ask for a report. That is, as it should be, that the Parliament is in control and can take advice from whomever it wants. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 145 and move amendment 96. I call Adam Tomkins to speak to amendment 101 and the other amendments in the group. I am grateful to the minister for her support for amendments 100 and 102 in my name. I support all the amendments in the group, except for amendment 145. The reason for the Conservatives not supporting amendment 145 is that they are identical to the reasons that are just articulated by the minister. I call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 16 and the other amendments in the group. I welcome what the minister said on amendment 16, so I will address amendment 145. As the bill stands, there are important regulations, for example, on applications and decision making on overpayment and fraud that do not need to be referred to the new commission. The amendment places a duty on Scottish ministers to refer proposals for regulations that are not already covered by section 55 to the newly established Scottish Social Security Commission. The commission may or may not decide to prepare a report, but it established a light touch scrutiny process, and this procedure will allow for an expert independent scrutiny of often complex secondary legislation. Just to outline the potential to impact on individual rights, entitlements and experience of the Scottish social security system, the commission's discretion as to whether a report is necessary will ensure that scrutiny is provided in an appropriate way. Without encroaching unnecessarily on the Scottish Parliament's time or the time and the resources of the commission, so the functions that would be affected by amendment 45 that are not currently covered would be the form of applications, functions of the commission itself, the period of a redetermination for an application, the time period ministers are allowed to make a determination, rules around lifetime awards, automatic payments, investigation making powers and particularly to enter and search as well as creating offences, top up on all the powers and rules around them, care of supplement as to who is a qualifying person, power to repeal, care of supplement, information sharing, naming new persons and persons who they can share with DH, the discretionary housing payment rules and who the commission can extract relevant information from and the numbers that make up the commission. It is quite a long list of issues, but I do not currently require to go to the commission and on the balance I felt that the commission should have the opportunity to prepare a report should it so wish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I call on the minister to wind up in this group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will be brief. I am only going to concentrate on amendment 145. There is a presumption behind that amendment that no commission's scrutiny equals no scrutiny at all. That is not the case. The Parliament has a critical role, which has developed through some expertise over the years to scrutinise, and the bill gives the Parliament the power to ask the commission for advice if it so wishes. I urge members not to support amendment 145. It will incur unnecessary delay in some instances in terms of regulations that we wish to move quickly on, in which I am sure the Parliament may support us in that, but it will always be down to this Parliament to determine whether those regulations are approved or not approved. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 97, in the name of the minister, to move. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 98, in the name of the minister, to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 99, in the name of the minister, to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Amendment 100, in the name of the minister, to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. 111 ar y cymdeithas ziehen algorithmaidd QT Scottish 112 ar flo Layton 129 Davon 16 amendment 102 to be agreed to". ¿Are we agreed? We are agreed. amendment 16, in the name of Pauline MacNeil, has already been debated. Pauline MacNeil to move. myth That is moved. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. amendment 145, in the name of Pauline Macneil, already debated. Pauline Macneil to move or not move. myth That is moved. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We move to a division on this amendment, and this will be a one minute division. Members may cast their votes now. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed. The result of the vote on amendment 145 in the name of Erural Chamber of favorite t optim McNeil is, yes, 31, no, 91. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 103 in the name of the minister, Minister to move. cwpft. The problem is that amendment 103 be agreed. We are agreed. I am going to be was First composition is that amendment 104a be agreed to is or will go immediately. Can I call amendment 104, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 19, Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 104A, in the name of the minister, already debated, minister to move formally? Move. That is moved. First question is that amendment 104A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is now that amendment 104, as amended, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, all the name of the minister and invite the minister to move the amendments on block? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object if I put the question on block? No one objects. The question is that amendments 105 to 110 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 111, in the name of the minister, already debated, minister to move? Not moved. Not moved. Does anyone else wish to move amendment 111? No one does. Can I call amendment 148, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 53? Minister to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 113 to 123 on block? Moved on block. Moved on block. Does anyone object if I put the question on block? No. The question is that amendments 111, in the name of the minister, already debated, minister to move? Not moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 113 to 123, all the name of the minister and invite the minister to move amendments 113 to amendments 123 on block? Moved on block. The question is that amendments 113 to 123 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That ends consideration of amendments. At this stage, members will be aware that I am now required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of this bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is anything that modifies the electoral system in Scotland. In the case of this bill, no provision does anything of the sort, therefore the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I propose that we just take a short break before we move on to the debate stage and we will resume at 5.2. We have come back in eight minutes time at 5.6. Parament suspended for a few minutes.