Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Official Report 1080KB pdf

---

Social Security (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

We now move to stage 3 proceedings on the Social Security (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, the second revised marshalled 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. Thereafter, the period 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.

Section 1—The Scottish social security principles

Amendment 17, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendment 18.

Amendment 17 is a simple, one-word amendment on which, I hope, the entire chamber can agree.

Members will know that several equalities groups called for the introduction of a principle in section 1 of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill that would embed equality in our social security system. My colleague Mark Griffin lodged a number of amendments to the bill at stage 2 that were supported by the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, Engender and Scottish Women’s Aid. All but this one were agreed.

I know that it is in the way of these things that, behind the scenes, there have been discussions between Scottish Government officials and CRER, Engender and Scottish Women’s Aid, but no conclusion had been reached prior to the deadline for stage 3 amendments. Hence, amendment 17 is before members today.

I believe that the Scottish Government’s intentions are good but essentially the language in the bill 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 actually deliver them. Under the Equality Act 2010, all public authorities are required to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not. Amendment 17 ties the principles into the 2010 act and provides legislative backing for that requirement.

14:15  

The principles would be considerably strengthened by that change in wording, which would not be about simply duplicating Equality Act 2010 obligations. Research shows us that public bodies are not fully aware of their duties and often do not adhere to them properly. Having the requirement in the bill would align with the Scottish Government’s equalities responsibilities under the Scotland Act 1998 to promote compliance with equalities legislation. Above all, it would be the right thing for this Parliament to do.

I move amendment 17.

Amendment 18, in my name, is designed to continue—and, I hope, to complete—the work that was started at stage 2 when the Social Security Committee sought 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 that system should, indeed, be based on a set of agreed principles that are listed at the beginning of the legislation, in section 1. However, turning that policy intention into statute law runs the risk 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, which was added at stage 2, is designed to start the work of clarifying what the legal effect of the principles is, to avoid the risk of unnecessary future litigation. As I have said, amendment 18 is designed to complete that work. It simply clarifies that the statutory purpose of the Scottish social security principles is that they can be reflected in the Scottish social security charter—to which we will come in a few moments—and that the Scottish commission on social security can have regard to them in making recommendations as required by the various provisions of the bill that pertain to it. Amendment 18 has been agreed with the Government, and I thank the minister for her help in its drafting.

I am very conscious that we have a great deal to get through this afternoon and into this evening, so I am happy to say simply that I support both amendments in the group, which I believe provide the bill with additional strength.

Thank you. That was admirable brevity. I call Jackie Baillie to wind up.

I am delighted and do not need to add anything else, Presiding Officer.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Section 1A—Effect of the principles

Amendment 18 moved—[Adam Tomkins]—and agreed to.

Section 1B—Scottish ministers’ duty to promote take-up

Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 23, 27, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43 to 45, 47 to 51, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 89, 95, 103, 104, 104A, 105 to 110, 112, 115 to 118 and 123.

The amendments in group 2 are minor and technical adjustments to improve the structure of the bill, improve consistency of expression across sections, add clarifications and make some minor fixes. We have already provided detailed information to business managers, so I do not believe that I need say much more about the amendments, but I want to indicate my support for amendment 104, in the name of Jeremy Balfour.

I move amendment 19.

Amendment 104 is a technical tidying-up amendment that gives clarity to the roles of the lower and upper tribunals and the commission. I am grateful to the minister and her officials for their help in drafting it. I am happy to support all the other amendments in the group.

Does the minister want to add anything by way of winding-up remarks?

No, I am fine. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I should have declared that I am in receipt of the higher rate of personal independence payment, which is one of the benefits that we will deal with later.

Thank you for noting that for the Official Report.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

After Section 1C

We move to group 3. Amendment 1, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 20 to 22, 24 to 26, 28, 36, 38 and 11.

I have taken a strong interest in the question of whether benefits can be automated for those who are entitled to them. We know from Department for Work and Pensions estimates that £13 billion of benefits a year are not claimed by people who are entitled to assistance, which in Scotland could be as many as 500,000 individual cases.

I thank the Scottish Government and the minister for working with me to put together my amendments in the group. I know that the minister is as committed as I am to making sure that, where we can, we make it easier for people to get the benefits to which they are entitled. I know that our working together will go beyond this bill; we also did it with the Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill.

Amendment 1 is about recognition of the importance of the available data. It simply means that ministers would use the data on the first application to assess whether a person might be eligible for another benefit.

Amendment 11 is the important amendment in the group, because it would place a duty on Scottish ministers to

“inform the individual that the individual may be eligible for ... assistance, and ... provide ... information about how to apply for it”,

or allow for a more automated determination of whether that person can receive other benefits without making any more applications.

Once a person has made an application, there would be a duty on the agency to ensure that, if the person was entitled to any other benefits, the agency would assist them in getting those benefits.

I move amendment 1.

I am grateful to Mark Griffin for his support on amendment 20, as well as the support that has been provided by stakeholders—in particular, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.

In encompassing all the information that the bill will require ministers to make publicly available, amendment 20 also covers posters, information leaflets and appointment information, as opposed to only the more formal documents that are listed in section 1D. Perhaps most important is that, in contrast to section 1D, amendment 20 will ensure that communication accessibility is mainstreamed and normalised, as opposed to its being implemented only on an individual and “proportionate” basis.

Under section 1D, a person would have to know where to go to and then ask for accessible information. In addition, the use of the term “proportionate” implies that the provision of accessible information would be dependent on whether the agency decided that the costs are worth it or the individual need merits expenditure, thereby potentially discriminating against the interests of minority needs. By contrast, amendment 20 will enshrine 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. That 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 that is based on dignity and respect for all those who use it. I urge colleagues to support amendments 20 and 21.

Whenever one applies for a benefit, it can be, as we heard from Ruth Maguire, a difficult procedure. It is often the case that, regardless of how simple we make the forms, people require advice and assistance to complete them.

The amendments in my name in the group would clarify matters in an area in which the Social Security Committee has been on a journey. It is fair to say that there was in all our minds, as we started stage 1 of the bill, some confusion about what is meant by “advocacy”—we will come on to that later—and what is meant by “legal advice and assistance”. It has been very helpful—and I welcome the Government’s move in this regard—that we have separated out the two terms and there is a clear distinction between them.

It is important that an individual has that right, and that the right is independent of the Scottish Government. I think that, here in Scotland, we are very fortunate that, across the country, there are many groups in local authorities and in third sector bodies that provide independent advice and assistance to claimants. It is clear that that must happen throughout the process, from when a person goes to find out whether they are entitled to make a claim, all the way through to when they have to go to a first-tier tribunal, if that is necessary.

I am grateful to the minister for clarifying that she supports my amendments. We will support the other amendments in the group, too.

I am grateful to Ms McNeill, Ms Maguire and Mr Balfour for lodging amendments that I believe will strengthen the bill, and I am pleased to support them all. They are about ensuring that people get all the assistance that they should get through the Scottish social security system.

The amendments in the group that are not in my name link to section 1B, which places the Scottish ministers under a duty to promote take-up of assistance. In that way, they are linked to my amendments 36 and 38, which build on the duty to promote take-up of assistance by requiring the Government to publish and periodically revise a strategy for promoting take-up. The 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 take proactively over the strategy’s lifetime to boost take-up rates.

Taken as a package, the amendments in the group, together with the provisions that are already in the bill, will enshrine in law the Scottish Government’s commitment to ensuring that everyone gets the assistance that they are entitled to through our social security system, and will provide a mechanism for scrutinising the efforts of the current and future Governments towards achieving that goal.

As members will know, my party is not represented on the Social Security Committee, but I am grateful to the minister, Opposition members and stakeholder groups for keeping us abreast of developments.

This group of amendments, which is on improving uptake, is very important to my party. 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 the amendments in the group.

I am proud of what we have all achieved through the amendments in the group, and I am pleased that they will build on one of our key long-running agreements with the Government, on the idea 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, and although there has been some disagreement along the way, that duty has taken form in section 1B.

Every year, £2 billion of benefits—most of which are reserved—go unclaimed. That money could lift families and communities out of poverty and boost local economies. I know that the minister supports the approach that we advocate. She has written in the Daily Record about how she envisages a “once-for-Scotland” approach, and that must extend to take-up. The intention to minimise forms and link best start grant take-up to council services is an example that she has used.

At stage 2, Pauline McNeill secured agreement to have a system that would lead to the automation of benefits or a “bonfire of benefit forms”, as it was put, and that progress is very welcome. Amendments 1 and 11 have the Government’s support, and I am pleased that those provisions will be in the legislation.

Equally, I am pleased to support Ruth Maguire’s amendments 20 and 21, which will ensure that everyone who uses the agency will get the information, the letters, the advice and the records that they need in the most inclusive and suitable form that fits their needs.

We have some concerns about the Government amendments 36 to 39. My amendments at stage 2 set wide-ranging requirements on the Government to make its duty to promote take-up a reality, to record progress and to detail areas in which more work is needed. At the time, we had the Government’s support. My strategy to boost take-up is target based and would require the Government to come forward with measurable outcomes, statistics on which should be released regularly, so I am disappointed that the minister wishes to remove those provisions.

We had discussions about that 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 the targets should remain in place. In Northern Ireland, targets have been shown to work; they are boosting by £65 per week the incomes of those whom they target. It would have been more helpful if that part of the amendment that was passed at stage 2 stayed within the bill in order to achieve real progress against targets to boost the incomes of low-income families.

14:30  

I call Pauline McNeill to wind up on the group.

The amendments will form an important aspect of the bill, in terms of the practicalities of running the agency, and will genuinely help people to take up their benefits when the agency is finally set up. I am happy to leave it at that.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Ruth Maguire]—and agreed to.

Section 1D—Accessibility of information

Amendment 21 moved—[Ruth Maguire]—and agreed to.

Section 1E—Recognition of importance of independent advice and advocacy

Amendment 22 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendments 24, 25 and 26 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendment 27 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 1F—Information and advice

Amendment 28 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Section 1G—Right to advocacy

Amendment 29, in the name of Jeane Freeman, is grouped with amendments 31, 32, 34, 35 and 94.

Amendment 29 and the other amendments in the group make further provision in relation to independent advocacy services. I am delighted to say that amendment 31 widens the definition of the group of people who will have a right to access independent advocacy services. Expanding and improving my stage 2 amendment, I am pleased to say that the new amendments will ensure that those services can be accessed by people who, because of a disability, require an advocate’s help to engage effectively with the system. Amendments 29, 32 and 34 are simply adjustments to make amendment 31 work.

Since the end of stage 2, my officials and I have been working with stakeholders and MSPs to ensure that we have the right definition for the additional support. The amendments that we are debating today have the support of a range of organisations, including disability agenda Scotland, Inclusion Scotland, the Scottish Commission for Learning Disability, Citizens Advice Scotland, Camphill Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council. I am grateful to all the representatives of those organisations and others who have worked with us to develop and agree the amendments. However, in providing for 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 they are in Dumfries or Dundee, Lerwick or Lossiemouth.

A report that the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance published last year 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 ensure that that changes. I therefore lodged amendment 35, which provides for advocacy service standards. That will ensure that those who enter into agreements with ministers to provide independent advocacy services for the people we are ensuring have a right to them will provide consistent service standards.

That approach—central funding and agreements that are based on mutually agreed standards—is exactly the same as what we would expect of other services that we provide funding for, such as the money and debt advice sector, which uses the Scottish national standards for information and advice providers.

In developing those standards, we will use existing models, such as the SIAA’s advocacy code of practice and its independent advocacy evaluation framework, because it would be foolish not to. We will do what we always do and develop the standards in consultation with relevant organisations and—this is important—people who currently access advocacy services. We want to ensure that we meet the expectations that people will have in exercising the new right.

The Social Security (Scotland) Bill contains many important and exciting innovations. Enshrining in law the right to independent advocacy services, as we have set out in the amendments, is one of those innovations, as is ensuring that the regulations that will govern the standards will be approved by the Parliament. Instead of introducing service level agreements across the country, we want the service standards to be agreed by the Parliament. That is why amendment 94 will specifically insert 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 affirmative procedure and will therefore be scrutinised by the Parliament.

I hope that members agree that the amendments represent significant progress in the area of social security and will 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.

A great deal of skill, knowledge and sensitivity is required to provide quality independent advocacy support to people. A range of high-quality services operate in Scotland—not least Aims Advocacy in Stevenston in my constituency—but, 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 for Learning Disability is currently carrying out a scoping study of advocacy services, which highlights the need for consistent standards of service 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 “A Map of Advocacy across Scotland”, which highlights a lack of consistency in 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, the fact that they will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure.

I support amendment 29.

I welcome the minister’s remarks and the movement on the matter that the Government has made over the past weeks.

The definition of disability or of being disabled is much better and stronger than what was agreed by the committee at stage 2. The Parliament and the Government have to work to ensure that we understand what we mean by that definition when the regulations are drawn up, and there is work to be done with advocacy groups, disability groups and others in the third sector.

However, the definition allows the Parliament to know that advocacy will go to those who need it, which is the key point. Not everybody will need an advocate when they go through the process and simply to open advocacy up to everyone would disadvantage those who need it and put extra financial pressure on the Scottish Government and advocacy groups.

It will be a challenge to deliver the advocacy process in different areas in time for when the regulations are up and running. As the minister has said and as I know from having spoken to different groups, there is quite a different picture depending on where you go in Scotland. We are very fortunate in the Lothians as many good groups are already up and running here and will be able to provide an advocacy service but, having talked to groups in other parts of the country, I know that that will be a challenge for them. We need to ensure that they have the appropriate resources and training to provide the service.

It is important to read the group 4 amendments alongside something that was approved previously, which is that an individual will have the right to have somebody of their choice with them all the way through the process, unlike what happens at the moment. That represents a positive step by the Scottish Government and it means that an advocate will often not be required because the individual will have with them somebody whom they already know and who can support them and be an advocate for them.

It is fair to say that amendment 35 is the most controversial amendment in the group, but we will support the Government on that amendment because we need a standard that can be applied across the whole country. There is a danger that, in parts of the country where there are not good advocacy services, we would end up with individuals simply jumping up and saying “I could be an advocate. Can I have money, please?” That would be the wrong way forward. We need to be able to meet the right standards and give the appropriate service to those who require it.

I very much welcome the minister’s comment earlier that, as the regulations are drawn up, she will consult the groups already providing advocacy and those who are interested in doing so. Ultimately, it will be a decision for the Parliament as to whether we approve the regulations. I suspect that a common theme throughout the debate this afternoon will be the recognition that passing the legislation today is simply the start of the journey and not the finish. The regulations are going to be key for individuals and my party will be very happy to work with the Government on the regulations so that we get them right for each individual across the country.

First, I congratulate the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance and the third sector for getting the right to advocacy into the bill. In the context 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. It is a measure that makes the bill groundbreaking legislation. Key to Scottish Labour’s approach to the bill has been a clear desire to ensure that a right to independent advocacy is included. In our submission to the stage 1 consultation on the bill, we agreed that such provision was needed, stating that

“even if there are fewer face to face assessments and the private sector is removed from the system ... Independent advocacy is vital to ensure 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. Although Jeremy Balfour chose not to move his amendment on the issue at stage 2, the committee made it clear that the Scottish Government’s proposal to limit advocacy to those with mental health conditions was only a starting point and not the end point for what we expected to see in the bill.

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 need and will apply to the agency under the most complex processes that flow from the bill, and as it meets the test that we set out in our stage 1 submission, Scottish Labour supports the Government amendment whole-heartedly.

14:45  

However, 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 service providers. Advocacy organisations already have a code of practice. They also have concerns about an independent organisation outside of Government that would advise applicants, or perhaps people who are appealing the decisions of an arm of Government, being wholly independent. They would not like to see service standards being set by Government and would rather see independent standards being set for those organisations. For those reasons, we will not support amendment 35.

As always, I will take this on in a practical manner, because I am a very practical individual.

I took it on board when Jeremy Balfour said that he believes—I hope he will excuse me for paraphrasing him—that, if there were no standards, someone could just set themselves up as an advocate on any high street anywhere in the country. That is a concern because of the quality of the advocacy that people would get.

With regard to the practicality, however, I have a question directly for the minister: is it not the case that what is in amendment 35 is currently standard practice anyway? The Scottish Government already produces guidance for commissioners of independent advocacy. It includes a set of principles and standards that were developed by the SIAA that the commissioners use to ensure that organisations and individuals provide independent advocacy services.

When we are looking at providing a better service and more money for advocacy, why would anyone not want to ensure that we have a standard of advocacy across Scotland? A standard would protect people and protect those organisations that provide a good standard of service for people. That is one of the most important issues. Let us not get to a point where people’s professionalism might be doubted because other people may have said that they were advocates when they were not.

I think that it is very important to include a standard in the bill. I hope that the minister will answer the questions that I have asked.

In the passage of the bill we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of whom exist on the edges of our society and many of whom have complex communication difficulties. The provision of an advocate to help them navigate through the landscape of the benefit environment and communicate their views and needs as they apply for those benefits is vital. The Liberal Democrats are delighted to see the provision of advocacy in the bill.

We certainly support the Government’s amendment 31, which expands the group of people to whom advocacy applies. That is a very clear and important improvement.

We have come on a bit of a journey in this country on the provision of advocacy, from when it was first properly defined in law under the terms of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. I was very much involved with a range of stakeholders in the passage of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, which saw a right to independent advocacy for young people coming before the children’s panel.

We have provided for advocacy before and have not felt the need to have Government-defined standards in its provision. Indeed, advocacy is, by its nature, adapted to the circumstances around it. It changes with the needs of the people who require it. It changes from rural to urban populations. There are a range of different organisations providing it, and sometimes on a voluntary basis. It is already well self-regulated.

In response to George Adam’s question to the minister in his last remarks about whether the Government already provides guidance, I say that it certainly provides guidance, but there is a clear difference between guidance and standards. Amendment 35 takes the reach of Government a bridge too far and might actually close off the provision of advocacy to those who need it. Therefore the Liberal Democrats will oppose amendment 35.

Like others, I very much welcome the right to advocacy within the bill and I 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 support for a number of reasons. First, in my view it is important that amendment 35 is passed so that Parliament—MSPs—will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulatory framework that is proposed by the Scottish Government. Why would we not want that opportunity to scrutinise the matter, particularly in the interests of making sure that there is consistency in the standards applied across the country, and that the same standards delivered to a high quality by advocacy services in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland continue to be delivered consistently? Putting the right to advocacy in the bill gives higher importance and priority to the need for standardisation, consistency and a professional service.

We need to be able to assure people who use advocacy services that they are getting a proper and high-quality service. Through consultation with advocates and others involved in the sector, it is clear that the proposal that Parliament should scrutinise the regulations is absolutely the right, proper and professional way to go about implementing the right to advocacy. I urge members to support all the amendments in the group, particularly amendment 35.

I thank Mr Balfour for rightly reminding us within the first hour that our work is not done when we pass the bill. There will be a great deal more for all of us to do in drafting the regulations that will flow from the bill, and the regulations that we are discussing now are one of the most important sets.

There are many groups to thank for getting us to this point, but I particularly single out Inclusion Scotland, Camphill Scotland and Disability Agenda Scotland for the hard work that they put in to help us refine our position on advocacy support so that we are in a much better place than we were at at stage 2.

There is nothing sinister in amendment 35. It is about ensuring consistency of quality and delivery across the country, which is entirely consistent with a rights-based approach. Mr Adam is, of course, right that we have guidance for commissioners of independent advocacy that includes a set of principles and standards with which they are required to comply, and we have also 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 with amendment 35 is to add extra to that.

We already have standards to ensure consistency and high quality for services that we provide across the country, but I want Parliament to be able to look at the regulations that describe those standards, which we will reach after having that wide consultation. The professional expertise and experience that already exist in the advocacy world, to which my colleagues have already referred, will provide the basis, but amendment 35 will ensure that it is Parliament, as it should be, that scrutinises and approves the regulations when we introduce them.

I urge members to support amendment 35. It is entirely consistent with a rights-based approach that says that we need to make sure that every person in Scotland who is entitled to a service that we provide can trust that they will receive the same quality of provision as any other person.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Amendments 30 to 34 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

After section 1G

Amendment 35 moved—[Jeane Freeman].

The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the proceedings, I suspend the Parliament for five minutes to call members to the chamber.

14:54 Meeting suspended.  

15:00 On resuming—  

We move to the division on amendment 35.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 33, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 35 agreed to.

Section 1H—Income maximisation strategy

Amendment 36 moved—[Jeane Freeman].

The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 31, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Amendment 37 moved—[Jeane Freeman].

The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

Section 1I—Review of strategy

Amendment 38 moved—[Jeane Freeman].

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

Amendment 39 moved—[Jeane Freeman].

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Section 1J—Restriction on private-sector involvement in assessments

Amendment 40 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 41, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is grouped with amendments 42, 2, 46, 66 and 15.

The amendments in this group pertain to section 1J, which was introduced to the bill at stage 2 and involves a statutory restriction on the involvement of the private sector in assessments for disability assistance. There was concern among 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 assessments, particularly if they had self-employment relationships with the national health service rather than being employed under the technical definition of employment in employment law.

After I lodged amendment 41, the minister lodged amendment 42. If she moves that amendment and presses it to a vote, I 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 sought to achieve with amendment 41.

We will support amendment 42 and, indeed, we will support the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 41.

The amendments in this group deal with the important issue of assessments. The bill gives us an opportunity to do things differently and to sweep away the DWP’s failed assessments regime. I am pleased to say that, now that Mr Tomkins has said that he will not press his amendment, I am happy to support all the amendments in the group.

I have always been clear that profit should never be a motive or play any part in decision making in the assessment of people’s eligibility for disability or any other kind of assistance. That is why I lodged an amendment at stage 2, which is now section 1J, which 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 be self-employed. Amendment 42 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, which he lodged. 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. I am happy to support Mr Griffin’s amendments.

I thank Alison Johnstone for working with us to shape amendments 46 and 66 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 first time. It is important that, where an assessment is necessary, the Scottish Government gives consideration to how it can be undertaken to reduce any impact on the individual. I am therefore pleased to support Alison Johnstone’s amendments, too.

Given that Mr Tomkins will not press his amendment, I urge all members to support the remaining amendments in the group.

We will support Alison Johnstone’s amendments in the group, although we cannot support the minister’s attempt to weaken the hard-won legal ban on the private sector delivering assessments and would not have supported Mr Tomkins’s attempt to do likewise. Although I can see the meaning in the minister’s letter, we feel that the flexibility that she seeks would allow gig-economy assessors—people on zero-hours contracts—to provide assessments and we cannot support that change.

I am glad to have worked with the Government on my amendments 2 and 15, which bring back the policy intention that was present at stage 2 and will ensure that the assessors are suitably qualified in relation to the condition that they are assessing. That proposal is supported by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, and 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.

At the moment, 39 per cent of personal independence payment recipients have a psychiatric disorder. All too often, the assessment experience is poor and contributes to a lack of trust in the system. People face a lack of understanding, an apparent inability to understand fluctuating conditions and stigmatising attitudes. I ask members to support the amendments in my name in the group and those in the name of Alison Johnstone.

I am pleased to support Mark Griffin’s amendments in the group. I, too, have concerns about the casualisation of labour in the Government’s amendment 42, so we will not support it. However, I thank the minister and the Government very much for the positive and constructive way in which they have worked with me in lodging my amendments.

Fundamental changes to assessments for disability benefits are essential to building a new social security system that is based on the principles of dignity and respect. It is essential that the current approach to assessments does not continue. Such assessments are often highly stressful and, in many cases, can exacerbate an individual’s health condition or disability. In an alarming number of cases, the subsequent decision is then overturned because of the poor quality of the assessment. Clearly, something is very wrong. It is no wonder that a survey of several hundred Citizens Advice Scotland clients and advisers showed that

“the 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.

Amendment 46 would mean that, if evidence is available through other routes, such as existing evidence from general practitioners and social care professionals, that would be sufficient to corroborate what an individual has claimed on their application form, and the Scottish Government would not be able to require them to undergo assessment. The amendment is aimed at reducing significantly the number of assessments, which stands currently at around 96 per cent of all PIP applications.

If assessment is required, amendment 66 would require ministers to explain to an individual why that is the case and to take into account options other than a face-to-face assessment. If such an assessment is required, it must be carried out within a reasonable distance of an 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, my intention is absolutely not to prevent assessments from being done when they are required to determine entitlement or when an applicant thinks that they will benefit from having one. However, when evidence can be obtained in a way that is less intrusive and less stressful, the new principles of the new system dictate that that must be done.

Clearly, amendment 46 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, particularly by designing evidence forms that are issued to GPs, for example, that relate more clearly than they do at the moment to the benefit criteria. I am sure that the minister will be aware how closely many people—myself and the thousands of PIP and disability living allowance recipients in Scotland—will be watching how the provision is implemented, if my amendment is agreed to by Parliament today.

If we are to found the new social security system on the principles of dignity and respect, as the Scottish Government rightly intends, protecting applicants from unnecessary assessments that can cause distress is one way to do that.

I am grateful for Adam Tomkins’s remarks about his amendment 41. The Liberal Democrats have anxieties about that amendment. I understand his points, but I still think that his amendment would open the door once again to elements of the private sector coming into the process. Amendment 42 gets the balance right, so we will support the Government’s amendment. I hear what my colleagues in the Labour and Green parties are saying about amendment 42, but it strikes the right balance for the Liberal Democrats.

I support Mark Griffin’s amendments on quality standards and training. It is right that people should have confidence in the assessment process and that people who will carry out the process are trained to a high enough standard.

15:15  

Alison Johnstone’s amendments add a very humane element to this aspect of the bill. They represent a well-timed departure from how assessments have traditionally been conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly around disability benefits. They will certainly put the applicant at the heart of the process and, in many cases, in the driving seat. On that basis, the member is assured of our support for her amendments.

Amendment 41, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 42 moved—[Jeane Freeman].

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 96, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Amendments 43 to 45 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

After section 1J

Amendment 2 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.

Amendment 46 moved—[Alison Johnstone]—and agreed to.

Before I turn to the next group of amendments, members might like to know that we are slightly behind our schedule, by about five minutes. I exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow the debate on the group to continue and to finish in the time that was needed.

Section 3—Preparing the first charter

We move to group 6. Amendment 3, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 4 to 6.

The amendments are on the preparation and approval of the charter. I lodged a series of amendments at stage 2 that were aimed at making the charter subject to formal parliamentary approval. However, the effect 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 so that I could come forward with something that would involve some parliamentary approval, as the charter is a critical document. Various amendments that were passed at stage 2 ensure that it will be a more critical aspect of the new social security system.

Amendment 4 means that the Government may not make the charter unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and received parliamentary approval. Amendment 6 ensures that if ministers decide to make changes to the charter, a draft showing the changes must 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 amendment 3.

I am grateful to Ms McNeill for the work that we have done together to develop the amendments, and I am pleased to support them. They will cement the charter’s status as a fundamental part of the Scottish approach to social security and give the Parliament its rightful place, by making future Governments accountable for any attempt to alter that approach.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments 47 to 49 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Reviewing the charter

Amendment 5 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

Amendment 50 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

Section 5A—Effect of the charter

Amendment 51 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Meaning of “Scottish social security system”

Amendment 52, in the name of Adam Tomkins, in group 7, on the meaning of the Scottish social security system, is the only amendment in the group.

The bill includes a definition of the Scottish social security system, which is important because the principles and the charter, which we have talked about already, will apply within the scope of the Scottish social security system as defined.

Since the bill was introduced last year, my view has been that the definition of the Scottish social security system in section 7 is deficient in just one technical particular. We know that there are 11 benefits that are devolved in full and that there is the power to top up any reserved benefit. All those powers are included in the definition of the Scottish social security system, as provided for in section 7. However, there is a third element of devolved social security, which is in section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016. It 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 amendment 52—which has been drawn up with the assistance of the Government and its lawyers, for which I am grateful—is to ensure that that additional element of devolved social security is brought within the definition of the Scottish social security system. The full definition of the Scottish social security system will embrace not only benefits that are devolved in full and the power to top up reserved benefits but the power to create new benefits. In that sense, it is a technical amendment, which I hope will attract the support of members.

I move amendment 52.

I am pleased to support Mr Tomkins’s amendment 52. As he said, it implements his long-standing view that the bill ought to better reflect the scope of the social security powers that are devolved to the Parliament. It does so in a way that ensures that future schemes that are added to the Scottish system will be introduced through acts of Parliament, with the robust scrutiny that that process requires, and clarifies that ministers should be held accountable for any future schemes that they choose to introduce. I am happy to support the amendment.

Amendment 52 agreed to.

After section 9

We turn to group 8. Amendment 7, in the name of Mark Griffin, is the only amendment in the group.

Amendment 7 was lodged in a previous form at stage 2. I am glad to have worked with the Government to bring it back at stage 3 in a form that we can all support. The amendment seeks to give people a right to cease receipt of assistance at any point and, in effect, to say that they no longer wish to receive it. The Child Poverty Action Group highlights that, as currently allowed under UK law, it is important that people can withdraw their application once they have an award. There are circumstances in which 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 couple has a choice between two benefits but can get only one of them, or when a couple has a choice about which of them makes a claim.

The Child Poverty Action Group highlights the example of a couple who care for their disabled child. One of them gets carers assistance for their child but has their own health condition and gets universal credit. In universal credit, there are extra amounts for someone who gets carers benefit and for someone who has a health condition, but one person cannot claim both of those. If the person could not withdraw their claim so that their partner could then claim, the couple could be more than £150 a month worse off because their universal credit would not include a carers element.

I am happy to move amendment 7.

I am grateful to Mr Griffin for drawing the matter to our attention, for lodging his amendment at stage 2 and for working with us to produce amendment 7. 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. It sets out a defined process for requesting a cancellation, which should 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.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Section 14—Disability assistance

We turn to group 9. Amendment 53, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 111, 111A, 111B, 148, 113 and 114.

As I have said before, the issue that we now turn to has been the most challenging issue that I have faced in all the work on the bill. Support for people who are terminally ill is a complex, sensitive and difficult issue, and I am very aware that behind the decisions that we make are thousands of people who we must put front and centre of our decisions and 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 move. Amendment 148 has been framed carefully to ensure that the sensitive and difficult conversations between an individual and their clinician that 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.

Amendment 148 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 are 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 that 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 support the 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 rules will 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 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 get 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 our approach means that Ben Macpherson’s amendments will automatically fall, but I assure him that amendment 148 will cover all people of all ages.

Amendments 53 and 114 are minor adjustments that are 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.

I move amendment 53.

15:30  

I lodged amendments 111A and 111B to extend the definition of “terminal illness” to ensure that regulations are framed to include anyone under the age of 18 who has a progressive disease that is likely to cause death. The amendments sought to make sure that special rules would apply to those young people so that they got the highest rate of benefit quickly and with no assessment.

Doing all that we can to help such young people and their families is important to us all, which is why I am glad that amendments 148 and 113, in the name of the minister, will enable what my amendments intended to deliver. The policy intention is to enable anyone who is under the age of 18 who has a progressive disease that is likely to cause death to receive the highest rate of benefit quickly and with no assessment.

Given that the minister’s amendments 148 and 113 will enable that change, that they are based on the balance of views from different parties and will provide for guidance that is based on the input of clinicians, and that the minister will not move amendment 111, I will not move amendments 111A and 111B. Instead, I encourage all MSPs to support the minister’s amendments and to deliver the change that my amendments sought.

As the minister has said, this has been the hardest part of the bill to get right. The committee and the Government have all been on a journey, and I think that we have ended up in the right place for those who are the most vulnerable in our society.

I introduced the two-year approach at stage 2 because, from my experience of sitting on tribunals, I knew of cases in which someone who had made an application and who was terminally ill but was going to live beyond six months died quite quickly after that period. They did not come under the special rules, and thus they did not receive the money that could have helped them to receive better services towards the end of their life. Six months was simply too short a period of time.

I therefore welcome the Government’s discussions with different groups and other MSPs. To take away the time limit completely is the right way forward. Whatever we came up with—whether it was six months, one year, two years or five years—would have been artificial; some people would have got in and some would not.

Having been lobbied heavily by my older brother, I think that it is difficult for GPs sitting in their rooms to give a definition, or to say with any clarity that a patient might live for less than six months—or two years. As well as giving a diagnosis, GPs have to deal with that patient having so many other things going on in their lives. It is important that people get the right benefits, but that is only one of the things that a GP or consultant or a nurse has to deal with when dealing with an individual.

We have made progress and are on the right course. The guidance will be very important, and I welcome the minister’s assurances that she will work not only with the chief medical officer and the medical profession but with those who work in the third sector. I give particular credit to Marie Curie and to MND Scotland for the work that they have done and the helpful information that they have given.

Clearly, no one wants to make this a party-political issue. Surely it is one on which we, as a Parliament, can come together to do the best that we can. I convey my respect to the minister taking that approach and for trying to take all of us with her; most important, I thank her for helping those who have been given a diagnosis that none of us would ever want.

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in the group that are to be pressed. I especially thank the minister for lodging amendment 113, on special rules for terminal illness cases, and for progressing the policy from the amendments that I lodged at stage 2.

While we were pleased with the changes that were made at stage 2 to increase the time period that was to be used in the definition of terminal illness to two years, the removal of all time limits is a victory for campaigners and those who are terminally ill. Ultimately, the change—which, essentially, moves the basis of any decision on a terminal illness award on to that of clinical discretion and the needs of the terminally ill—is very welcome and was not expected just a matter of months ago. MND Scotland and Marie Curie, which have representatives in the public gallery today, should be particularly proud of the work that they have done to secure that change.

However, I sound a note of caution. Although that change in policy is welcome, we have to learn a lesson from how it came about. The process cannot and should not be a template for how ministers will set up the new system. We are expecting swathes of regulation, which will include the intricate policy design of nine forms of assistance. The campaigners and the people for whom the social security system is meant to be an investment need assurances that, in the months ahead, more detail will be given and that policy will be made out in the open and well in advance of decision making.

I agree entirely that this is one of the most sensitive and challenging issues that we have had to discuss—certainly during this bill process, if not in this session of Parliament. I am very pleased with the outcome and welcome the improvements that will be made by the minister’s amendments. Scottish Greens will support all the amendments in group 9.

Members of the Social Security Committee and many organisations have been involved with the bill and have worked hard to find a way to resolve this complex issue. Scottish Greens are very pleased that the amendments clearly place such 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 individuals and not their medical condition or any timescales. Removing the restriction on timescale and allowing medical practitioners to exercise their expert judgment to its fullest extent is the best way forward for both patients and clinicians, so we very much welcome the change.

I, too, express my thanks to Marie Curie and MND Scotland, whose input in the process has been invaluable.

I am sure that every single member in the chamber would agree that the measure of a civilised society is the compassion with which it treats those who are given the hardest of news, whether in a doctor’s surgery or a hospital.

I thank the Government for its approach. It is in this area that it has worked its hardest to build consensus—I know that work was going on late into the weekend to reach agreement on the wording—and I rise to speak in support of amendments 148 and 113.

I understand the drivers behind amendment 111, but we would have stuck with the stage 2 iteration, because amendment 111 did not get enough support and would have put doctors in the invidious position of having to decide at the same time as having a heartbreaking conversation with a patient whether that person should get an award for having a terminal illness.

End-of-life policy is always a very sensitive issue. We owe it to all those who are faced with such devastating news to strip the party politics out of it. Therefore, it is right that we entrust the matter to our clinicians, who I and everybody in this chamber trust implicitly, under the guidance of our CMO.

I add my thanks to MND and Marie Curie, which spelled out in important, personal and visceral detail what the matter means to so many people in our country. Again, I thank the Government for the distance that it has travelled on the issue.

As a member of the Social Security Committee, but also for other reasons, I am only too aware how complex, sensitive and difficult the issue has been. I, too, commend the minister and colleagues for their work, which has enabled us to get to the position that we have reached today.

The conversation about terminal illness was a difficult one that everyone had to have when discussing the bill. Most members will be aware that my wife Stacey has multiple sclerosis. Along with 11,000 others who have the condition, she is celebrating MS awareness week. Although it is a progressive disease, members might think that, given how she has been bullying most of them today, she is quite healthy and carrying on with things. However, with MS, in time, we could be in the position where the issue that we are discussing could affect us; I have considered that possibility when looking at such issues.

I have also considered the views of constituents. Last week, a constituent told me about her individual circumstances in relation to the debate on terminal illness and the amendments in this group in particular. She argued in favour of there being no timeframe laid down in law and said that the decision should be up to the clinicians.

We have got ourselves to the right place, because it is not for us as politicians to specify an arbitrary period. The decision should be for the clinicians, and we should give them the scope and the ability to make it. If we were to specify an arbitrary period—two years, three years or whatever—we would have to take into account the fact that individuals would make life-changing decisions based on the diagnosis of terminal illness. The average clinician would not want to put someone in that position.

We have got to a good place, with the public on our side. We have been dealing with the real world; we have been dealing with people’s lives. Our agreement shows that this Parliament can behave maturely when dealing with such issues.

I will be brief, but I want to say a couple of things. I genuinely appreciate the collective effort and the input from medical professionals, stakeholders and my fellow MSPs in order to find the best approach to terminal illness for our new social security system. 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 medical professionals for providing their views and for their offer of support in developing the guidance to deliver the 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 consider that we have arrived at the right solution to ensure that people who are in extremely difficult circumstances are able to access the maximum level of financial support to which they are entitled quickly and with the dignity and the respect that they deserve.

Amendment 53 agreed to.

Section 20—Application for assistance

15:45  

We turn to group 10. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 55, 56, 58 to 61, 63, 69 and 98.

The amendments in the group will create a right to appeal to the first-tier tribunal against a decision to reject an application for assistance or a redetermination on the grounds that it has not been validly made.

At stage 2, amendments were agreed to that will require the process for applying for assistance to be put in regulations. Mr Griffin explained that his intention with those amendments was to give people a right to appeal against the rejection of an application on grounds of technical invalidity, but putting the application rules in regulations makes no difference to whether the rejection of an application can be appealed against.

My amendments in the 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 go further and create a right to appeal against the rejection of a redetermination request, too.

Requiring the application process to be set out in regulations will get in the way of creating an application process that meets the aspirations on 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 legalese—I say this 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 the 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 that is buried away in regulations.

If we are to meet the aspiration for the Scottish social security system to allow people to make applications in the way that best meets their needs, which I know is shared across the chamber, it will not help to limit the ways in which applications can be made to forms that are specified in regulations.

I urge members to support the amendments in the group so that the process for applying for assistance can be made as straightforward and accessible as possible, and 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 an appeal to the first-tier tribunal.

I move amendment 54.

We will not support amendments 54 and 55, but we intend to support the rest of the amendments in the group.

Amendments 54 and 55 seek to reverse the effect of the amendments in my name that the Opposition agreed to at stage 2. 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 a valid application—and I believe that that should remain a duty on ministers.

We are again rehearsing the issue, but whether an application has been validly made should mean simply that the questions that were asked on the form or in a phone call have all been fully answered, and that is what regulations should say in relation to the manner in which an application must be made.

The minister’s amendments 56 and 58 are welcome, and they complement section 20(1). Providing clarity on the issue in the bill and regulations will ensure that processes are fit for purpose and will provide certainty for people who use the system, rather than certainty for the Government to flex the application system as it requires.

The existing provisions will not require the bill or regulations to specify types of evidence that would be required—the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee raised a query about that—and will not reduce the ability of the system to be flexible and responsive to evidence that is received. In the UK system, before such an appeal right was explicitly provided for in legislation, its absence was ruled to be incompatible with human rights.

Accordingly, I ask members not to support amendments 54 and 55.

Do you wish to wind up, minister?

I repeat that people should be able to trust that the application rules that have been publicly communicated in plain English are the real rules for applying.

The idea that regulations saying how applications can be made need not be complex and overlegalistic is belied by the evidence. Anyone who doubts that needs to look at the UK Government’s claims and payments regulations, which run to 122 pages of closely typed text, a substantial part of which is exclusively about the process of 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 that are produced every year.

Setting out application forms in 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, however, and legislation should move on too.

The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 54 agreed to.

Amendment 55 moved—[Jeane Freeman].

The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 95, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 55 agreed to.

Amendment 56 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 22—Notice of determination

Amendment 57, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 62 and 70.

The amendments in the group were lodged in a different form at stage 2, and I am glad to have been able to work with the Government to lodge new amendments in a form that has the Government’s support.

A key call from Paul Gray in his “Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment: second independent review” was that applicants should have the right to have a clear and thorough notification of why a determination has been made. Specifically, amendment 57 requires ministers to provide a copy of an assessment report when someone requests it. Adding in the element of choice is a key change since stage 2, after the minister rightly raised concerns that the automation of that process could pass on health information that the applicant was not aware of and might not want to be aware of. Broadly, the aim of the amendments in this group is to enhance transparency in subsequent redetermination and appeals processes, and I ask members to support them.

I move amendment 57.

I am grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us on the group of amendments, and I am happy to support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 57 agreed to.

We turn to group 12. Amendment 8, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 9 and 10.

The amendments in the group were lodged in a previous form at stage 2. I am glad to say that the Government and I have been able to work together to bring them back in a form that we can agree on.

Like the amendments in group 11, the amendments in the group 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, that they can use it to prove their entitlement or access other passported benefits.

The original amendment, which was lodged with the support of the Child Poverty Action Group, sought to ensure that a notification is made in writing as standard. Although that was relatively benign, the minister rightly pointed out that that could cut across provisions in amendments that we lodged to ensure that people had inclusive and accessible communication.

As proud as we should be of the challenge that we have set for the new agency—that someone should have their communication by Braille, audio file, email or, indeed, in writing, by default as preferred—we know that other organisations and companies, despite their duties, are not as progressive in accepting those forms. We could never leave anyone in the position of not being able to access a passported benefit or not being able to prove their source of income because the organisation refused their preferred method of communication. Although it is clear that there is more work to do to make those organisations and companies upgrade and update their practices, we need to have a backstop in the system.

I ask members to support the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 8.

Once again, I am grateful to Mr Griffin for working with us on the matter. The amendments will ensure that individuals will have a tangible record of why their determination or redetermination was made without limiting our capacity to communicate in the most effective way or to embrace new technologies. I am happy to support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Section 23—Right to request re-determination

Amendment 58 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 23A—Late request for re-determination

Amendments 59 to 61 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 25—Notice of re-determination

We turn to group 13. Amendment 124, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 125 to 132.

Amendments 124 to 131 all relate to the question of appeals to the first-tier tribunal. My colleague Pauline McNeill’s amendment 132 is about the collection of statistics that will inform future policy on access to appeals tribunals. I urge members to support it.

Variations on amendments 124 to 131 were first lodged at stage 2 by Pauline McNeill. They sought to improve appeals to tribunals, but the Scottish Government did not agree with them at that time. The Government’s amendments are to be welcomed, but concerns still remain, which have been highlighted by Enable Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group, Inclusion Scotland, Disability Agenda Scotland and the Scottish campaign on welfare reform. I apologise if I have missed anybody out of that rather lengthy list.

16:00  

I will turn to the substance of the amendments. The two-stage access to an appeal tribunal was first introduced by the Conservative UK Government in 2013. Since then, there has been an 83 per cent reduction in appeals. Much as we might like to think that that is because the DWP got the claims right first time, that is unfortunately not the case. According to Enable, about 86 per cent of cases that undergo mandatory reconsideration do not change and 72 per cent of those who had the right to appeal did not appeal, but 60 per cent of those who did appeal were successful. If we take those figures together, they mean that as many as 20,000 people across Scotland are missing out. I think that that establishes that people who appeal to tribunals face a barrier.

However, if we need to be convinced further, I point to the evidence from the Government’s social security experience panels, which were the voices of lived experience. One comment from a panel was that

“A number of people were unable to appeal due to the stress associated with the process, and therefore accepted what they felt was an unfair or inaccurate decision.”

Another person said:

“I know their decision is wrong but I don’t have the time or energy to fight this further”,

and another said that

“Suffering with depression and anxiety and being made to jump through hoops made me 100 times worse.”

That person therefore 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 them before voting on relevant amendments. However, the panels are clear that there are barriers in the system that have not been addressed.

The amendments in group 13 attempt to address those barriers. As it stands, a person who has had their case rejected twice by the agency must actively appeal to the independent tribunal service. That requirement to appeal twice is the problem, so the amendments in group 13 would make the process of challenging decisions smoother, and would reflect the minister’s desire, which is right, for a rights-based system in which the claimant is in control. The agency would have the opportunity to review decisions, but where a redetermination comes back with no change, an automatic appeal to tribunal would be triggered. That would remove barriers to appeal and there would be the option to withdraw at any point.

I am aware that the Scottish Government is not comfortable with my group 13 amendments. I am disappointed by that, but I would be prepared—being a reasonable person—to consider not pressing my amendments if amendment 132, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is supported, because it would require the Government to collect and publish data on the matter so that we could return to it again.

I move amendment 124.

I call Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 132 and the other amendments in the group.

I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for bringing the matter to the chamber for stage 3 consideration, because it might well be unfinished business. As Jackie Baillie said, there is evidence that when mandatory redetermination was introduced, tens of thousands of claimants dropped out of the system and did not proceed to appeal. Prior to the introduction of mandatory redetermination, a claimant would have had the right to appeal directly to the first-tier tribunal. We can appreciate why people might understand that as a clearer system of appeal. As Jackie Baillie said, it should concern us all that claimants might drop out of the system after mandatory reconsideration because they feel confused, stressed and vulnerable.

There is strong support among organisations that have already been mentioned for a one-stage appeal process that would mean that, if a redetermination failed, the appeal would be automatically sent directly to the tribunal system from the agency.

Does Pauline McNeill agree that if the amendments in group 13 were to be agreed to, there would be a danger that we would end up with lots of cases going to the first-tier tribunal for which people did not turn up, which would mean that first-tier tribunal decisions would take a lot longer and the system would be blocked for people who do want to appeal?

I appreciate that there is concern about the bureaucracy of a system in which an appeal would be automatically sent directly from the agency to the tribunal system. However, I believe that I have designed something that would prevent any confusion, because the person would be told that their appeal was already in the system.

To be honest, I am still more concerned about the number of people who might not proceed to appeal. I hope that Mr Balfour is, too. I will get to the question of how we might be able to come back to that matter.

In a recent evidence session we heard—Mr Balfour will have heard it, too—that the organisations that have been in discussions with the Scottish Government on the issue remain unconvinced by the redetermination system. I pressed them hard on that question; there remains very serious concern.

Although the Scottish Government says that redeterminations will be carried out differently from how the DWP’s system has made determinations because a new official will look at the claim, we do not know whether that approach will work. However, to all intents and purposes, redetermination will still be mandatory.

My amendment 132 would require the Government at least to put information in the annual report that it will be required to publish. That would mean that the information in the annual report would include the volume of appeals. We could look at the data, which should allow Parliament to monitor the situation. In my view, that is the very least that Parliament can accept, because if the concerns become reality, at least Parliament will have the chance to readdress the matter in the future.

Again, I thank the minister, Jeane Freeman, for working with me on amendment 132.

I cannot support the amendments in Ms Baillie’s name, but I am happy to support the amendment from Ms McNeill. I want to go through my reasons for not being able to support Ms Baillie’s amendments, because it is important to be clear on the record about 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 lose out on their entitlements because of a complex and confusing system. That is why the amendments that I lodged at stage 2, which were unanimously supported by the committee, addressed the concerns about potential barriers to appeal, while retaining—this is the critical point—the individual’s right to decide for themselves what they want to do in their case.

In the bill as it stands, the agency will be required to help people who decide that they want to appeal, and to help them at every step of the way. It must give the individual information about their right to appeal. If the individual wants to appeal, it must ask them to fill in and return a form that it sends them. It must 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 an individual decides that they want to appeal, they simply send the form back to the agency and the agency will then send to the tribunal that form and all the materials that it used to make its decision. The tribunal system, of course, will take it from there.

So far, so right spaced and so straightforward: the individual retains control of deciding what they want to happen in their own case. That is precisely what the experience panel members who made comment on the issue said they want.

The difficulty that I have with Ms Baillie’s amendments is that they would remove a degree of control from the individual. They would set up an automatic appeals system that would put the agency in charge. The individual would only come back into play, on their own case, in a negative way—by pulling out of an appeal that had been automatically triggered.

Ms Baillie’s amendments state that the appeal process would be automatically instituted where the determination is the same as the first determination. What does “the same” mean? Some of the benefits have different levels of financial award within them. Is that what “same” means? How and—more important—why should it be the agency that decides that it is to be appealed against? That strikes me as being fundamentally wrong.

The tribunal would start with no information other than the agency trigger—other than that the redetermination was the same as the determination. It would not even have the grounds of appeal.

I appreciate the intention behind Ms Baillie’s amendments, which is to remove unnecessary barriers so that we ensure that where someone disagrees with the agency’s decision, they are advised about and supported in challenging that decision through the first-tier 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 the matter, which is why I am happy to support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 132, which will require us to monitor and report how the process that is in the bill is working, so that we can continuously try to improve. I believe that that is the right way to proceed.

I ask members to support Ms McNeill’s amendment 132 and I ask Ms Baillie not to press her amendments. If she does, I ask members to oppose them.

I call Jackie Baillie to wind up on the group and to press or seek to withdraw her amendment 124.

I know that I do not have the support of the Scottish National Party or the Tories for my amendments, so I intend not to press them. However, let me place on the record that the amendments were devised after reflection on the stage 2 debate, and were changed accordingly. Under them, an individual would retain their rights throughout. It would simply be a case of not requiring them to appeal twice, because we know that under the legislation that was set up by the Tories in 2013, which has a two-stage appeal process, 83 per cent fewer appeals were lodged. That tells us all that we need to know.

I will briefly address Jeremy Balfour’s point. If the objective is to get more decisions right first time—which I hope and believe will be the case—it does not follow that the first-tier tribunal will be swamped with cases or that people will not show up. In Scotland, 20,000 people could be missing out on their correct entitlement because the Government remains wedded to a two-stage appeal process. Some people, who are more cynical than I, might say that “redetermination” is the current “mandatory consideration” by another name. Although I welcome the improvements that have been made by the minister, the barriers remain.

I hope that members will support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 132, so that we can collect the evidence that is needed to support the changes that, in my view, are still badly needed.

Amendment 124, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 62 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.

Amendment 125 not moved.

Section 26—Notice where re-determination not made timeously

Amendment 126 not moved.

Amendment 10 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.

Section 27A—Initiating an appeal

Amendments 127 to 130 not moved.

After section 27A

Amendment 131 not moved.

Section 29A—Presumption for purposes of sections 23, 23A and 28

Amendments 63 and 64 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 30—Obligation to provide information on request

Amendment 65 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

After section 30

Amendment 66 moved—[Alison Johnstone]—and agreed to.

Section 31—Duty to notify change of circumstances

Amendment 67 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 32A—Appointment of person to act on behalf of individual

Amendment 68 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

After section 32B

Amendment 69 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 70 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.

Section 33—Decisions comprising determination

Amendment 71 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 34—Determination on basis of ongoing entitlement

16:15  

We turn to group 14. Amendment 72, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 73, 76 to 79, 133 to 137, 80, 146 and 147.

Amendments 72, 73 and 76 to 79, in my name, are technical amendments. They clarify that overpayments that are made as a result of an individual failing to notify a change of circumstances, after being told what changes of circumstance to notify, may be recoverable.

Amendment 80, also in my name, is similarly technical. It provides that payments that are 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 the group. The bill, as it stands, allows overpayments to be recovered only if the error that caused the overpayment to be made was either the individual’s fault or an error so obvious that the average person would notice it. I suspect that Mr Griffin’s amendments 133, 135 and 136 are intended to change that approach so that an overpayment will be recoverable only if it can be proved that the error that caused it would be obvious to the individual who received it. The test for recovering an overpayment should not be subjective in that way, as that would not be equitable and people should be treated equally under the law. Why should someone who keeps a close eye on what they receive be liable to repay, but someone who does not do that gets to keep public money that they should not have been given?

In drafting amendments 133, 135 and 136, Mr Griffin seems to have overlooked the fact that a proportion of people receiving assistance will not manage their own affairs and will have a guardian or an appointee acting for them. Amendments 133, 135 and 136 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 could not be personally expected to have noticed the error.

Mr Griffin’s amendment 134 defies common sense. The bill currently provides that an individual can be held liable to repay an obvious overpayment. Agreeing to amendment 134 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 lay in determining entitlement, but would have to repay if there had been a clerical error in processing a payment. That is 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.

I am happy to support Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 146 and 147. I am grateful to Mr Balfour for lodging the amendments in place of amendment 137, in his name, 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 that. Transferring a jurisdiction from the sheriff courts to the first-tier tribunal is not a step to be taken lightly, but amendment 146 provides space to consult and to refine the approach in light of any issues that are raised during the consultation. Therefore, I am pleased to support amendment 146.

I move amendment 72.

We will support all the amendments in the group. All promote the ends of having a clearer process of dealing with overpayments in a way that is fair and, although there were changes in section 36A, that has required considerable change since the bill was introduced.

My amendments in the group—amendments 133 to 136—along with amendment 137, in the name of Mr Balfour, were lodged with the support and advice of the Child Poverty Action Group. With my amendments in the group, I seek to ensure a fairer test of liability for the recovery of overpayments.

There will be occasions when, as result of agency errors, individuals are overpaid assistance. It is important that people have the right to challenge decisions—Mr Balfour’s amendments cover that matter.

If amendments 133 to 136 were to be agreed to, that would mean that, in many cases, people would not have to repay overpayments that were not their fault. The test of liability to repay in the bill is still too strict; it is stricter than the tests in nearly all UK-wide DWP benefits.

The amendments would ensure that individuals would be liable to repay an overpayment resulting from an agency error only when it would be reasonable to expect the individual to have noticed the overpayment, with account taken of, for example, the distress and other personal circumstances that the person might be experiencing at any given time. A repayment would not be required if there had been an error in decision making by the agency over which the individual had had no control.

As the bill stands, decision makers will consider whether a notional “reasonable person” would have noticed an error. Amendments 133 to 136 would require decision makers to assess, in a far more person-centred way, whether the individual could have been expected to notice the error.

Such an approach is more in keeping with the overall aim of treating applicants fairly and according them dignity and respect. We should treat applicants as individuals and take account of their personal circumstances at the time that the overpayment was made. I ask members to support all the amendments in the group.

We will support the Government’s amendments in the group. We will not support amendments 133 to 136.

I am grateful to the Child Poverty Action Group for the help that it has given me. I will explain briefly why I will not move amendment 137 but will move amendments 146 and 147. It is perhaps my lack of drafting skills that caused confusion in relation to amendment 137, which confirms that a career in the legal world was never going to be for me.

We all want to do the right thing here. If someone has received an overpayment from the agency, it is my view and, I think, the view of the Government and the other Opposition parties, that that should be decided not in the sheriff court in the context of a small-claims debt but by the first-tier tribunal. The claimant would know where they stood and they would have a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal.

I have spoken to a number of lawyers and I realise that amendment 137 simply would not allow that to happen. If we were to agree to amendment 137, the agency would not be bound by the first-tier tribunal’s decision and could go back to the sheriff court to take action. That would give the agency two bites at the cherry, which is not the way forward.

If we agree to amendments 146 and 147 and, after consultation, get the regulations right, it will be clear that there will be no debt-recovery action in the first-tier tribunal, which does not have such power, and that the first-tier tribunal will simply decide whether the agency made a valid decision—yes or no. The first-tier tribunal is a much better place for the decision than the sheriff court. The approach allows for people who give advice and assistance to help claimants through the process. People can feel concerned about going to the first-tier tribunal, but the sheriff court can be very intimidating indeed.

I think that we all want the same thing. If we support amendments 146 and 147, we will get there. I will not move amendment 137, because it would add confusion and would not be helpful.

The Liberal Democrats will support all the amendments from the group that are moved. However, we have concerns about amendment 80, on recovery after death. We know of constituency cases of brutal application of benefit rules on the death of a parent with dependent children. Sometimes the application of legislation, however well intended it is, can have very human consequences. We would like strong guidance to underpin the recovery of overpayments in such circumstances.

We also support the amendments in the name of Mark Griffin. They would make helpful changes to the language, which would make section 36A far fairer and would add some of the humanity that we discussed earlier in the debate.

Finally, I lend my support to Jeremy Balfour. I, too, have been effectively lobbied by the Child Poverty Action Group, which makes important points about the fact that we already have a process for appealing the recovery of overpayments through the DWP. We need something similar in Scotland, and I think that amendments 146 and 147 hit the right note.

I confirm that the Scottish Greens will support all the amendments in the group, with the exception, for the moment, of amendment 80. I will reserve judgment on amendment 80 until I hear the minister’s response, because we share the concerns that have just been raised by Alex Cole-Hamilton.

Amendment 80 would allow Scottish ministers to recover assistance that is paid after death. I was struck by the absence of limits on the power. It does not specify appropriate periods of time. In particular, it would establish the power 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 situations?

I do not particularly want to speak about any of the amendments, but the issue that I want to raise relates to the amendments in the group. It is connected to another piece of legislation that is going through Parliament, and I want to give the minister an opportunity to address the issue.

The Prescription (Scotland) Bill has come before the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. My question concerns the issue of benefit overpayments and the period in which a person remains liable for them. In England, that period is six years, but the Prescription (Scotland) Bill proposes a period of 20 years, and the Scottish Government does not propose to change that.

With regard to reserved benefits in relation to which the Scottish Government has power over prescription in terms of overpayment, and in relation to council tax, will the minister commit today to look again at the 20-year period of prescription for those overpayments?

The point relates to a piece of legislation that is going through Parliament, so the issue is relevant in this case.

Given the scale of the payments that we will eventually be making—it will be more in one week than we currently pay out in one year—it is entirely possible that mistakes will be made. The Government has a responsibility to be careful 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 as it stands guarantees that people will be treated fairly because an overpayment can be recovered only if it was caused by something that was the individual’s fault or is so obvious that a “reasonable person” would notice it; in addition, the Government must consider the financial circumstances of the person who owes the money when deciding if and how to recover it. Further, an overpayment can be recovered only 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.

As I said, I have listened to Jeremy Balfour 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 to ensure that the transfer of jurisdiction in that way is done with full understanding, reflection and consideration, but I am very happy to support his amendments 146 and 147, and I undertake to work with him and others in that way.

16:30  

Does the minister believe that amendments 146 and 147, which she supports, would create a right for individuals to appeal a decision on liability at the point at which the decision is made under section 36A?

The agency will decide whether an individual has been overpaid on the basis of a determination. Such a determination will be appealable; we discussed that when we talked about the process by which an individual can pursue a challenge to the agency’s decision. We have had that discussion many times in committee and in the chamber, and I think that the position is clear.

Alison Johnstone asked about amendment 80, on recovery from a deceased’s estate. We seek to have that option in primary legislation and we will then work with others to produce guidance for the agency and ensure that the agency is clear about the balance that it needs to strike should it wish to pursue the power that it would have.

Neil Findlay’s question caught me—and I suspect others—unawares. I have little knowledge of what he was talking about. It is unfortunate that he appears to have little knowledge of what we are talking about, and I am unable to answer him.

I press amendment 72.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

[Interruption.]

Order, please. We need to hear the votes.

Amendments 73 and 74 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 35—Determination without application

Amendment 75 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

After section 35

Amendment 11 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

Section 36—Liability

Amendments 76 to 78 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 36A—Exclusion from overpayment liability

Amendment 79 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 133 moved—[Mark Griffin]

The question is, that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 92, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 133 disagreed to.

Amendment 134 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 134 disagreed to.

Amendment 135 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 92, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 135 disagreed to.

Amendment 136 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 136 disagreed to.

After section 37

I will not move my amendment 137.

Amendment 137 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 137 disagreed to.

After section 38

Amendment 80 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 146 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Section 39—Offence of trying to obtain assistance by deceit

Group 15 is on offences. Amendment 81, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 82 to 88.

I hope that members will be patient with me, as this is a complex aspect of the bill.

These amendments deal with sections 39 to 42 in chapter 5 of the bill, which set out the offences for benefit fraud. The bill describes the offences that can be committed by a person who provides false or misleading information that leads to an error in the determination of assistance. The consequences are set out regarding the levels of fine and custodial sentences that are available to the courts.

The sections also set out offences whereby a person causes another person to fail to notify a change in circumstances that results in a change in benefit entitlement and the same for individuals in an organisation who can be held responsible. Those are vital clauses to ensure that there is a zero-tolerance approach to benefit fraud, but we must make sure that those provisions do what they are intended to do, and do not criminalise an honest mistake.

I will set out my concerns. The policy memorandum says that

“The policy intention is not to criminalise genuine errors made by individuals”,

but it says that

“the provision has been ... framed to provide that it is sufficient”

in law

“that the person knew, or ought to have known”

that the error might lead to them receiving less assistance. 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 allows for the prosecution of those who have made a simple mistake. Justice Scotland highlighted that point in a briefing at stage 1. It highlighted that the offence in section 111A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is the most commonly used such offence in the Scottish courts. It will be immediately appreciated that significant penalties are imposed in relation to a failure to notify changes that affect entitlement under complex social security regulations. The issue of whether a couple are to be regarded as cohabiting is an example of the difficulties that the courts have to resolve.

Against that backdrop, the courts have interpreted the legislation as strictly requiring proof to the criminal standard of all the elements of the offence; in particular, the prosecution would be required 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; rather, it uses the term “knowingly”. Therefore, for cases of alleged fraud for reserved benefits, such as housing benefit, claimants will be prosecuted under the UK act, but for a devolved benefit, such as carers allowance, they will be prosecuted under the Social Security (Scotland) Bill with a different form of words.

My concern is about the drafting of those words. We prosecute in the courts day in and day out using the section that I have just outlined. Across the UK, £1.9 billion has been recovered from benefit fraud, so it works. It would have made more sense to use the same drafting as the UK legislation for the avoidance of any doubt. I want to ensure that the new provisions, which are drafted differently, do not prosecute people for genuine error.

The Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice Scotland and several other organisations still have concerns about these provisions. I have spent long hours—for which I am grateful to the minister’s officials—trying to understand the reasoning behind the wording in the bill. The policy memorandum draws a distinction between the criminal offence of error and the unintended error by an individual. It adds that the policy intention is not to criminalise genuine errors and it suggests that, when it is shown that an individual has misunderstood any element of the application and has made a genuine error, a prosecution will not follow—so that is good.

However, according to Justice Scotland, section 39 of the bill does not appear to specify that the person needs to know that the statement was misleading. That is not in line with the policy intention; it is overly broad, in the view of Justice Scotland, and it creates an offence that does not require criminal intent on the part of the accused and criminalises behaviour that is careless or negligent.

Section 40 creates an offence of failing to notify, which is punishable with up to five years in prison, if the person

“knew or ought to have known that the change might result in an individual ceasing to be entitled to assistance”.

Again, Justice Scotland is concerned that that

“is overbroad and has the potential to penalise conduct which has not ... been criminal”,

in relation to the circumstances as they might affect benefits.

I think that the Scottish Government and I are at one about the intention of sections 39 to 42. My concern is with the drafting of the provisions. I just think that it would have been clearer to use the same wording as in the UK statute, under which we prosecute in the courts day in and day out.

16:45  

I thank the minister for the letter that she issued to me on Monday following a conversation that I had with her officials, which helpfully sets out the Government’s intention in this regard. It mentions the defence of a reasonable excuse and says that it is not the intention to criminalise an honest mistake. I am prepared not to press my amendments, but I needed to outline my concerns on the record. If the minister is clear in her summing up that there is no intention in the framing and drafting of sections 39 to 42 to criminalise an honest mistake and that the defence of a reasonable excuse, which was inserted at stage 2, is to be proved on the balance of probabilities, I will be happy, as we are at one on the intentions of those sections.

I move amendment 81.

I reiterate the concerns about the amendments that I stated at stage 2. I have concerns with regard to the burden of proof, what prosecutors would be expected to prove and how that evidencing would be undertaken.

The argument about what a prosecutor would be required to prove if they had to prove that a person knew mystifies me, because the language that I propose is exactly the language of the UK statute. I referred to section 111A of the 1992 act, which says that the prosecutor must show exactly that. We prosecute on that basis in the Scottish courts and across the UK day in, day out, and £1.9 billion has been recovered. Why would that wording not be good enough for the bill?

I refer to the discussion at stage 2 about the concept of “knowingly” and evidencing whether false or misleading information was knowingly given. It is a legally problematic concept. Reassurances were given at stage 2 and in the letter from the minister that Pauline McNeill mentioned.

I acknowledge that Pauline McNeill has stated that she will not press her amendments if the minister gives further reassurance in summing up. I reiterate my point about the ability to prove in the courts whether false or misleading information has been given knowingly—the concept is legally problematic.

I lend the support of Liberal Democrats to Pauline McNeill’s amendments, which contain a welcome shift in language and recognise that genuine mistakes happen. If we are building a more humane social security system, we should not penalise people for genuine errors. However, if Pauline McNeill is satisfied by the assertions of the minister in summing up, those on the Liberal Democrat benches will be, too.

As has been said, the amendments in this group were rejected at stage 2, but they relate to an important issue, so I understand why Ms McNeill wishes to raise them again. Before I put our position on the record and make it clear what is in the bill, I can of course give Ms McNeill and indeed Mr Cole-Hamilton the assurance that it is our shared intent not to criminalise where an individual has made a genuine mistake or has a reasonable excuse. To be clear, the term “reasonable” is widely understood across our courts and justice system.

I remain firmly of the view that Ms McNeill’s amendments are unnecessary. Our policy is clear: we will treat people fairly and with dignity and respect. However, we cannot be naive. Social security fraud is a risk and public funds must be protected, not least so that they are available to give assistance to those who are genuinely entitled to it. Section 39 makes it an offence to provide false or misleading information with the intention of obtaining assistance to which the recipient is not entitled. The offence already requires intent so 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 that they should not receive, and the person has no reasonable excuse for the failure to notify. That means 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. Before a case even gets anywhere near a prosecutor, however, there will 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 will be taken into account before officials conclude the investigation and, when a genuine error has happened, the matter will rest there.

When there has been a genuine error, the fiscal service is unlikely to prosecute, because it applies a case marking test that asks whether prosecution would be in the public interest. Even if someone was prosecuted, having a reasonable excuse would mean that they would be exonerated.

Ms McNeill’s amendments to section 40 and section 41 risk making the offences so difficult to prosecute that nobody would take the risk of prosecution seriously. It would open the system to intentional fraud.

Finally, we come to section 42, which allows a senior figure in an organisation to be convicted of an offence that has been committed by the organisation if the criminality can be attributed to the official’s “connivance, consent, or neglect”. Amendment 88 would remove the neglect element. 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 therefore, why a company director should not be held personally responsible if he neglects his duties, turns a blind eye, and allows the company to commit social security fraud. A director in that situation should have a case to answer, so I do not support amendment 88.

All that being said, I recognise that agency staff must take a consistent approach in reporting cases for consideration for prosecution and I am happy to put on the record the fact 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. The code 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 other amendments in the group. I invite her not to move them and, if they are moved, I urge that they are not agreed to.

I have nothing more to add.

Amendment 81, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 40—Offence of failing to notify

Amendments 82 to 84 not moved.

Section 41—Offence of causing a failure to notify

Amendments 85 to 87 not moved.

Section 42—Individual culpability for offending by an organisation

Amendment 88 not moved.

Section 44—Code of practice on investigations

Amendment 89 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 44A—Duty to consider effects of inflation

We come to group 16. Amendment 90, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 91, 12 to 14 and 139 to 141.

Amendments 90 and 91 are technical amendments to the uprating 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. For a time, an older and a current rate might be 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 to 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. While 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 that part of the payment to bereaved families.

Amendments 139 to 141, 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, which is significantly more than the rate of inflation and represents an additional investment of more than £30 million per year. I estimate that, over the next five years, Mr Griffin’s amendments will cost a further £30 million that will need to be found from the Scottish budget. However, I am happy to make that commitment, in recognition of the vital role that carers play.

I move amendment 90.

If passed, this historic bill will successfully transition and deliver the 11 benefits that were devolved under the Scotland Act 2016, which will undoubtedly make many meaningful and important differences across our country. One such difference will be the delivery of funeral expense assistance, which will replace the UK Government’s funeral payment and provide critical financial support to people at a very difficult time.

Funeral costs have risen significantly over the past 10 years, which 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. I am aware that, working with stakeholders, the Scottish Government has already undertaken a number of actions to alleviate funeral costs, including measures in the fairer Scotland action plan and the funeral assistance plan. Therefore the delivery of funeral expense assistance under the new social security system has the potential to build on previous progress. An important way in which to enhance that would be to uprate funeral expense assistance for inflation in the future. Of course, that is not just my view, but that of many others, including Citizens Advice Scotland.

As drafted, the bill envisages uprating carers assistance, disability assistance and employment-injury assistance, all of which I very much welcome. If agreed to, my amendments 12 to 14 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 the critical financial support that I have already mentioned.

I believe that amendments 12 to 14 are important. I am grateful to the minister for supporting them and would welcome the support of other members.

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in group 16. We welcome the Government’s substantial movement on the issue. While it has always been the Government’s policy intention to provide uprating for disability assistance, until Christmas 2017 its position was that that uprating should not be in the bill. The movement is a welcome change and we want to support it and improve on what the Government has offered.

At stage 2, I sought to amend the Government’s amendment to afford carers the same protection as they enjoy under the UK system. I also raised a discrepancy relating to the carers supplement, in that the formula in section 47 would mean that ministers would pass on the UK Government’s benefit freeze to carers. In amendments 139 to 141, I seek to rectify that.

17:00  

The link to jobseekers allowance means that the supplement would be frozen. The minister would be required, as part of the uprating processes, to determine what the inflated value of the combined supplement and the underlying carers allowance should be and so ensure that the higher amount was paid. As I explained at stage 2, without that adjustment, the discrepancy means that the Scottish Government would save itself £5 million in 2019-20, while carers—just a year after that very welcome income boost, on which the Government is to be congratulated—would lose out by 13 per cent in real terms.

I welcome the minister’s support for the amendments, and that the Scottish ministers will take full control of the carers allowance in order to iron out that anomaly when the Government takes on full competence for the benefit.

The Scottish Greens will support all the amendments in group 16, but we regret that there is no commitment to uprate all benefits in line with relevant costs. We had, and I lost, that debate at stage 2, but we will continue to ask the Government to pay the closest attention to the issue. We simply cannot have a system that aims to be based on dignity and respect if people do not have enough money to have a reasonable standard of living.

I urge the Government to continue to look at the matter. If living costs increase and benefits are frozen, as they have been, that will make life incredibly difficult for people. The benefits freeze has taken £300 million out of the pockets of 700,000 of the poorest people in Scotland. The Social Security (Scotland) Bill should uprate benefits automatically.

I ask the minister to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 90.

I press amendment 90.

Amendment 90 agreed to.

Amendment 91 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 44B—Duty to uprate carer’s, disability and employment-injury assistance

Amendments 12 to 14 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

After section 46

We turn to group 17. Amendment 138, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 142 and 143.

Amendment 138 seeks to put in place a mechanism to top up child benefit by £5 a week and give effect to the “Give me five” campaign call. That follows the Government’s announcement before Easter that it will 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 overdue, but detail about the measure will be in short supply for more than a year. The children who are suffering in poverty now will have to wait until 2022 for that boost.

I will touch on some of the points that I made at stage 2, but it is clear to the chamber that there are few options open to the Government, and it is only the top-up of child benefit that can deliver in the immediate and short term.

The Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 confirmed that this Parliament refuses just to turn a blind eye; the time for acting on those sentiments is now. In the face of the transition to universal credit, the benefit freeze and further austerity, we can and should set a different path.

Inflation may be falling, but the weight on family weekly budgets is still too much to bear. Only yesterday, the Trussell Trust published new data showing that 170,000 people had to ask for a food parcel last year, which shows just how much families are struggling. With child benefit losing its value for another year, my proposal would assist more than 500,000 families who are struggling with the impact of a Tory Government. More importantly, 30,000 children would be lifted out of poverty instantly.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that, by the time of the next Holyrood elections, one in three children will be in poverty. The key to the “Give me five” campaign’s work is the recognition that the near universal uptake of and eligibility criteria for child benefit make it the most appealing option for having the most immediate impact.

In recommendation 23 of its report, the Poverty and Inequality Commission noted that the Government must consider

“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. The alternative of topping up child tax credit would require the Government to top up universal credit and income support in the medium term. Modelled impacts that are based on 100 per cent take-up are of no use, because 100 per cent take-up remains an impossibility in the medium term.

In addition to that complexity, the risk of endorsing the Tories’ shambolic universal credit system that the use of any such supplement would involve is enormous, and the Government itself has cautioned against it.

At stage 2, comments were made about my amendment on the issue cutting across the budget process. I said then—and I say again—that I and my Labour colleagues would happily ride roughshod over the Scottish Government’s budget if that would lift 30,000 children out of poverty, and I would do so every day of the week.

Until next year, at least, the parents of 200,000 or so children in poverty will have no idea when they will get the support that the Scottish Government now wants to commit. Amendment 138 is the only proposal on the table to lift 30,000 children out of poverty.

I move amendment 138.

The Liberal Democrats have a lot of sympathy with the motives behind the amendments in this group but, unfortunately, we cannot support them. We attended many of the stakeholder events that were held on the suggestions of the “Give me five” campaign, and we agree that universality has a place in the extension of benefits to vulnerable families.

However, our anxiety is about the taper towards the threshold at which child benefit is paid. If that represents the spectrum of need, we would far prefer that money to be concentrated at the sharper end of that taper. We think that there are better ways of doing what is intended, given the number of very affluent families that would receive such a benefit. Therefore, with regret, we cannot support the amendments in this group.

The Scottish Government supports the principle of universality when it comes to higher education. I welcome that. The Scottish Government supports the principle of universality when it comes to prescriptions. I welcome that. I cannot think of a more important area in which to support that principle than that of making sure that children in Scotland have enough money.

This Parliament is committed wholly to closing the attainment gap. Children who go to school who have not had the best breakfast and whose families struggle to heat their homes cannot attain to the level to which they might be expected to. Amendment 138 is an extremely important amendment and one that I whole-heartedly support, as do the Scottish Greens.

The Child Poverty Action Group tells us that in 1989 it was realised that child benefit 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, child benefit has been decreasing in value consistently since 2010. It is not worth what it used to be worth. All that we seek is the taking of a very sensible measure to restore some of that value.

I whole-heartedly support the give me five campaign, I whole-heartedly support amendment 138, and I ask colleagues across the chamber to do so, too.

The Scottish Government’s tackling child poverty delivery plan, which was published on 28 March this year, sets out a clear commitment on a new income supplement for low-income families to tackle child poverty.

Of course, I recognise the rationale behind the proposal to top up child benefit by £5 a week, but to deliver it would cost at least £200 million every year, 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 that are set out in the Poverty and Inequality Commission’s advice, which we asked for.

That is why I urge members to oppose the amendments. We want to target effectively children who are living in poverty and we will look at all measures for doing so, but the proposal to top up child benefit does not do that. The Institute for Public Policy Research conducted modelling earlier this year, and its clear conclusions, which are reflected in the Poverty and Inequality Commission’s advice, were that 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 give careful consideration to deliverability and to being able to get the money to those who need it as quickly as possible.

It is a false premise to put before the chamber the proposition that passing amendment 138 will instantly lead to a £5 top-up. 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 people. Mr Griffin may be happy to say that he would ride roughshod over the Scottish Government’s budget process, but 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 will ensure that funds are used to best effect to reach those families who are most in need. I urge members to oppose the amendments.

The point has been made repeatedly by members who oppose the method that is set out in my amendment 138 that there are better ways to spend the money, but what are those better ways? Where is the amendment that is going to lift children out of poverty today? Where is there a provision in the bill that stands up against a £5 uplift in child benefit? The arguments against the policy are that child benefit is universal and that not all the money would go to families in poverty. I do not receive child benefit for any of my children, and nor does any member of this Parliament, so it would not be completely universal. However, as Alison Johnstone pointed out, we do not hear any arguments against universality when we talk about tuition fees or prescription charges, so I would have expected the Government to be able to give whole-hearted support to my amendment, given its previous support for universal benefits.

The minister has also raised the issue of the low-income supplement, and I will welcome the debate on the policy choices when it comes. The minister may put an option on the table in two, three or four years’ time, but the option on the table right now is to increase child benefit by £5. There is no other option, and that option will lift 30,000 kids out of poverty right now. I ask members to support amendment 138.

The question is, that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 97, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 138 disagreed to.

Section 47—Carer’s allowance supplement

17:15  

Amendments 139 to 141 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.

Section 48—Power to repeal temporary provision

Amendment 142 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 96, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 142 disagreed to.

Amendment 143 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 96, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 143 disagreed to.

Section 48D—Agency arrangements for housing assistance

We turn to group 18. Amendment 92, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 93 and 119 to 122.

The amendments in the group are about housing assistance.

Section 48D already provides for regulations to be made to allow councils to deliver housing assistance. My amendments 92 and 93 would extend that power and allow councils also to 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 DWP’s announcement that it has abandoned its policy of denying support for housing costs to some 18 to 21-year-olds who receive universal credit. The DWP may well have dropped that policy because it failed to realise significant savings, but nonetheless I cautiously welcome that U-turn.

Amendments 119 to 122 will 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 it ever comes—that a UK Government drops either its bedroom tax policy or its benefit cap policy, or both.

To be clear, the amendments remove the duty on the Scottish Government to provide housing assistance to mitigate those DWP policies only if and for so long as the DWP is not pursuing them. I 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 past year in mitigating a policy that was always both 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 had been avoided.

I move amendment 92.

Amendment 92 agreed to.

Amendment 93 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

After section 48D

Amendment 132 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

After section 53

We turn to group 19. Amendment 144 is the only amendment in the group.

Amendment 144 seeks to place in law a requirement on ministers to bring forward regulations under section 30 of the Scotland Act 2016 that would ensure that payments of universal credit would be automatically split between both members of a couple, but allow an opt-out should a couple wish to retain joint payment. I am pleased that amendment 144 has achieved a broad coalition of support from organisations that include SCVO, One Parent Families Scotland, Advocard, the Poverty Alliance, Scottish Women’s Aid, Engender and the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers. Amendment 144 would transpose the restrictions included in the Scotland Act 2016 and require the regulations to follow a set policy objective to split payments automatically. Although split payments can be requested under the current system, that option is massively underused and underpublicised. Now the focus of the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons, split payments are getting the attention that they deserve.

Last month, the Equality and Human Rights Commission released research that identified that universal credit single household payment to couples had contributed to a

“drastic shift in income from women to men as a result of the introduction of Universal Credit.”

As I indicated at stage 2, the proposed policy would follow that proposed by the minister’s colleague Philippa Whitford, who is pursuing a private member’s bill at Westminster to split payments automatically. However, she was told just last week by the callous Tory Government that it does not support the proposal and that it is intent on maintaining the single payment mechanism in universal credit—a system that has been criticised by the United Nations.

In the consultation on social security, there was overwhelming support—from 99 per cent of organisations and 78 per cent of individuals—for universal credit payments to be split between the members of a household, and 74 per cent of all respondents believed that payments should be split automatically. That would aid gender equality in the Scottish social security system by promoting financial autonomy, and it would help to protect women and children from financial and domestic abuse. As much as I want it to, though, amendment 144 would not require ministers to rush to establish a split payments scheme and remove the timescale that was included at stage 2. The amendment rightly requires the minister to continue her consultation with the DWP, which is in itself a requirement of the power in the Scotland Act 2016.

In recent responses to questions, the minister said, a year after the cabinet secretary first promised progress in the area, that officials are discussing with the Department for Work and Pensions the feasibility and the operational and cost implications of the different policy options. To date, we have not been told of the progress of those meetings and discussions, so I would appreciate it if the minister could say when they started and what stage they are at, as DWP officials were unfortunately not able to do that when they were before the Social Security Committee.

I am thankful for the minister’s discussions with me on the matter of split payments. I am content that she, too, wants split payments to be made. I hope that she will support amendment 144 and give a precise commitment to split payments and to automatically helping women and their children.

I move amendment 144.

I support the introduction of automatic split payments. The situation that we have at the moment—of a joint payment being made, 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, in which 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 information technology systems, and financially viable and justifiable to the Scottish taxpayer. That 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 another, far more important reason for calling on the UK Government to fix the issue at source, and that is that domestic abuse does not stop at the border. It is an issue for all women, and the best outcome is not one in which the Scottish Government negotiates an exception from the rest of the UK, but one in which the UK Government fixes the problem at source for the whole of the UK.

For both those reasons—the complexity of negotiating an exception and the importance of the issue for women across the UK—I urge Mark Griffin and his colleagues to redouble their efforts to pressure their UK colleagues to call on the UK Government to fix this issue at source. They can do so not least by supporting the private member’s bill that my Ayrshire colleague Philippa Whitford MP published last month, which calls on the UK Government to make split payments the default. That would be the best outcome for women across the UK.

I am grateful, as are the other Liberal Democrat members, to Mark Griffin for lodging the very important amendment 144. I served for three years on the ministerial task force on violence against women, and I am absolutely committed to this policy shift, because financial dependence is used as a tool of coercive control in abusive relationships. The amendment is a very important step towards eroding the dominance that men who abuse their partners can have.

I am absolutely grateful to Mark Griffin for lodging amendment 144 and I assure him of the support of Liberal Democrat members.

I feel, sadly, that single household payments are more of the same thoughtless and mindless attacks on women that we see so often from Westminster. We know that 70 to 85 per cent of cuts have been targeted at women—that level of cuts cannot be accidental. Who, in this day and age, would introduce single household payments? It is a serious concern. There is a lot wrong with universal credit, and that is just another aspect of it that is not fit for the times in which we now live.

As Engender and other organisations that have contacted us on this important issue have pointed out, in 2013 the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women found that the universal credit single household payment

“poses risks of financial abuse for 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 the policy. I absolutely agree that the best thing that could happen is that we get rid of the system across the whole United Kingdom. However, how long will it take the United Kingdom Government to take that action? Although we have a devolved Government here, 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. Fundamental change is required, so I will be supporting amendment 144 for the Green Party.

I do not believe that there can be doubt of this Government’s commitment to using 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 it.

17:30  

The fact of the matter is that universal credit is a reserved benefit. Therefore, delivery of split payments to a household has to be negotiated with the DWP, because, at the end of the day, it is the DWP that will deliver them, or not. We continue to have discussions about the matter, but as members will be aware, not least those who are on the Social Security Committee, we had an agreement with the DWP about abolition of the bedroom tax at source and a date for that, but because of pressure to meet other priorities that it considered to be more important, the DWP has moved that date back a year. I am prepared to support amendment 144, but I draw members’ attention to that example because they need to be crystal clear that, although I can introduce regulations, they cannot be enacted without the DWP’s agreement. That negotiation is complicated and technical, and it will involve this Government paying the DWP to deliver the split household payment.

I concur completely with what my colleague Ruth Maguire said: not only does domestic abuse not stop at the border, but the way to resolve the matter properly is to continue to press the UK Government on it. All the SNP members in the House of Commons, those on the Labour benches and others should come together and press the UK Government to introduce the measure for the whole United Kingdom, from which our members and the women in this country will benefit.

In the meantime, we will continue our discussions with the DWP and I will support amendment 144, but I want members to be absolutely clear that it is not at our hand to deliver what is being asked for. That is a consequence of the Scotland Act 2016 that is supported by some members here who would not like to see this Government have any more powers. Of course, if we had all the powers over social security, we would not need to have this debate at all.

In pressing amendment 144, I thank members who have spoken in support of it. I give Ms Maguire an absolute assurance that members of the Labour Party, in this chamber and in Westminster, will redouble their efforts to see the solution that we are proposing being implemented across the whole UK as the ideal solution. However, in the absence of any movement from a seemingly uncaring Tory Government, which wishes to perpetuate a system in which women are put at risk of financial domestic abuse, it is right that we take what action we can here. I ask all members to support my amendment 144 and to redouble their efforts to see split payments being implemented across the whole UK.

Amendment 144 agreed to.

Section 55—Regulation-making powers

Amendment 15 moved—[Mark Griffin]—and agreed to.

Amendments 94 and 95 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 147 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendment 96, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 97, 99 to 102, 16 and 145.

Amendments 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 those changes in its response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee 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 16, in the name of Pauline McNeill, removes the ability of the commission to decide that there are types of proposal that it does not need to consider. During stage 2, I said that the Scottish Government is happy to remove that power from the bill, and I am content to support Ms McNeill’s amendment.

Amendment 101, in the name of Adam Tomkins, aims to ensure that 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 amendment 101, just as I am happy to support amendment 102, which is also in Adam Tomkins’s name.

Amendment 145, in the name of Pauline McNeill, proposes that, with the sole exceptions of commencement and ancillary regulations, all regulations made under the bill, no matter how minor, should be subject to additional scrutiny by the commission. I oppose that position.

It is odd that Ms McNeill is the person to lodge such an amendment. During stage 2, she was particularly anxious that the commission should not be made overmighty, relative to the Parliament, yet the amendment that she has lodged reflects a view that was expressed by the Child Poverty Action Group that any regulations that are 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 position.

To be clear, regulations that the bill does not require be put to the commission will still be scrutinised by Parliament, in most cases through the affirmative procedure.

The purpose of having a commission of experts on social security is so that, among other things, 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 not necessarily mean that they raise issues that require social security expertise. For example, the issues that will be covered by regulations made under section 43, which confer investigatory powers, are justice matters, and regulations made under subsections (2) and (5) of section 48C are about data sharing. Parliament is well able to scrutinise regulations on those matters and a wide range of others; it has managed to do so for coming up to 20 years. If Parliament particularly wants the commission’s help, the bill allows it to ask for a report. That is as it should be—Parliament is in control and can take advice from whomever it wants. Therefore, I urge members not to support amendment 145.

I move amendment 96.

I am grateful to the minister for her support for amendments 101 and 102, in my name. I support all the amendments in the group, except for amendment 145. The reasons why the Conservatives do not support amendment 145 are identical to those just articulated by the minister.

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, overpayment and fraud—that do not need to be referred to the new commission. Amendment 145 would place 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, and the commission then may or may not decide to prepare a report.

Amendment 145 would establish a light-touch scrutiny process that would allow for expert independent scrutiny of often complex secondary legislation that has the potential to impact individual rights and entitlements as well as experience of the Scottish social security system. The commission’s discretion as to whether a report is necessary would ensure that scrutiny is provided in an appropriate way without encroaching unnecessarily on the Scottish Parliament’s time or the time and resources of the commission.

The areas that would be affected by amendment 145 and which are not covered currently are: the form of applications; the functions of the commission itself; the period for redetermination of an application; the time period in which the Scottish ministers may make a determination; rules around lifetime awards; automatic payments; investigation-making powers—particularly powers to enter and search as well as powers to create offences; top-up benefits and all the rules around them; carers supplement and who is a qualifying person; power to repeal carers supplement; information sharing and the naming of new persons with whom information can be shared; discretionary housing payment rules; who the commission can extract relevant information from; and the numbers that make up the commission.

That is quite a long list of issues that, as the bill stands, will not require to go to the commission and on which, on balance, I thought that the commission should have the opportunity to prepare a report, should it wish to do so.

I will be brief and concentrate on amendment 145.

The presumption behind amendment 145 is that no commission scrutiny equals no scrutiny at all. That is not the case. This Parliament has a critical role in scrutiny, and over the years it has developed expertise in that regard. Moreover, the bill gives Parliament the power to ask the commission for advice if it wishes to do so. I urge members not to support amendment 145. The proposed approach will lead to unnecessary delay in some instances when we want to move quickly on regulations—and I am sure that Parliament will support us on that—but it will always be for this Parliament to determine whether regulations are approved or not.

Amendment 96 agreed to.

Amendments 97 to 100 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Section 55A—Further procedure for regulations about assistance

Amendments 101 and 102 moved—[Adam Tomkins]—and agreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.

After section 55B

Amendment 145 moved—[Pauline McNeill].

The question is, that amendment 145 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 91, Amendments 0.

Amendment 145 disagreed to.

Section 56—Commencement

Amendment 103 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule A1—Scottish Commission on Social Security

Amendment 104 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].

Amendment 104A moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 104, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1—Carer’s assistance regulations

Amendment 105 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2—Cold-spell heating assistance regulations

Amendment 106 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule 3—Winter heating assistance regulations

Amendments 107 to 110 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule 4—Disability assistance regulations

Amendment 111 not moved.

Amendment 148 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Amendments 112 to 114 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule 5—Early years assistance regulations

Amendment 115 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule 6—Employment-injury assistance regulations

Amendments 116 and 117 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule 7—Funeral expense assistance regulations

Amendment 118 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

Schedule 8—Housing assistance regulations

Amendments 119 to 123 moved—[Jeane Freeman]—and agreed to.

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system in Scotland. In my view, no provision of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill does anything of the sort, so the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

I propose that we take a short break before the debate stage. We will resume in eight minutes’ time.

17:47 Meeting suspended.  

17:56 On resuming—