Scottish Parliament, 25 April 2018

332 contributions from 42 members. The official report.

Police Scotland and British Transport Police Merger

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the timetable of the merger between Police Scotland and the British Transport Police. (S5O-01997)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As set out in the letter of 20 February 2018 from the Minister for Transport and the Islands to the Justice Committee, the joint work carried out by Police Scotland and the British Transport Police Authority reviewed progress on operational matters at a workshop in February 2018 and concluded that a number of significant issues remained to be resolved.

As a result of that assessment, the joint programme board was advised that further time was needed to deliver integration most effectively and safely for railway passengers, staff and officers. Ministers accepted that advice, and that a replanning exercise would take place to establish a new delivery date. That reflects the importance that the Government places on achieving a safe, effective and smooth transition that delivers continuity of service for rail users and staff. The next joint programme board meeting will be held in Edinburgh on 8 May.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

A paper written by the British Transport Police Federation that was reported on last week found that the merger of the BTP into Police Scotland not only risks creating life-threatening safety issues, but could cost between £225,000 and £500,000 per officer. Does the cabinet secretary agree with those costings? If not, what has the Government estimated that the cost per officer of the merger will be?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The claim that Mary Fee has made reference to—that it could cost up to £500,000 per transfer of officer, including pensions—is simply inaccurate. It does not take account of the fact that pension liabilities are met by assets and that the schemes are currently fully funded. Actuarial advice that was shared with the Scottish Police Authority in October last year states that the pension liabilities are about £97 million and are balanced by £99 million of pension fund assets. We do not recognise the figures that Mary Fee quoted, but I recognise that the British Transport Police Federation opposes the integration of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Following on from Mary Fee’s question, has the Scottish Government set aside any additional budget, at the point of delay, to address some of the concerns that were raised by the British Transport Police Federation and others?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

For the reasons that I have just outlined to Mary Fee, we do not recognise the figures that the BTPF has produced and we have set out the reasons for that. We also made it very clear that the funding for the work that is now being carried out on the integration programme is being met by through the police reform budget, which is used for police reform measures in Scotland.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the delay is frustrating for the public, who do not understand why there should be one police force for a railway platform and a separate one for a road a few yards away? The sooner that we can make the system simpler, the better.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise the frustrations that John Mason expressed, and I assure him that we are fully committed to ensuring that the British Transport Police is integrated into Police Scotland. Progress has been made in a number of very important areas of the integration programme, including a significant amount of work that has been undertaken over the past nine months.

Alongside that, work is now being done as part of the reprogramming exercise to ensure that there are clear timelines for the completion of the outstanding work. I reassure all members that the travelling public continue to receive a service from the British Transport Police, with Police Scotland, as and when necessary, supporting its BTP colleagues when incidents occur.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Contrary to what Mr Mason just said, does the cabinet secretary not accept that there are still serious concerns about the merger, especially on issues relating to information and communications technology infrastructure? Is it not about time that the cabinet secretary listened to experts and went back to the drawing board on this very unpopular merger?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As Jamie Greene will recognise, the merger of the BTP into Police Scotland was approved and agreed by a majority in this Parliament. I recognise that his party plans to move to a national infrastructure policing unit with the integration of the BTP with the Ministry of Defence Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which would completely abolish the BTP. My concerns about that approach is that I suspect that it would largely be an armed force, given the nature of the work that is carried out by the officers of the civil nuclear and Ministry of Defence police services.

I recognise that there are those with concerns about the integration plans that we have in Scotland. The replanning exercise is an important element in making sure that the areas of work that still have to be carried out are completed before full integration takes place, and the exercise will identify a timeline for taking that forward.

I do not share Jamie Greene’s view that we should abolish the BTP and move it into a national infrastructure policing division, as his party proposed in the previous election and as previously mooted by the United Kingdom Government. That is clearly the UK Government’s policy at the present time.

Knife Crime (Police Scotland Information Sharing)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether Police Scotland has shared its experience of tackling knife crime with the Metropolitan Police. (S5O-01998)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Police Scotland routinely works in collaboration with other forces. It recently hosted a visit from the Metropolitan Police to explore issues of common interest, which included a discussion of efforts to reduce violence and knife crime. As Kenneth Gibson knows, those are areas in which Scotland continues to face challenges, but, through our public health approach, has made significant progress.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Under this Scottish National Party Government, the incidence of knife crime has fallen by 69 per cent in a decade, from 10,110 incidents to 3,111 incidents—there has been an even steeper fall of 77 per cent in my area of North Ayrshire—the figure having previously doubled under the then Labour-Lib Dem Administration. Does the justice secretary agree that having 6 per cent more police officers on the streets under the SNP, compared with a 17 per cent fall in numbers in England under the Tories, has made a difference? Given the appalling tragedy of 39 young people being stabbed to death in London so far this year, what further advice can the cabinet secretary give on how best to tackle that scourge?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I remind members that I quite like short questions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Kenneth Gibson is right to highlight the fact that the number of crimes involving the handling of offensive weapons has significantly reduced in Scotland since 2006-07. However, we know about the devastating consequences that can come from knife crimes in our communities and we can in no way afford to be complacent about the progress that we have made. In my view, one knife crime will always be one too many.

Alongside the tough enforcement action that we have taken in our approach to tackling knife crime, we have had a firm focus on prevention and early intervention, which has no doubt played a significant role in helping to reduce knife crime in Scotland, including the reduction in Kenneth Gibson’s constituency, which he made reference to.

We have invested significantly in the national violence reduction unit, which has allowed us to make sure that there is a clear focus on violence prevention. That has included the development of the medics against violence prevention programme, which is being delivered in some of our schools in Scotland, and the mentors in violence prevention programme, which is now being delivered in schools around the country to teach young people about the risks and dangers of violent crime, promote healthy relationships and help them keep safe.

Alongside that, we have the “No knives, better lives” youth engagement programme, which specifically aims to reduce the incidence of violence and knife-carrying among young people. That is being delivered in 24 of our local authorities and is on track to be delivered in all 32 local authority areas this year.

We have made good progress in the past 10 years, and I assure members that we are absolutely focused on continuing to bear down on violence and, in particular, on knife crime. We have reaped the benefits of our prevention approach in recent years and we will continue to invest in that in the years to come.

Death by Driving (Sentencing Guidelines)

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what progress the Scottish Sentencing Council is making with guidelines on sentencing in relation to deaths caused by driving. (S5O-01999)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish Sentencing Council is an independent body. However, my officials have been in touch with the council in connection with this parliamentary question, and I can confirm that the council has advised that a sub-committee has been established to consider the development of the guidance in relation to deaths by driving. The sub-committee will be responsible for the development of the guidelines and will consider the timing for its development, what research will be needed and what data is currently held.

This area of law is reserved. It is worth noting that the United Kingdom Government consulted in 2016 on changes to the maximum penalties in cases of death by driving, and announced in October 2017 that legislation would be introduced to increase the maximum penalties for certain death-by-driving offences. The announcement can be expected to impact on the timing for development of guidelines by the Scottish Sentencing Council.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the tragic case of my constituent William Murray, who was killed as a result of a motorbike accident in 2013. The other person who was involved was convicted of careless driving, given a community sentence and banned from driving for five years, but flouted the ban last November and was given another community sentence.

What assurance can be given to William Murray’s family, and to other families, that the justice system will take full account of previous convictions, and recommend custodial sentences for repeat offenders in any new sentencing guidelines?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am aware of that case, having met Willie Coffey to discuss the matter. The member will understand that I am not able to comment on individual cases.

Members will appreciate that the courts, when it comes to making decisions on sentencing, take into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the fact that a person is a repeat offender. In all cases such decisions are, of course, for the court to make, informed by the information that is provided to it by the prosecution and the defence.

I appreciate why victims and their families are keen to understand how sentencing decisions are made and why a court has made a particular determination, which is why transparency in sentencing is important. That is why we established the Scottish Sentencing Council, whose work will be important in encouraging greater transparency around sentencing decisions.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The publication this autumn of sentencing guidelines for the first time represents an opportunity to improve public understanding of sentencing and how it works. I recognise the independence of the Scottish Sentencing Council. What representations has the Government made to the Sentencing Council, in order to ensure that its guidelines lead to transparent and understandable sentencing that reflects the seriousness of the crime?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As Daniel Johnson said, the Scottish Sentencing Council is an independent body and is responsible for taking forward such matters in the manner that it regards as being most appropriate. The Sentencing Council consults the Scottish Government on its draft business programme, but the content of the programme is a matter for the council.

Once the Sentencing Council has completed the work to establish new sentencing guidelines, it will be for the council to determine how it takes the matter forward. I expect it to do so in partnership with the judiciary, including the Lord President, in order to ensure that sentencers are aware of the new guidelines, when they have been implemented. The Sentencing Council will have the support of the Judicial Institute for Scotland, which is responsible for training our sentencers.

Decisions on taking the guidelines forward are, rightly, a matter for the Sentencing Council, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to start intervening in relation to how the council takes forward its work and how, when the work is completed, it disseminates the information.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Sentencing Council was formed in October 2015, two and a half years ago. Guidelines on death by driving were promised in October 2016, one and a half years ago, but only now are we seeing action.

The Scottish National Party also promised action to crack down on drug driving last September, after pressure from the Scottish Conservatives. Will the justice secretary say what progress has been made?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is clear that Liam Kerr does not understand how the Scottish Sentencing Council operates. It is an independent body, which is headed up by the Lord Justice Clerk, with a range of experts appointed to it to support the work of drafting guidelines for our courts and sentencers.

The member might want to reflect on how the

Sentencing Council operates.

On drug driving, Liam Kerr might not be aware—given that he was not a member of Parliament when the decision was made—that we made a decision, on the basis of recommendations on drink and drug driving, on our priorities in adjusting the drink-driving limit and introducing new provisions on drug driving. The United Kingdom Government chose not to lower the drink-driving limit in the way that we did. Following our change, we have the lowest drink-driving limit in the UK, which we have put in place in order to promote safety on our roads.

We said at that time that, once that work had been completed and the approach had been embedded operationally in Police Scotland, we would turn to the introduction of a drug-driving test. That is exactly what has now been taken forward, and the work is being undertaken in partnership with Police Scotland. Once that work has been completed, Scotland will have the most robust drink-driving and drug-driving limits in the whole UK.

I hope that that helps Liam Kerr with regard to his understanding of what was previously agreed in Parliament and the approach that we are taking. We are making important progress in ensuring that roads in Scotland are as safe as possible from people who, too often, simply ignore the safety risks that are associated with drink driving and drug driving.

Rape and Sexual Violence Cases (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s Prosecution Policy)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its response to the concerns raised by Rape Crisis Scotland and others regarding the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s changes to prosecution policy in cases of rape and sexual violence. (S5O-02000)

The Solicitor General for Scotland (Alison Di Rollo)

The Lord Advocate and I had a helpful and constructive meeting with Rape Crisis Scotland on 19 April and have committed to work with it to provide reassurance in relation to how the policy will work in practice and to ensure that victims can be given accurate information in that regard. We confirmed that the focus of the Crown’s revised policy is not to compel rape complainers to testify. Its focus is to ensure that the burden of prosecutorial decision making properly lies with the Crown and to ensure that decisions are made after the most careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances.

The Crown is committed to doing all that it can to prevent violence against women and girls and to protect the public from serious sexual violence. As prosecutors, we know only too well and understand the challenges that the criminal justice system can present for complainers in rape cases. That is why the Crown continues to work with others to address features of the system that contribute to witness attrition.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I welcome the on-going work with Rape Crisis Scotland, and I am sure that many others in the chamber will welcome it, too.

Is it the case that the Crown would not take action against any complainer who failed to give evidence after a warrant was issued? If that is the case, can the Scottish Government give me, Rape Crisis Scotland and others an assurance that no rape complainer will be jailed if they are unable to give evidence, even in a case in which a warrant has been issued?

The Solicitor General for Scotland

We can never exclude the possibility that there could be circumstances in which a witness warrant might be sought if a complainer refused to attend at court when lawfully cited. Although we accept that, we expect that that would and could arise only in the most exceptional of circumstances, which, I might say, have not arisen in the past 10 years in which I have been prosecuting rape in the High Court, in my time as a law officer or, indeed, since the policy was clarified on 12 March.

Should that issue ever arise, before any decision were taken about the appropriateness of seeking a warrant in the first place, very careful assessment would be made and very careful consideration would be given by an experienced prosecutor to all the relevant factors in that individual case: the circumstances of the complainer, her vulnerabilities, the nature and reasons for her reluctance and, crucially, the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence and the nature of the offender.

Only after considering all those circumstances will any decision be taken, and I should say that such an assessment will be one of many that is conducted throughout the entire process.

We will take careful account of the risks of not proceeding against a particularly dangerous accused. However, the complainer’s views, welfare and interests are at the heart of the Crown’s prosecution policy in relation to reluctant complainers. The policy underlines the importance of exploring the reasons for such reluctance and of working, along with other agencies, to address such concerns where we can, in order to re-engage with and support that witness.

In practice, all of that means that there will continue to be cases in which, taking account of all the relevant circumstances, the right thing to do is not to take proceedings or to discontinue them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have managed to get only to question 4, but I will take two brief supplementaries. I say to the entire chamber that it is important that questions are short and that answers are succinct, too. I appreciate that one has to be very careful in the answers that one gives, particularly those that relate to justice issues. However, we have reached only question 4. I ask those who have spoken in the chamber today to look at the time that they have been on their feet because, next time I am in the chair, I will intervene if answers, as well as questions, are too long, in order that other members have time to speak. Reaching only question 4 is not good enough, in my book.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

What further work is being undertaken to support rape victims during the court process, with specific regard to the length of time that it takes for cases to get to trial and the number of delays that victims face?

The Solicitor General for Scotland

A lot of work is going on, most notably on the reduction of the pre-petition workload, which contributes to a delay in the journey time from report to trial. We have reduced the number of such cases from 700 in 2016 to 200 today. We continue to act directly on feedback from Rape Crisis Scotland on the lived experience of complainers, and we have changed our practices already in that regard. We will continue to work with others in the system to address the system-wide features that contribute to delay and the other circumstances that contribute to reluctance and attrition.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the Solicitor General confirm how many rape victims have applied for legal aid and how many have had their applications accepted, which can help them oppose the disclosure of sensitive medical records? What advice does the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service give to such victims to show them that that option is available?

The Solicitor General for Scotland

I do not know the numbers, but advice is given in that regard.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I apologise to the five members who have not been called. I trust that I will not need to repeat my warning. If there are very long answers, I cannot call members to ask supplementaries, and I do not want to cut out supplementaries on important questions. My advice—or telling off—pertains to the next set of questions, too.

EventScotland (Funding)

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how much funding EventScotland will receive in the current financial year. (S5O-02007)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

EventScotland is part of VisitScotland’s events directorate and, as such, it does not receive direct grant-in-aid funding from the Scottish Government. Its funding is an operational decision for the VisitScotland board. I will ask VisitScotland’s chief executive to write to the member with the details once the funding for 2018-19 has been agreed by the VisitScotland board. I can tell Mr MacDonald that EventScotland was allocated £9.3 million in 2017-18 .

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I welcome this year’s funding. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the established motorsport event the Bo’ness revival classic car show and hill climb, which is held annually in my constituency. Over the past three years, it has received funding from EventScotland’s national events programme, but there is a maximum limit of three awards from that fund. Is there any possibility of EventScotland relaxing the three-year rule on a discretionary basis to allow continued funding for events such as the Bo’ness hill climb?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am aware of the Bo’ness revival classic car show and hill climb, which is an important event. Whether to relax the three-year limit on funding would be a decision for VisitScotland. If that event, or any others, received a fourth year’s funding, less funding would be available for new events. However, I understand that the chairman of the Bo’ness hill climb had a productive meeting with VisitScotland on Monday and that VisitScotland will continue to provide non-funding support and advice to the event to help it develop a more sustainable commercial business for the future.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

What percentage of funding will be allocated to events that will encourage diversity?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

If Rachael Hamilton was listening to my very first answer, she will be aware that the Scottish Government does not provide direct grant in aid to EventScotland. Decisions about EventScotland, distribution and, indeed, which organisations are promoting diversity will be for the VisitScotland board to make. However, I will ask VisitScotland to advise the member once it makes those decisions.

International Development Fund

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what scope there is through its international development fund to support projects that are not in its four partner countries, Malawi, Rwanda, Zambia and Pakistan. (S5O-02008)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Our new international development strategy, which was published in 2016, focuses our work—as Ivan McKee said—on four partner countries with which we have strong historical and contemporary links to ensure that our £10 million international development fund has the greatest impact. Scottish organisations working in any country whose human development scores medium or low on the current United Nations human development index are eligible to apply to our small grants programme for feasibility or capacity-building grants of up to £10,000.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I agree with the strategy of focusing on four countries to ensure maximum impact. However, retaining flexibility to fund projects in other countries enables us to respond to specific needs as they arise and provide support. As the minister will be aware, I recently visited Palestine—a country that is badly in need of development support. Will the minister meet me to discuss specific projects in the occupied west bank that would benefit from some limited Scottish Government funding support?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I am more than happy to meet Ivan McKee to hear the concerns that he wishes to raise around that issue. I will mention in passing that in the past we have provided one-off humanitarian funding for Gaza. The Scottish Government also sought to be helpful to firefighters in Scotland who were seeking to make sure that a fire engine made its way to Palestine to assist people in that part of the world.

Creative Scotland (Head of Screen Unit)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Creative Scotland regarding the appointment of the head of the new screen unit. (S5O-02009)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The recruitment of the executive director, screen and creative enterprise, is a matter for Creative Scotland. Creative Scotland regularly updates the Scottish Government about progress with the screen unit, including on recruitment, at project board and screen committee meetings, and at its routine meetings with sponsor department officials. I am also updated in meetings with Creative Scotland. Creative Scotland has invited the Scottish Government director for culture, tourism and major events to sit on the selection panel.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary commit to regular meetings and will she report back to the chamber on how those meetings go?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I have regular meetings with Creative Scotland and my communication to parliamentarians is normally via the convener of the relevant committee. On 8 March, there was a letter from Creative Scotland to the

Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committe

e to ensure that the committee was aware of developments and progress. If the member has a particular interest in following this, I suggest that he look at the papers for that committee, as they are open to every parliamentarian to read.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the

Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the screen sector, including scrutiny of the new screen unit. Is she confident that the governance arrangements under the head of the new screen unit, who will work under Creative Scotland, are appropriate for meeting the specific needs of this sector?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Yes, I am. In the letter that went to the

Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committe

e, and in my correspondence to the committee, it was set out that it is crucial that the Creative Scotland board members who are appointed have screen experience. Those adverts are about to go out. Lead members of the screen sector—very respected people from within the screen sector—will be part of the governance arrangement as well. That is something that has given confidence to me and to people in the screen sector.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the breathless Bob Doris, who has arrived just in time to ask question 4.

Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn (Built Heritage)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

4. Presiding Officer, I apologise for getting my timings wrong. I know that that is my responsibility.

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports built heritage in the Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency. (S5O-02010)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government supports built heritage across our communities through the lead public body, Historic Environment Scotland. Maryhill burgh halls were restored in 2012 with help from public funds awarded by the former Historic Scotland and the Scottish Government.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Springburn has been blighted by the loss of a number of buildings of heritage over the years. The A-listed winter gardens in Springburn park remain a wonderful asset, despite being on the buildings at risk register. The Springburn Winter Gardens Trust is making an ambitious large-scale Heritage Lottery Fund bid to save and repurpose the winter gardens for future generations, which is a defining moment for the project’s future. Will the cabinet secretary offer her best wishes for the bid, and can I extend an invitation to her to visit the winter gardens to hear more about those ambitious plans?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I will certainly provide my best wishes for the local trust that is looking at the A-listed glasshouse in

Springburn park’s winter gardens. I am pleased that Historic Environment Scotland has maintained the repair grant scheme funding to provide £14.5 million for a further year from the Scottish Government. The Glasgow City Heritage Trust can help to fund such organisations, too.

I am very interested in our historic heritage in all parts of Scotland and, should my diary provide, I would be very willing to visit Springburn to see what is happening there.

Support for Participation in Music

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

5. I am obliged to inform members that the First Minister has appointed me as parliamentary liaison officer to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs. I further wish to refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, specifically to my membership of the Musicians Union.

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports participation in music. (S5O-02011)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government supports participation in music in many different ways. Its long-standing investment of £109 million since 2007 in the youth music initiative has made a huge impact, helping young people in all 32 local authorities to access music-making opportunities and helping to ensure that every pupil is offered a year’s free music tuition by the end of primary 6. A further £9 million of funding has been allocated to the initiative in 2018-19.

The Government is providing £2.5 million to Sistema Scotland, as part of a four-year funding package, in communities in Stirling, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee; investing £22.5 million this year in its national performing companies, which all have music content within their programmes and outreach programme; and providing £10 million towards the new Edinburgh IMPACT—International Music and Performing Arts Charitable Trust Scotland—performance venue, which will provide a home for the Scottish Chamber Orchestra.

Creative Scotland works with a range of partners to ensure that people have the opportunity to participate in music. The recently announced regular funding network includes strong support for all music genres from contemporary to jazz, classical and traditional.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Many people’s first experiences of participation in music occur in school. Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of many musicians that children and young people will lose out on opportunities to participate in music making if some local authorities continue to reduce instrumental teaching services and to increase tuition charges?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am very concerned abut the decisions by some local authorities to cut access to instrumental music tuition, particularly at secondary level. The Deputy First Minister shares my concerns. I have asked Scottish Government culture officials to work with education officials—while respecting the autonomy and responsibility of local councils—to assess the impact and to identify ways of working with key stakeholders to ensure that we have vibrant youth music tuition provision in the future to inspire the many young people who currently benefit from it.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary share the concern about the proposals in West Lothian to cut certain instruments from free music tuition and to charge for tuition, which could be to the detriment of disadvantaged children? West Lothian Council is blaming the Scottish Government budget cuts.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As Gordon Lindhurst will be aware, local government as a whole in Scotland has had a real-terms budget increase. West Lothian Council, in particular, has had a budget increase. I am familiar with the situation there, because my constituency is Linlithgow. It is shocking that a county that has been championed across Scotland and regarded as providing some of the best music tuition would contemplate abolishing strings and percussion tuition. After the intervention of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, who identified that children and young people had not even been consulted about provision, the council is now looking at that again. I urge the council to do so seriously. The issue is not just that the reputation of West Lothian Council as a music-making champion is severely at risk; it is about opportunities for young people in my constituency and across West Lothian.

Historic Battlefields (Preservation)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what work is being done to ensure that historic battlefields are preserved. (S5O-02012)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Historic Environment Scotland has a statutory duty to compile and maintain an inventory of historic battlefields of national importance. The inclusion of a battlefield on the inventory means that particular consideration must be given to any impact on the site of any development or activity on it. The effect of a proposed development on inventory battlefields is a material consideration in the planning system. Scottish planning policy sets out the matters that planning authorities should consider in determining planning applications relating to historic battlefields, including protecting, conserving and enhancing their key landscape characteristics and special qualities.

A further layer of scrutiny is provided by a planning direction from 2015, which sets out when ministers have to be notified over planning proposals affecting historic battlefields. Where development is not within the planning system, for example in forestry or trunk roads proposals, Historic Environment Scotland’s policy statement sets out that public bodies should ensure that nationally important battlefields are given consideration in their plans.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that very comprehensive response. She will know that the success of the “Outlander” books and TV series has caused a renewed interest in the Jacobite period yet, at the same time, two important Jacobite battle sites are being threatened by development. One of those sites is Culloden, and the other is Killiecrankie, in the area that I represent, where plans by Transport Scotland to extend the A9 dual carriageway to the south would cover the most sensitive part of the battle site, where most of the casualties were incurred. That is particularly unfortunate, as there is a viable alternative to extend the A9 to the north side with a lesser impact. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, if the plans at Killiecrankie go ahead, the protections that she has just outlined in her answer will be exposed as worthless?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am aware of those two developments. In relation to the A9, the Scottish Government is pursuing that development, which will make a transformational difference to transport between Inverness and the south. The member will be aware that, in the particular instance that he mentions, the Scottish ministers will be called on to determine the case in due course. It is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on the proposals or the objections that have been raised. However, he will be aware that Historic Environment Scotland, as part of the process that I outlined in my original answer, has already made known its concerns about the issue.

Orkney and Shetland (Tourism)

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage more tourists to visit Orkney and Shetland. (S5O-02013)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government fully recognises the importance of tourism to the economies of both Orkney and Shetland. The numerous attractions of our northern isles, for example the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization sites of neolithic Orkney and Jarlshof on Shetland, are actively promoted by VisitScotland through its many marketing campaigns. VisitScotland also directly supports the sector to ensure that the potential from tourism is maximised. Other public bodies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Historic Environment Scotland also play a key role, as does Scottish Natural Heritage, in promoting and enhancing the area’s natural environment.

In recognition of the fact that the popularity of sites on the islands and in other rural areas brings challenges to public infrastructure, last year we launched the rural tourism infrastructure fund to address those issues. One of the fund’s pilots, which was announced last month, involved £80,000 towards car parking at the stones of Stenness, providing much-needed facilities at a popular neolithic site.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In the Scottish National Party’s 2016 manifesto, it pledged to reduce ferry fares on services to Orkney and Shetland

and, last year, the minister stated that the fare reductions would be

“rolled out in the first half of 2018”,

saving visitors up to £100. With only 10 weeks until that timeframe ends, surely the Government has some plan in place, or is that just another SNP broken promise?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I politely point out to the member that I am the tourism secretary, not the transport minister. I reassure the member that the transport minister is actively involved in the issue and I am sure that he would be more than happy to update the member appropriately. However, the member should take the opportunity of tourism questions to champion Orkney and Shetland and the wonderful sites that they have instead of complaining about an issue on which he knows I cannot answer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for giving a tour de force on the tourist attractions in my constituency as well as in Shetland. Will she join me in impressing on her colleague the transport minister, who will be in Orkney and Shetland this Friday and Saturday, the need for him to come armed with a timeframe for the delivery of the road equivalent tariff, which has been promised for our lifeline ferry services?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We have a very proactive and committed Minister for Transport and the Islands, who takes every opportunity to ensure that departments across Government know of the importance of transport links and tourism to the island economies. As I have just said in response to the previous question, I am sure that the minister will keep us updated as appropriate. So, for the second time today, I can say that the transport minister is actively engaged with the issue and will communicate at the appropriate time as he has responsibility for ferries.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that that concludes portfolio questions on culture and tourism. I apologise to the three members whom I was unable to call, but that was a darn sight better than the previous questions session. I thank members for their short questions and answers.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-011826, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 5: 1 hour

Groups 6 to 8: 1 hour 25 minutes

Groups 9 to 12: 2 hours 15 minutes

Groups 13 to 16: 3 hours 15 minutes

Groups 17 to 20: 4 hours.—[

Joe FitzPatrick

.]

Motion agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Before we move on to the bill, members will be aware that British Sign Language interpreters are present in the chamber and will be interpreting this afternoon’s business. I am sure that you will join me in welcoming them today. [

Applause

.]

Social Security (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.

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.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. That was admirable brevity.

I call Jackie Baillie to wind up.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

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.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

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.

The Presiding Officer

I call Pauline McNeill to wind up on the group.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

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.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

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.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

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.

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.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

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.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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 Presiding Officer

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

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.

The Presiding Officer

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 Presiding Officer

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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 Presiding Officer

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

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.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

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.

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 Presiding Officer

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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.

The Presiding Officer

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.

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

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

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.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

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.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

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.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 10. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with the amendments shown in the groupings paper.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

The Presiding Officer

Do you wish to wind up, minister?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I repeat that p

eople 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 Presiding Officer

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

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

Amendment 55 agreed to.

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

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

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The a

mendments 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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

L

ike 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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.

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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

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.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

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?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

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.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I cannot support the amendments in Ms Baillie’s name, but I am happy to support the amendments 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.

The Presiding Officer

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

Thank you for noting that for the

Official Report

.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

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.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

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.

The Presiding Officer

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.