Chamber and committees

I congratulate you on your post, cabinet secretary, and welcome you to the committee. As you will be aware, various policies have had to be adjusted due to pressure on Social Security Scotland. How many additional staff and what additional resources does Social Security Scotland need to deliver the payments for which it has responsibility? What resources does the Government anticipate the agency will need once all passported benefits have been transferred from the DWP?

That was really helpful—thank you.

You have talked about the need for investigative powers. We have heard in various submissions about the approach in Australia. In particular, Victoria has legislation on the issue and has given the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission powers to investigate, monitor, intervene and so on. Could that approach work in Scotland? Is there a body with which we could lay such powers? Where should the powers lie?

Thank you. That is helpful. Convener, would you mind if I just followed on with the international question? I know that it is a bit further down the list, but it relates to the point about Victoria.

I thank the witnesses for the information that they have provided, which has been really helpful. Both of the sessions this morning have been excellent.

My questions are on the same issue that we have been discussing. We heard earlier that affirmative practice is about non-judgmental practice, very much in the circumstances that you have just described around therapy settings. Are the current training and support for therapists adequate to ensure that people can provide that non-judgmental approach? If the training is adequate, that is great. If not, what intervention is needed to help us to move in that direction, given the importance that you have ascribed to the memorandum of understanding and training practices?

I echo what my colleague Karen Adam said about the strength and power of Dr Moon’s testimony. It is probably one of the most powerful statements that I have heard in a long time, particularly in relation to young people and the need to get on and ban the practice and not necessarily focus too much more on time and research.

You will forgive my being sceptical about the UK Government’s approach on the issue. A lot of evidence suggests that there is much that we in Scotland can do within the devolved capabilities and responsibilities of the Parliament, which I am pleased to hear. On the points that we have heard about regulation, in particular in relation to training and the need for us to get that right, do we need, ultimately, to wait for reserved legislation on that or is there something that we can do in Scotland to address areas that you mentioned?

Thank you very much for that. It was really helpful—particularly your analysis of the human rights that are at play here. It is really important that we have a solid understanding of those if we are going to take a human rights-based approach to the work, which I hope and believe we will.

I have a question that sort of follows on from some of the conversation. Forgive me if it sounds as though we are labouring the point, but it is important that we get this right, for all the reasons that we have rehearsed.

In the SHRC submission, you say that the legislation should be drawn up to ensure that there is no interference with religious thought or access to non-judgmental support such as has just been described. Can you tell us a bit more specifically about how that would be drafted? For example, would it be a lift and lay from the Victoria legislation, or would it be something different? Is there something missing from that legislation or something that should be amended?

The equalities commission in Victoria has a specific role in the Victoria legislation to mediate, intervene and investigate. Could that work in Scotland? If so, who could play that role?

Thank you. I apologise for skipping ahead to the international stuff. I realised that I stopped the conversation on Pam Gosal’s question—I apologise for that.

My question has almost been answered by what has been said. In its submission, the Equality and Human Rights Commission talks about a

“harms-based approach, which disregards benign intent”.

Given what we have heard about the rapporteur’s definition of harm and the three prongs, we could make an assumption, but how would you define “benign intent”?

Thank you, minister, for drawing the matter to our attention. I see no reason why we should not support the LCM. In fact, I think that if we do not, we will deny payments to some individuals. I agree that a legislative consent motion is the right thing at this time.

We are constantly hearing about additional changes to benefits; this morning we heard from a number of poverty organisations strong evidence that we need to be doing things around eligibility for disability benefits and carers benefits sooner rather than later. We hear consistently that the system is almost at capacity in terms of safe and secure delivery of the benefits that we are already delivering. Is now the time to look at capacity in the system, and to consider what additional resources might be needed?