Being in charge of social security is one of the most difficult jobs in government. The reason for this is simple: it's the complexity, stupid.
Over the years since the creation of the welfare state, the benefits system has become increasingly byzantine. Many a UK minister has become mired in the minutiae, defeated by the detail.
Well-intentioned reform has quickly run into the quicksand, thwarted by a mixture of lack of adequate funding and systemic inertia.
It's with this in mind that Nicola Sturgeon put one of her most able MSPs, Jeane Freeman, in charge of setting up a new Scottish benefits system.
A further recognition of the need to dedicate more time to this issue came from Tory leader Ruth Davidson who split in two the social security and constitution brief which had been held by Adam Tomkins.
He's keeping the constitution - which makes sense as he's a constitutional academic - and late last week Ms Davidson handed the social security brief to south of Scotland MSP colleague Michelle Ballantyne.
To use the polite euphemism, this is a 'challenging' task for Ms Ballantyne, relatively new to Holyrood, though she has experience as a Scottish Borders councillor and in the voluntary sector.
Just days since her appointment it would be unfair to expect she would produce a fully-formed set of policies but in an interview with Representing Border - her first since she got the job - Ms Ballantyne has given a clear idea of her approach.
Ms Ballantyne would probably see herself as a traditional Conservative in her approach to welfare - benefits should be there for those who need it, but with a warning there are limits to funding and a pledge to look at the fundamental causes of poverty.
Ms Ballantyne's political opponents would probably characterise her approach as a typically hard-hearted Tory one, particularly in relation to issues like the 'rape clause'.
Briefly, the 'rape clause' is what opponents call the requirement for women who want to claim tax credits beyond the limit of two children to prove a third or subsequent child was born as a result of a "non-consensual conception".
That includes a child who was conceived as a result of rape.
Opponents, led by SNP politicians from the First Minster down, say this is scandalously inhumane.
The UK government says that the measure was introduced to allow mothers to claim more benefits, and the information is not given to the social security system directly by the women concerned but through 'third parties'.
The question for Ms Ballantyne then was this: is her party, as the SNP say, the defender of the 'rape clause'?
She told me:
After pointing out the conditions required to claim the extra benefits - which I outlined above - I asked Ms Ballantyne if she thought this was the right way to do benefits?
Critics would say the fundamental problems lies with the system: that it does limit benefits to a certain number of children. When it comes to a Scottish system, was Ms Ballantyne open-minded on limiting benefits?
The south of Scotland MSP told me:
I then asked Ms Ballantyne about the Trussell Trust charity which says the use of food banks has gone up, including in Scotland, because of changes to benefits.
She told me:
The Trussell Trust say it's not entirely as a result of welfare change, but that is substantially the cause?
So overall what is her view of welfare and her new brief?
She told me:
Which proves the point about welfare. Many people would disagree with this analysis. Other would agree. But all would agree it's very, very difficult.