Social Justice
Adult Disability Payment
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to bring down processing times for the adult disability payment, in light of the most recent high level statistics from Social Security Scotland indicating a reversal in the previous reduction to processing times. (S6O-03797)
Social Security Scotland has made a range of improvements, which have significantly improved processing times, with decisions now being made more than 30 per cent faster than at this time last year. Social Security Scotland is also getting decisions right first time; only 11.7 per cent of decisions result in a request for a redetermination.
The agency’s workforce is managed flexibly to meet all client demand. Along with supporting new applicants, the agency supports 200,000 people who have now had their award transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions. Recent statistics highlighted the fact that more than 40,000 comprehensive reviews were carried out between April and July.
Processing times for new applications will be balanced against the need to support all clients, and will continue to be monitored to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity, fairness and respect.
Members from across parties welcomed the long-overdue fall in ADP processing times earlier this year. However, it is concerning that that trend is reversing. The latest statistics show that median waits have risen by almost 24 per cent since April and are now back at more than three months. That is markedly above the original pledge for decisions to be made within eight to ten weeks—before the target was removed from the Government’s website.
Given the on-going review of recruitment at Social Security Scotland, which we have discussed before, what further assurances can the cabinet secretary give to Scotland’s disabled community that the Government is getting on top of that reversal and ensuring that waiting times across all the payments that are administered by Social Security Scotland will fall?
Paul O’Kane is right to point to the fact that he asked me previously about the assurances that are required on recruitment levels and the Scottish Government’s recruitment freeze. I am pleased to restate my reassurance that the recruitment freeze in no way affects those who directly deliver benefit decisions for disabled clients or anyone else. The workforce is flexible and is managed flexibly, as I said in my original answer. It is important that we have that flexible workforce in the agency in order to ensure that we deliver for all clients. I assure Paul O’Kane that the agency continues to make improvements to the system, to deliver good processing times for both ADP and other benefits.
For question 2, I call David Torrance, who joins us online. [Interruption.] I am advised that Mr Torrance needs to uncover his camera.
Winter Heating Payment
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implications of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to reduce the winter fuel payment for the delivery of the winter heating payment in Scotland. (S6O-03798)
The United Kingdom Government’s decision to restrict eligibility for winter fuel payments was taken without consultation or discussion with the Scottish Government and has had a devastating consequence for our planned launch of pension age winter heating payment, reducing the fund that is available for that devolved payment by around £150 million.
As a result, we have had to take the difficult decision to mirror in our pension age winter heating payment the UK Government’s approach. However, this Government remains committed to continuing to press the UK Government to reverse its damaging decision, and we will keep under review every opportunity for making eligibility improvements.
Figures from the Scottish Parliament information centre show that, in my Kirkcaldy constituency alone, as many as 13,700 pensioners could be affected by the UK Government cut. Will the cabinet secretary outline what additional heating support low-income Scottish households can expect to receive this winter compared with the rest of the UK, despite the renewed austerity of a Labour Government in Westminster?
Mr Torrance is quite right to point to the other support that is available to people on low incomes, including pensioners on low incomes who receive eligible benefits. Unlike the UK Government’s cold weather payment, for example, our winter heating payment guarantees a reliable annual payment of £58.75. That is available only in Scotland. More than 134,000 of the winter heating payments that were made last winter supported people aged 65 and over, through an investment of nearly £7.4 million. This year, we are also spending £134 million to mitigate the UK Government’s policies through discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund.
I was disappointed by the proposition, made on Tuesday by a Scottish Conservative member, that we follow what the Department for Work and Pensions does on its cold weather payment, which would see us providing less money, rather than more, to pensioners across the country.
A freedom of information request made by the Scottish edition of The Daily Telegraph has shown that the Scottish Government undertook no specific assessment of how many additional deaths would be caused by the decision to copy the Labour Party’s plan to cut winter fuel payments. Will Scottish National Party Government ministers now undertake an emergency impact assessment? Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether ministers have considered deferring the block grant adjustment on the winter fuel payment this year so that they could make the payment to pensioners across Scotland?
If Mr Briggs will forgive me, I will limit my response to the first part of his question. He will be aware that the issue is the subject of live legal proceedings, so I will limit my remarks to saying that impact assessments were published at the same time as the regulations were laid in Parliament. I ask Mr Briggs to forgive me for not going into further detail on that. He will be aware of the support that we continue to provide to households across the country, including pensioners. That is a very important part of our work.
I asked this question on Tuesday, but I do not think that I got an answer on the additional supports that the Government offers. Why did the cabinet secretary take the decision to cut the fuel insecurity fund, which supports people, including pensioners? Why is the cold winter payment set at a standard rate in Scotland? Why has the funding for energy efficiency standards repeatedly been cut? Why has the Government failed to pass on consequentials from the household support fund? Why is that the case?
There was a lot in that question, so my remarks will relate to one aspect. I alluded to the standard rate, to which Mr O’Kane referred, in my original remarks. If he is also suggesting that we should revert to the DWP scheme, that means that he wants us to pay less money each year and to disinvest from our social security fund. I am sure that that is not what he wants us to do, but that is what would happen if we were to revert to that scheme, which his party’s UK Government is now continuing.
I am aware of the Labour Party’s suggestion that any consequentials in the forthcoming budget could be used to support other pensioners. I cannot base a budget on a wing, a prayer and a promise when, quite frankly, only a matter of weeks before the decision was taken to take £150 million out of the Scottish Government budget, I sat in a meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and no signal—no remote hint—was forthcoming that a change was about to happen. Let us see what comes out from the UK Government in the budget, then the Scottish Government will be able to make decisions on its own budget based on knowledge rather than on a promise.
On question 3, the member is unavailable due to committee business, which, as members will recall, was approved by the Parliament.
Social Security Policies
To ask the Scottish Government how its social security policies are mitigating any impact in Scotland of the United Kingdom Government’s so-called bedroom tax and benefit cap. (S6O-03800)
This year, we are making more than £90 million available to local authorities to spend on discretionary housing payments to mitigate United Kingdom Government policies, including the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. The benefit cap hits families hardest, and the Scottish Government’s funding helps to support around 3,400 families with more than 11,000 children. Our bedroom tax mitigation policy helps more than 94,000 households with more than 20,000 children. We are further supporting families by investing £457 million in the Scottish child payment this year. However, its impacts are greatly reduced by the UK Government’s welfare policies, including the inadequacy of the universal credit system.
Those policies are part of a United Kingdom regime that is a significant drain on the Scottish budget. That regime still includes the two-child policy and its abhorrent rape clause, and has now cut the winter fuel payment to pensioners. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the continuation of those repugnant policies shows that only with the full devolution of social security policy will real change be achieved and the culture of stigma and cruelty that is caused by the UK welfare system be brought to an end?
The member is quite right to point to the stigma and cruelty that were felt by people during the Department for Work and Pensions years, particularly with regard to disability payments. I heard that once again directly from people yesterday, when I visited the Royal National Institute of Blind People.
It is critically important that the Scottish Government does what it can to mitigate the worst excesses of the UK Government’s policies, which were Tory policies and are now, unfortunately, continuing under the Labour Party. That mitigation has cost £1.2 billion during the 14 years that those Governments have been in power.
In a debate yesterday, I gave Mr Sarwar the opportunity to agree with me that the bedroom tax should be scrapped. It was disappointing to see, once again, that he did not take the opportunity to engage in cross-party and collegiate work on that issue.
Social Security Payments (Fife)
To ask the Scottish Government how payments made by Social Security Scotland are incentivising people in Fife back into work. (S6O-03801)
Social security is an essential collective investment in the people of Scotland, which any of us could need at any time in our lives. Employment-related benefits such as universal credit are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, and we oppose the widespread use of sanctions, as overwhelming evidence shows clearly that they do not work to support people into stable employment.
In 2020, we launched the job start payment to support young people from low-income backgrounds to enter employment. Up to the end of March 2024, we paid almost £135,000 to people in Fife.
I fundamentally believe that creating jobs and getting more people back into the workplace is the best way to tackle poverty, and I thank the cabinet secretary for highlighting job start. However, the employment rate in Fife has remained static for long periods, with almost a quarter of working-age people currently unemployed, which shows that that initiative is clearly having no impact in Fife. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government plans to invest in job creation in Fife, so that thousands of people who are currently out of work have the opportunity to get back into paid employment? How will the social security system adapt to ensure that work is always paid?
Roz McCall raises an interesting point that relates very much to the issue of the powers that we have, which was raised in a previous question.
The job start payment is delivered under further powers under the Employment and Training Act 1973. Those powers had to be agreed by the UK and Scottish Parliaments under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998. Any changes to eligibility, even minor, would require legislative change, which would need the agreement of both Governments. It is therefore a pity that we again have one hand tied behind our back. If only we had the responsibility for all the powers up here, rather than just a bit, we could do more, as Roz McCall suggests.
Leavers Fund
To ask the Scottish Government what its proposed timeline and target date are for the establishment of a leavers fund to support victims of domestic abuse to leave abusive relationships. (S6O-03802)
I confirm that the Scottish Government received the final evaluation of the fund to leave pilot from Scottish Women’s Aid in August 2024. That will inform a wider assessment of the pilot, which will consider how it delivered against its objectives, how it improved housing outcomes for women and/or prevented their homelessness and what lessons were learned during it.
The assessment stage is near completion, and we will then be in a position to set out the next steps.
The number of domestic abuse incidents across Scotland remains high, with nearly 62,000 incidents recorded in 2022-23, according to Police Scotland statistics. That equates to almost 170 incidents of domestic abuse per day. In the case of Dumfries and Galloway, there has been a reported 50 per cent increase in calls to local support services. Statistics show that around 23 per cent of women who become homeless do so as a direct result of violence or abusive behaviour.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s explanation of why we do not have the so-called fund to leave, but I encourage the minister to bring that forward as soon as possible.
I thank Finlay Carson for highlighting the plight of women who are facing such atrocious circumstances in the face of domestic violence. Our delivering equally safe fund is providing £7 million this year to local women’s aid groups to support services for women and children. We have introduced provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Bill that, if passed, will put a duty on social landlords to develop and implement a domestic abuse policy outlining how they will support their tenants who are at risk of homelessness, including by protecting the rights of women to stay safe in their own homes. We will work closely with the housing and violence against women and girls sectors to develop statutory guidance to accompany that duty.
As I referred to in my previous answer, as soon as the assessment stage is completed, I will be in a better position to update Finlay Carson and everyone else.
Can the minister say what we can learn, and apply here in Scotland, from the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was introduced by the then Green MLA Rachel Woods, and which created an entitlement to 10 days of paid leave
“for victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes”?
I thank Maggie Chapman for raising a very interesting point. Obviously, I will need further time to consider that, and I would welcome the two of us getting together to have further discussions on the matter.
Social Security Spending
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to continue delivering social security provisions, in light of reports that total spending on devolved social security in 2024-25 is expected to be around £1.1 billion higher than the funding received from the United Kingdom Government through the block grant adjustment. (S6O-03803)
Despite fixed budgets and limited powers, we have transformed social security provision in Scotland, establishing a radically different system based on dignity, fairness and respect. We have introduced 14 benefits, and I am proud that we are committing a record £6.1 billion this year for benefits expenditure. That is almost £1.1 billion more than the UK Government gives to the Scottish Government for social security, demonstrating our national mission to eradicate child poverty and our commitment to help low-income families with their living costs, support older people and enable disabled people to live full and independent lives.
The Scottish Fiscal Commission predicts that, as things stand, social security spending will increase to £8 billion in 2028-29. Alarmingly, current figures show that Scotland’s unemployment rate is rising, with more than 120,000 people having never worked.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that, when times are tough fiscally, it would be better, and advantageous, to invest in education and employment opportunities, which would not only support people back into paid work, where they can apply and develop their skills, but boost Scotland’s economy?
I recognise the slight widening out of the original question, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary can respond to the member on the theme of the original question.
I would be delighted to, as I am genuinely astounded by the line of questioning. What Sue Webber is actually suggesting that we do is take money away from poor children and their families, from disabled people or from carers. That is where our benefits go. They go to low-income people, disabled people and carers.
Sue Webber might also want to have a word with her colleagues sitting in the row in front of her—Roz McCall and Jeremy Balfour—who, in an amendment to the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, added £6 million to a policy. That was one of many amendments lodged by Conservative colleagues. I suggest that if Sue Webber wants to have a genuine discussion about how to support disabled people, carers and those on a low income, a good starting point would be for her to have a discussion with her own parliamentary group about whether she wants to support those people.
Recent research by the Trussell Trust found that 48 per cent of people who receive universal credit ran out of food in the past month across the UK. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, faced with an inadequate UK welfare system, which has been devastated by the Tories—and now by Labour—the Scottish Government’s £1 billion spend above UK Government funding on social security is an absolutely vital investment in our people and our society?
Audrey Nicoll rightly points out that social security expenditure is an investment in our people and it is a human right. We have had a discussion in the chamber before about the level of expenditure on, for example, the Scottish child payment. I believe that Mr Rennie has previously made the point that the Government should not be proud of the fact that the Scottish child payment is in existence. I am not proud that it has to be there, but I am proud that the Government stepped up to support low-income people. The UK Government may not do so, but the Scottish Government will continue to support those who need us most.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I advise members that question 8 has been withdrawn.
That concludes portfolio questions on social justice. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow the front-bench members to change.