The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15683, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons. I invite those who do not wish to participate or to remain in the chamber to leave as quickly and quietly as possible.
15:57
I begin by thanking all those who have contributed the development of the bill. I thank, in particular, my bill team, who have guided me with great skill and patience through a highly technical and complex bill. I thank them for everything that they have done.
I also thank the expert and engaged stakeholders who added to the scrutiny of the bill. I am grateful to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee for the work that it undertook and am similarly grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I also thank the clerks and Scottish Parliament officials who have guided us all through the process.
During that process, despite the technical and complex nature of the bill, it has always been important to listen to people who have lived experience of the social security system, to the stakeholder organisations that help them and to professional bodies and businesses. I am therefore confident that what we are debating here represents the best possible version of what we have been working towards.
The bill is part of our development of a radically different social security system of which we can, rightly, be proud. That system is being built from the ground up and will deliver 15 benefits, seven of which are available only in Scotland. We are investing in a system from which we might all need help and the bill is expected, in time, to generate savings of around £3.5 million each year.
We have, of course, already debated the bill in the chamber. Members from parties on all sides of the chamber indicated their willingness to work constructively to improve the bill during its parliamentary progress, and I am pleased to say that we have done so. There has been a lot of work and there have been many meetings in the intervening months, and I thank the Opposition spokespeople, whether they are in the chamber or online, for the work that they have done with me. We have a better bill for it. I have sought to work as collaboratively as possible, and I have met members many times since the stage 2 meetings that ended in September. I am very grateful for their time and their willingness to engage.
One area of the bill on which concerns have been raised is part 6, which takes new powers allowing ministers to request information for audit purposes. Members will be aware that amendments were debated at stage 2 that sought to remove the ability for ministers to suspend awards of assistance, or sought to entirely remove the provisions from the bill. Scottish ministers have a duty to administer and steward public funds responsibly, and my officials have undertaken a detailed options appraisal to establish the best way to gather the audit information that is required in a way that is consistent with the principles in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and with our established ethos of treating individuals with fairness, dignity and respect.
Members have acted from genuine concern for their constituents on that point throughout the process, and I reassure them and the whole Parliament once again that the powers that are being taken are required to identify trends in case loads to support effective audit processes—not to identify specific instances of benefit fraud. Any fraud that is detected during an audit exercise will be dealt with through existing tools and processes.
Recently, I wrote to the lead committee and to Maggie Chapman, the Green Party spokesperson, to confirm that failure to provide information that is requested as part of an audit would not be considered to be an indicator of fraud, and that no one will ever be investigated or reported to the Crown Office and Pro—I apologise, Presiding Officer; it has been a long bill and a long day—Procurator Fiscal Service solely as a result of not providing the information that is requested as part of the audit process.
In the stage 1 debate, I said that we were happy to continue our engagement with stakeholders to ensure that any processes that we have to implement will be based on the values of dignity, fairness and respect. I am pleased to tell members that engagement is ongoing and that a stakeholder reference group has recently been set up that includes representatives from the Child Poverty Action Group and Citizens Advice Scotland.
Almost every part of the bill has been subject to similar improvements. The contributions of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee were particularly helpful in the light of the technical nature of the bill, and its suggestions resulted in a number of useful amendments. We lodged an amendment for today that will extend the statutory uprating duty to all social security assistance that is delivered under the 2018 act. That means that the true purchasing power of the payments will be maintained and that decline in their impact will be avoided.
The provisions in part 1, on childhood assistance, have been refined to offer better alignment with the existing five family payments. The regulations that will be made under part 1 for the care leaver payment will now have the benefit of expert scrutiny by the Scottish Commission on Social Security.
No one ever intervenes when you want them to, Presiding Officer, so excuse me for a minute while I drink some water.
The cabinet secretary has made an important point about the care leaver payment, which we debated at stages 1 and 2 of the bill. Will she say something more about her engagement with the many organisations that represent care-experienced young people? Will she be able to attend some of the many cross-party groups that have an interest in that area, not the least of which is the cross-party group on care leavers?
I thank Paul O’Kane very much for that intervention. For that, if nothing else, I commit to working with him on the issue. He raises the important point that, although we have the framework for the care leaver payment, we need to work on the detail and it is important to listen to people who have been in the care system previously or those who represent such people. I will carry on, if I can, on other issues, but we will continue to work with Paul O’Kane on that point.
We listened carefully to the feedback and we introduced a new power to allow late applications for assistance under part 2 of the bill, in recognition of the Scottish Government’s belief that social security should be as accommodating as possible.
We worked collaboratively on the provisions on lapsing appeals in part 3, and the Scottish Government supported Mr Balfour’s amendment on the matter at stage 2, which improved the bill by removing the need for an error to be identified.
We heard the concerns that stakeholders raised about potential confusion being caused by the new provisions on liability for overpayment in part 4, and we completely redrafted the relevant parts of the bill to improve clarity.
On the provisions on appointees in part 5, we listened to the concerns about the processes that Social Security Scotland follows when it pays someone on behalf of a child. The agency included information on those processes in its most recent stakeholder newsletter in an attempt to improve understanding, and my officials have confirmed with stakeholders that existing processes are not causing issues. However, we again stand ready to act if that changes.
We also worked closely with the insurance industry in developing the provisions on compensation in part 7.
Finally, we worked with the board of the Scottish Commission on Social Security to expand its scrutiny remit, as the bill developed. I thank SCOSS once again for its input and its wise recommendations on that—and, indeed, on every other issue that it has brought forward since the commission was created under the original 2018 act. I am content that we have struck the correct balance with the work that we have done with SCOSS and I thank the chair and board members for their input.
I urge members to support the bill at decision time in order to ensure that this important set of improvements can be delivered. We can rightly be proud of what has been achieved in social security since its devolution, but we will always be open to challenge and criticism and will continually improve what we do. Social security is an exceptionally important public service that the Scottish Government provides, given its on-going missions to reduce child poverty and to ensure sustainable and excellent public services. I think that the agency does that, and I hope that the bill, which I hope will soon be an act, will allow us to do that even more.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
16:07
I begin by thanking all those who have worked hard to get us to this point. The clerks, staff, third sector partners and others who have contributed to the bill deserve a lot of credit.
The bill includes a number of measures that will meaningfully improve social security in Scotland, and it has been great to be able to work on a cross-party basis to get them over the line.
However, although the bill represents a step forward, it is worth reflecting on how far we still have to go. It is fair to say that the devolution of social security has not necessarily played out in the way that anyone expected or, perhaps, hoped. It turns out that setting up and discharging the duties of a new agency is not an easy task, and over the past nine years we have seen a number of problems develop that have been felt by the most vulnerable people in our country. A constant stream of complaints have piled in, working out at almost three per day since 2019. We cannot continue to accept that level of failure.
That should all be viewed in the wider context of the spiralling cost of benefits in Scotland. The bill for social security has risen to over £5 billion, and we will find ourselves with a £1.6 billion deficit by 2026. That is obviously unacceptable. As a country and as a Parliament, we need to have a conversation about how we do benefits in Scotland. For too long, we have buried our heads in the sand and not dealt with the core issues in our system.
As I said when speaking to one of my amendments, we have, for too long, not examined the issue of universal benefits. The Scottish Government often talks about wanting to live in a country in which those who have the most contribute the most, yet there is a general posture of making policies and payments available to everyone, regardless of their economic situation.
There needs to be a review of our fundamental posture on those things—not only in social justice and social security, but across the whole of government in Scotland. Targeted measures would give us the ability to provide better support for those who need it most, while those who are already well off would not receive help that they do not need.
Until we begin to engage with those issues, we are doomed to continue our pattern of ever-increasing costs, while not supporting those who need it most to the extent to which they need it. That is why I moved some of my amendments and am disappointed that they were not accepted.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that the Government has used the bill to introduce sanctions by the back door. Although we on the Conservative benches welcome the commitment to consult the third sector on those changes, we want to make sure that that happens, rather than hearing yet more warm words from the Scottish Government, and we will be interested to see what comes out at the end. I find it interesting that, over the past eight years, the Scottish National Party Government has spoken at length about its opposition to sanctions, but now, having again run head first into the reality of execution, it has abandoned those convictions and seen the light.
I welcome the bill and we on the Conservative benches will support it at decision time. However, I say again that words are not enough. We need to see action, by the Government and Social Security Scotland, to make sure that those who really need that action get it in an appropriate way.
16:12
I begin by reiterating the remarks that I made at the beginning of proceedings this afternoon, which have also been made by the cabinet secretary and Jeremy Balfour, in thanking all who have been involved in the bill process, not least the staff on the bill team, the committee clerks and everyone else who has been involved in ensuring the smooth progress of the legislation.
Today offers us an opportunity to reflect on the devolution of social security to Scotland and on the intervening period, taking stock of that journey and the opportunity to update the legislation that governs much of what we do on social security. In doing so, we have an opportunity to reflect on the successes, the challenges and what still has to be done to ensure that we progress with a system that works for everyone.
We, on this side of the chamber, have been very clear that there are welcome steps in the bill and that welcome things have come from the process of devolving social security. For example, the Scottish child payment was a welcome step that was supported by members on this side of the chamber. Putting it on a legislative footing and ensuring that it continues to command the support of members and wider support in Scotland allows us to affirm again our support for it. It is an example of the strength of devolution in that we are doing what it was intended to do and attempting to make progress in supporting children and families across Scotland, ensuring that the poorest in our society are better supported.
The Social Justice and Social Security Committee has had many debates about how we can better analyse and better understand the impact that policies have. I will also reflect on some of the challenges that we have seen in Social Security Scotland. I know that the cabinet secretary is not immune to those challenges, and we have debated them many times, including in various parts of today’s debate. There have been challenges in long processing times, including, most notably, real challenges in the introduction of child and adult disability payments and in people having to wait too long. We must continue to watch that very closely and take action as required.
There have also been challenges in the transfer of devolved payments, including employment injury assistance. We have debated that in other contexts, and we must keep it at the forefront of our minds as we continue to develop Social Security Scotland and consider what more we have to do in the transfer of other benefits.
I will also comment on the challenges that exist around information technology infrastructure and making sure that the system is as flexible and supportive as possible. We know that there is an overrun in IT costs, and there have been challenges with telephony, which we have debated many times in Parliament. I accept that progress is being made, but we have to continually monitor and review those processes to ensure that there is the most efficient use of public money when it comes to what we are developing in the agency. It is clear that, in some instances, the challenges continue to grow, but there has also been action to look at those issues and slowly begin to tackle them. I hope that the bill provides another stepping stone on the journey to tackling those challenges.
We have welcomed a number of the amendments, today and at stage 2, that have sought to make the bill stronger and to continue to improve the system. Today, we have had a variety of debates on new social security payments such as the pension age winter heating payment. We have had amendments that have sought to tidy up parts of the bill and parts of the system. We have had the important amendment on uprating for inflation, which puts into legislation something that will ensure that we continue to drive forward progress on the payments that are being made to people.
There were some important amendments that we did not agree to but that are worth future reflection and continued thought—on the rights of appeal and ensuring that we can build case law that is supportive of people. With regard to the issue of having key performance indicators, which Jeremy Balfour raised, it is important that we reflect clearly on how we are able to scrutinise what is being done by our national agencies, such as Social Security Scotland, and how public money is being spent.
What we require now is implementation of the legislation at pace, as well as more rapid actions to get on with resolving issues in the system that do not require any provisions in the bill.
Scottish Labour remains committed to holding the Government and Social Security Scotland accountable for the way in which social security is administered within the devolved framework and for the pledges that have been made, which have often not been lived up to. However, recognising the many positive changes that are in the bill, we will support its passing at decision time and we will continue to work with the Government and other Opposition parties to do everything that we have set out in today’s debate.
Maggie Chapman joins us remotely.
16:17
I thank all those who have supported the progress of the bill to date. I am particularly grateful to third sector organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group and Citizens Advice Scotland for their many contributions over many months. I thank the cabinet secretary and other party spokespeople for the various conversations that we have had during the bill’s progress.
I and my Scottish Green colleagues welcome the bill, which represents a further stage in the development of a distinctive approach to social security. That approach seeks to treat people as human beings; to communicate clearly and fairly; to let people know their rights and entitlements; to work co-operatively; and, crucially, to acknowledge that institutions, Governments and Parliaments do not have all the answers. Unless we listen, we do not even have all the questions.
Nothing about that approach is necessarily uniquely Scottish. We knew that it was diametrically opposed to the approach of the previous Tory Government at Westminster, but we hoped that that approach was going to change. Sadly, it appears that, given the choice, the new Labour Administration is inclined to follow its predecessors. I hope that that is not the case. I hope that its rhetoric about getting the welfare bill down is just an empty soundbite for the headlines.
Social security should be seen not as a burden on society but as the measure of care, compassion and love that we have for our fellow human beings, yet the two-child limit and its rape clause still exist. Nothing has changed about that reality or about the wide and broad consensus that those limits are both morally repugnant and practically devastating, about the statements on the record that they need to be consigned as rapidly as possible to the Liz Truss bin for bright ideas, or about the UK Government’s shabby failure to do that.
The two-child limit is egregiously wrong, but it represents a wider attitude that people are inherently irresponsible, cynical and selfish, that they deserve neither respect nor dignity, and that the most fundamental and private aspects of their lives should be open to intrusion and contempt. That applies not only to decisions about the scope of social security but to the way that it is administered.
We recognise that, if people are late for appointments or miss them, if they cannot reply to letters or if they do not know what information to give and when to give it, that is likely to be because of the pressures that their individual situations create. Those include disabilities, caring responsibilities, transport difficulties, lack of digital capital and all the ways in which poverty and marginalisation act to complicate everyday life and obstruct the process of dealing with its challenges. The assumption that is made by the UK system—that lack of engagement indicates fraud—is a terrible act of injustice and cruelty.
It is absolutely vital that we do not fall into that trap here, which is why I have been so concerned about the audit provisions in the bill. I am still disappointed that there was not more consultation about those, but I thank the cabinet secretary for the assurances that she has given me—in person, in writing and in her opening remarks this afternoon—about how the provisions will operate. I look forward to working with her and others on the development of appropriate safeguards and on monitoring their implementation.
Of course, we welcome the bill as a whole, especially the provisions regarding care experience assistance and the potential expansion of the Scottish child payment. We are proud of the role that Scottish Greens have played in the development of the Scottish child payment, and we look forward with hope to its future and to the future of other payments that we know will go no small way towards transforming people’s lives for the better.
16:21
I thank everyone who has been involved with the bill, particularly the bill team. Members of that team have an extraordinary and encyclopaedic knowledge—and what some people might call an unhealthy understanding—of the welfare and social security system. However, I am grateful for that encyclopaedic knowledge. I thank the committee, the ministers and all the spokespeople for their engagement as I have tried to keep pace with the bill’s various aspects.
We are debating this bill because of the Smith powers, which were agreed after the independence referendum in 2014, at which point we were determined to see a sizeable welfare system devolved to the Scottish Parliament—the non-universal credit items, as I described the system at the time. However, the system has evolved quite significantly since then, broadly with a degree of consensus that has been helpful. We were determined that there would be a degree of consensus such as the founders of the national health service sought to achieve after the war. When setting up a new institution, we want as broad a consensus as possible across the political parties, so that the institution endures over a period of time.
Nevertheless, there have been some challenges, including with regard to waiting times, as the minister knows. I understand the explanation that there is a more sympathetic, understanding and participative approach to collecting information and data, so that applications can be processed in the least stressful way possible. Nevertheless, there is an impact on individuals’ finances if they do not get their money or if they do not get it quickly and on time. Therefore, I hope that there will be a relentless pursuit of driving down waiting times as the legislative process continues.
The new benefits are welcome, particularly for those who have been incredibly frustrated at the pace of progress towards keeping the promise. There is anger among people whose expectations were incredibly high that the Government would keep the promise at pace. That simply has not happened. Therefore, I am pleased to see that these two potential new benefits are now possible, and I hope that they advance as quickly as possible with the participation of those who could be in receipt of them. The tidying-up measures are helpful and should be taken regularly to ensure that the system is as efficient as possible.
On the winter fuel payment, there is a wish for the Labour Government to amend its proposals for the United Kingdom, so that the measures that will be taken here, which were debated last week and this week, will become unnecessary. I still appeal to the Labour Government to do that, but it is sensible for the Scottish Government to implement some kind of measures, particularly because of the colder climate north of the border. I am pleased that that is happening.
As for Jeremy Balfour’s plea for a debate about universalism, I recall when Johann Lamont triggered that debate and it was met with howls of derision from some in the chamber. It is important to have that debate, but it is not just a case of whether provision is universal. There are other measures to determine whether it would be appropriate to have universalism, including in relation to the efficiency of the system. Is it worth trying to means test any system? There is also the matter of impact, as it is incredibly important to consider climate issues, too. I hope that we will continue to have that debate as we progress.
We will support the bill at stage 3 this evening.
We move to the open debate.
16:25
I speak in this debate as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. I thank the committee clerks and the bill team for all their assistance during the scrutiny process, and all the stakeholders who gave up their time to give evidence to our committee.
The Scottish Government has already made excellent progress with the social security system by delivering 15 benefits, seven of which are new to Scotland, that tackle poverty and reduce inequality. However, we can always make improvements, and that is what the bill aims to do. It will ensure that our benefits system remains accessible and responsive to the needs of the public. It is vital that the bill upholds Social Security Scotland’s principles of fairness, dignity and respect.
At stage 1, the committee had some concerns regarding the provisions in part 6 on information for audit. It was welcome to receive assurances on that point from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice that failure to provide information requested as part of an audit would not be considered by Social Security Scotland as an indicator of fraud, and that no one will ever be investigated solely for providing the information that was requested as part of the audit process.
It was also reassuring to hear from the cabinet secretary that the provisions were not introducing sanctions, and that that will never be the case under this Scottish Government. That balance is crucial in maintaining trust in our system, after many have come away from the Department for Work and Pensions system feeling discouraged. It is appreciated that, alongside the public consultation that was committed to at stage 2, on categories of individuals who are exempted from participation in audit activity, the Scottish Government invited more than 20 stakeholder organisations to take part in a short-life working group to develop person-centred communications and processes in support of the provisions. It will be essential that information is sought only from the right people, and that no one is treated unfairly.
I was also pleased that the Scottish Government had committed to lodging an amendment at stage 3 on the duty to uprate all Scottish social security benefits by inflation each year. That embodies the progressive approach that has been taken to better address the financial realities that are faced by claimants today.
In discussing the progressive approach that the Scottish Government takes to social security, it would of course be remiss not to mention the winter fuel payment. It is welcome that the Scottish Government will mitigate the Labour UK Government’s cruel cut by reinstating a universal winter fuel payment, ensuring that every pensioner gets a payment next year. That will come as a great relief to my constituents and to pensioners across Scotland. It is further proof that the SNP will prioritise and protect those who are most in need, including our pensioners, who have worked hard and deserve a good standard of living. While the Labour Party has pushed pensioners into poverty, the SNP will protect them. Today, Labour has embarrassed itself with its amendment. The hypocrisy drips right out of it, and it is no wonder that Labour is not taken seriously. The truth is there for all to see.
The Scottish Government continues to have to mitigate the UK Government’s austerity measures, the benefit cap, the bedroom tax and now the winter fuel payment. Labour is the party of the two-child policy and its abhorrent rape clause. Tory welfare policy continues under Labour, and that is not sustainable in the long term. Only in an independent Scotland will we end that.
In the meantime, however, the bill is a testament to the Scottish Government’s commitment to a compassionate and fair social security system. It is a step forward in ensuring that our social security system meets our high standards and principles of fairness, dignity and respect. I welcome its introduction and I urge members to support its passage.
16:30
I remind members that I am in receipt of the higher rate of adult disability payment.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, particularly because the issue is close to my heart. I spent many years before I got to Parliament, and in my role as an MSP since coming here, campaigning for a fairer social security system.
I welcome the principles behind the bill—to improve the experience of people in Scotland who are in receipt of benefits and to deliver value for money within our social security system.
I know how important support to participate in society and lead an ordinary life is, including financial support, and getting it right is crucial for many people. That goes for my constituents in the Glasgow region, too, with Glasgow city alone accounting for 14 per cent of Scotland’s case load for the child disability payment and 15 per cent for adult disability payment.
It is essential for my constituents and people across the country that changes to the delivery of social security in Scotland are consistent with Scottish Labour’s vision for a fairer, more efficient welfare system that allows people to live in dignity and free from poverty, which is why we will support the bill today.
However, some of our concerns remain, and I will come to those specifics shortly. Before I do, I will talk briefly about disabled people, a group of people who rely heavily on the support that we are discussing today, and the role that they and their organisations play in the delivery of it.
Glasgow Disability Alliance provides welfare advice and support for thousands of disabled people in my region. Today, on international disabled people’s day, I thank GDA for the incredible work that it does in changing lives of disabled people in Glasgow every day. It facilitates dignity, freedom, fairness and participation for the people that it represents and, because its approach centres on disabled people’s rights and builds on their strength, GDA empowers disabled people, solves everyday problems and fights for social justice by being the change that it wants to see.
However, GDA is massively overstretched, especially in its welfare advice project. With uncertainty over its funding remaining, the situation looks to get worse. As it stands, that crucial organisation faces making redundant more than 40 per cent of its staff who deliver vital support. GDA highlights that there could be more, as it awaits news of its core grant from the Scottish Government equality, inclusion and human rights fund. If that funding is not protected, another six staff could be affected.
Eighty-five per cent of the staff who face redundancy are disabled people. Not only would the reduction in the GDA budget mean that those disabled people would lose their jobs, but the disabled people whom they support could also fail to access the social security that they need. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on that in her closing speech and provide the certainty that the GDA needs.
More specifically, as my colleagues have set out, we have some outstanding concerns about the bill. For example, provisions to require individuals to provide information, with payments being suspended if they fail to do so, could be prejudicial against people who need more support.
New regulations are still not within the scope of the Scottish Commission on Social Security for scrutiny—an essential referral that is crucial in the progress of any change.
We remain concerned that the bill does not address the fact that the SNP Government has failed to make proper use of new social security powers, has seen delays in the delivery of benefits and has failed to reduce child poverty, which is now worse than it was a decade ago.
With waiting lists too high and overspends costing the taxpayer vast sums of money, including for IT systems that still cannot do what we need them to do, it is crucial that SNP ministers fix the problems that continue to exist.
The median average processing time for child disability payment increased from 45 working days in June to 56 in September, while the median average processing time for part 2 of the disability payment for adults has increased from 49 days in April to 61 in July.
People cannot afford to wait for vital support. Those delays are not fair and leave people hanging in limbo in sometimes undignified circumstances, and it is disrespectful of their time. That fails my constituents in Glasgow and people across the country, and I hope that the Government will address the delays to make good on their committed values of dignity, fairness and respect.
Scottish Labour welcomes the principles behind the bill—to improve the experience of people in Scotland who are in receipt of benefits and to deliver value for money in social security. That is why we will vote for it this afternoon, because we believe that those changes are necessary to deliver a fairer, more efficient welfare system that allows people in Scotland to live in dignity and free from poverty. While the Government progresses those aims, we will support it.
We move to the closing speeches.
16:34
In my opening speech, I talked about the differences between the Scottish approach to social security and that of successive Westminster Governments. We have heard some of those differences rehearsed in the chamber today, not least concerning the principle of benefits increasing with inflation so that people who rely on them do not see their benefits reduce in worth over time.
As Scottish Greens, we would go further. The traditional concept of social security as a safety net implies that we are not expected to need it. Swinging blithely across our lives like trapeze artists in the big top, it is only if we make a mistake, or if our partner fails to catch us, that we fall into the system. However, that is not how lives and communities actually work. Vulnerability and interdependence are conditions that we all share. Privilege provides some of us with more padding than others, but under that armour, we are all wounded, we all bleed and we all need care and support.
Economic and social inequalities are getting worse, locally and globally, and that is a matter of grave injustice. Redistribution, in that context, is not an ideal, but a practical act of justice. That means just transitions, fair work, minimum income guarantees, fairer tax systems, a just alternative to council tax and exploration of how we could implement universal basic income and services.
Social security is part of that. Of course, it is about security for individuals and families, but it is also about security for communities, reflecting our interdependence and our care for one another, and an acknowledgement of our shared vulnerability. Universal services and support matter—they are about valuing each and every human being for the unique and special individuals they are, not just for what they contribute economically to our world. Being human is about so much more than our economic contribution to society.
Perhaps, instead of having a debate on universalism, as other members have alluded to today, we should be taking every opportunity that we have to highlight why universalism is good for everyone. That is an ideological position, but it is one that I am proud to hold, because it makes eligibility for benefits a right of being human—humans equal before the state. It enhances the legitimacy of rights-based claims, which members of society can call upon on equal terms. By placing citizens on equal ground rather than emphasising difference, universalistic policies can increase social cohesion and reduce discrimination. Universalism removes stigma and shame, and, empirically, societies that adopt universalistic policies have had lower levels of social inequality.
We in Scotland have a reputation as a progressive nation: one which welcomes newcomers not for the size of their yachts but for the depth of their need, and one which cherishes all children living here and strives to offer them the space in which to grow, play, learn and thrive.
On that, as we know, there is much more still to be done, especially for families in the asylum system, for older children and for those with experience of care. The bill creates some of the scaffolding within which we can do that work. By voting for it this evening, we are, therefore, expressing our commitment to a society of dignity, care, wellbeing and justice.
16:38
I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the stage 3 debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, and to reflect again on some of the contributions that we have heard, and some of the progress that we have made on the social security system in Scotland.
During the bill’s journey, we have been able to reflect on what is working in social security and on what could be improved. The debates that we have had on the amendments at both stage 2 and stage 3 have allowed us to do that. I am sure that there is much for the cabinet secretary to reflect on with regard to what more needs to be done, and for all of us to reflect on in considering the need for continued scrutiny of Social Security Scotland and the on-going potential for new benefits, which I will come on to speak about.
I will reflect briefly on Maggie Chapman’s opening and concluding contributions. I heard what she said about the UK Labour Government and our ambitious plan to support people to get back into well-paid and secure work and put our new deal for working people, which I have spoken about many times in the chamber, on a legislative footing to ensure that work pays and is secure for people. That is absolutely a driving agenda for the UK Government.
It is also worth reflecting that many people in this country want to work but cannot, because they are not getting the support that they need to be able to do so; we should not shy away from that. The UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, has made it clear that with £240 million-worth of investment across the UK, we can help people to get back into the workplace. However, people need to know that there is always a safety net, that there is no judgment, that there will be support when they need it and that they are not being forced back into work. It is clear that that is the agenda in the Government’s white paper on getting Britain working again.
We hope that the Scottish Government will be part of that partnership, because—this is important—good things happen here in Scotland in relation to employability and supporting people to get back into work, but there is more to do. Maggie Chapman spoke about universal services. We need to have a health service that works and delivers for people, so that they can get the support that they need to go back to work. Tomorrow’s budget will show us the reality of the money that has come from the UK Government and whether that will be spent on health and social care, as we have called on the Scottish Government to do.
I will touch briefly on Marie McNair’s contribution. I thought that she made some good points about the committee’s work, but I was disappointed to hear the tone that she took on pension age winter heating assistance. We had a debate today in which we had an opportunity to vote as a Parliament to put that on a legislative footing—I have rehearsed those arguments. I point out to Ms McNair the support that is coming to this Parliament through the UK budget—£1.5 billion this year and £3.4 billion next year. We will see the colour of that money tomorrow in the budget process, and I am sure that ministers will be listening intently to this debate.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only four minutes, and I am in my third minute, so I apologise, Mr Doris, because I have more to say.
I thought that Willie Rennie made an important contribution on keeping the Promise and the care leaver payment, and I reflect on the exchange that I had with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in my intervention. It is vital that as we develop any new payments to support people who are care experienced, their voices are at the heart of the design. I am glad that the cabinet secretary agreed that that should be our approach, and I look forward to continuing conversations on that.
I reflect on the contribution from my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy about the bespoke services that are required to help support disabled people to navigate the social security system, and about disabled people’s ambition and desire to work. She made a key point about ensuring that we protect and invest in those bespoke advice and support services. That is worth reflecting on ahead of the budget tomorrow.
In concluding—I am up against the four-minute mark—Scottish Labour will of course support the bill, because we think that it is an important step in progressing our social security system in Scotland, but it is important that, across the chamber, we are open to continuing scrutiny and conversation about how we develop that system.
16:43
Although I was not involved at stages 1 and 2 of the bill, I have followed it with considerable interest. That is because, although the bill is overwhelmingly technical in nature, it has at its core really important principles about social security and how we address the enormous challenge of the rapidly increasing benefits bill, which, quite frankly, at the moment is unaffordable. The Scottish Fiscal Commission predictions show that we simply will not have the revenue, well into the future, to go on paying out on the same basis that we are now, which, of course, means that we face some very considerable policy decisions.
The cabinet secretary rightly emphasised, as all the other parties did, the need for a person-centred system that ensures dignity, fairness and respect, that is accessible and straightforward to use and that, importantly, has a thread of consistency. My colleague Jeremy Balfour has stressed throughout the whole process the need to ensure that the bill brings meaningful improvement in order that we do benefits better. Paul O’Kane made a good point about ensuring that that work is scrutinised in terms of the outcomes that we get. Who could deny any of that? That is why we supported the moves in part 1 of the bill to enhance the care leaver payment and in part 5 to allow an individual who has been appointed to manage an individual’s DWP benefits to also manage their Social Security Scotland benefits—an eminently sensible change.
It was also important to make other technical improvements, such as that when an appointee uses any funds outside their legal or statutory duties in bad faith, they will be liable to repay those funds to the individual whom they represent. Again, that is sensible and it is designed to make life better for those who are in receipt of benefits.
The bill has made us think carefully about the changes that we need to make. Have we been honest in our approach to social security? Are we delivering better outcomes at the same time as ensuring that there is the best possible value for money?
In turn, that means that we have to decide on the priorities that we want to underpin the whole social security system. First, that means targeting support at those who are most in need rather than at those who have more means to look after themselves, so that social security is always a proper safety net and never a lifestyle choice.
Secondly, it means ensuring that we can address the concern that one in five of those who are in the economic inactivity bracket actually wants to work; Paul O’Kane made an important comment in that respect. We have to ensure that we do far more to encourage those people into the workplace, especially because they sometimes get the social security benefit but they do not necessarily get the help to get into work in time. We need to pay great attention to that.
Thirdly, we need to make policy choices that are based on good quality qualitative and quantitative evidence. That has been discussed in the recent meetings of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and I hope that we will pursue it.
We also need to grasp the nettle about universal payment, which I know no one wants to do but which has become a necessity as a result of the fiscal forecast. Willie Rennie mentioned Johann Lamont in his speech. I do not often agree with Johann Lamont—I did not when she was in the chamber and I have not since. Nevertheless, she made an excellent point about the elephant in the room, because that is what it is. We cannot go on with the system of universal payments that we have without making significant choices. Members will know that I have put my views on record about that in the past. I fundamentally believe that, if we are going to ensure that we have a social security system that is fit for the future, we must grasp the nettle about what universalism really means. If there are adaptations to that, as Willie Rennie suggested—I think that he is right and there are some things that we can think about—we have to decide what they will be. If we do not do that, the Parliament will make no progress at all in looking after those who are most in need.
I finish on the point that, although this is a very technical bill, this has been a good debate to have about what we want from the social security system. We agree with far more things in the bill than we disagree with, and that is why we will support it at stage 3.
16:48
I begin by reiterating what the bill is for. It is about us continuing to seek improvements to our social security system. We have a good track record on the delivery of social security and our experience is growing, but we must always be open to ensuring that, as we continue to deliver on the social security principles that were at the heart of the 2018 act, we do so under continuous improvement. Members might remember that those principles were supported by the entire Scottish Parliament and, as I said during the stage 1 debate, I think that the support for them remains strong.
Although, as many members have alluded to, the bill is, in large part, very technical, it will make important improvements to the experience of people who use Scotland’s social security system, and it will continue to ensure that we deliver value for money. I reassure members that the social security principles remain front and centre in the design of each of the provisions of the bill.
During our brief debate, a number of comments have been made about social security and delivery. As I have said, we must always look to do better, and we will continue to strive to do so. However, it is important to recognise the context that we are in. Satisfaction rates on disability benefits show that the client overall rating of experience with Social Security Scotland is 92 per cent, which compares with a customer overall satisfaction rate with personal independence payment of 77 per cent. On the application process, 93 per cent of respondents who have applied for Social Security Scotland benefits say that their overall experience of the process was very good or good.
As the cabinet secretary will know, the Glasgow Disability Alliance, which I mentioned in my speech, is crucial to supporting disabled people to access the benefits that she outlines. Does she have a response to its concerns about the fact that it does not yet know what support it will get from the equality, inclusion and human rights funding?
I will come on to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s speech but, on that specific remark, I would say that the best thing to do to provide certainty, whether for the Glasgow Disability Alliance or others in the third sector, would be for the Labour Party to vote for the budget to ensure that we provide that support as quickly as possible. In a Parliament of minorities, it is the responsibility of us all to get the budget through.
We should also look at the costs of delivering social security in Scotland. The DWP’s operating expenditure is 6.3 per cent of benefit value. The equivalent for Social Security Scotland in 2023-24 was that running costs were 5.3 per cent of the value of benefits, and we expect that to reduce to 5.2 per cent in 2024-25. I hope that that gives some reassurance, not only on client satisfaction but on the value for money of the benefits that we provide.
I told Pam Duncan-Glancy that I would come back to her remarks. I have dealt with the aspect about providing reassurance for the third sector. I reassure her that the information for audit is subject to SCOSS scrutiny—an amendment on that was agreed to at stage 2.
I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that one of the greatest concerns for the third sector that I hear about currently is about the impact of increased employer national insurance contributions, which will have grave implications for that sector’s work. It is disappointing that the UK Government introduced that measure.
Many members have spoken about the choices that the Government has made and said that they might make different choices. We spend £1.1 billion more on social security than we receive from the block grant adjustment. That is an exceptionally large investment, and the Government will continue to make it, because it supports low-income families, carers and disabled people. It is important that we are there to support people at times of their life when they require it—that is an important function of the state.
I entirely agree with the cabinet secretary about supporting those who are most in need. Does she nonetheless recognise that, if we continue to pay on a universal basis, many people will be receiving support when they have the means to pay for themselves?
The benefits that are paid by Social Security Scotland are targeted at low-income families. The nearly £0.5 billion investment that we make in the Scottish child payment is to protect low-income families. The work on carers and disabled people is to ensure that we provide support for all carers and disabled people. That is an important point to make.
Willie Rennie and others raised points about the importance of having a discussion about universalism. However, an important aspect of the system in Scotland is that we ask people to pay that little bit more, through our income tax decisions, and the state provides support.
A number of members have mentioned a suggestion that there will be sanctions under the bill. I make it clear that the Scottish social security system does not use sanctions or penalties, and nor will it ever do so. No one will ever be punished or penalised for failing to participate in an audit or any other facet of the Scottish social security system.
We have to be careful not to conflate the power to suspend assistance in, I hope, the very rare cases in which an individual does not provide information, after having been asked for it repeatedly, with the types of sanctions in other systems. Although, on the face of it, it might appear to be kinder and more principled to simply ignore cases in which no information is received, I do not believe that it is. We might be ignoring the accrual of significant overpayments when there is a chance to identify them and address the issue at a much earlier stage, and we could be overlooking a potential safeguarding issue. The suspension provisions provide some breathing space to gather information on such cases, and I argue that that is in the interests of the agency and the client.
I thank everyone for their engagement during the passage of the bill. As I have said many times, it is a technical but very important bill that will further improve our social security system, which is a public service that, I hope, we can all be proud of.