Chamber and committees

In relation to private debt, should lending companies, and specifically those that target people on low incomes, have a legal obligation to ensure that anyone they provide a loan to is, in the first place, in both a mentally fit state and a financial position from which it is likely that they will be able to repay any loan that is provided to them?

Absolutely. We have heard throughout the inquiry that public debt seems to be more of a problem and I know that we will come on to that later. We have rightly focused on that a lot in this inquiry, but there are some little things about the private side that I still have problems with. For example, we have talked before about some of the companies that are popping up that allow people to buy things and spread the payment over three amounts. People who are getting those loans are incurring minimum payment charges on them and are already in a great deal of debt as it is, so there is something to be done there. Somewhere along the line, the checks are not there.

Thank you for your comments, Mr Dennis. Convener, my questions on this theme are finished.

Not just now—I will finish this point.

That is what the Scottish Labour Party has become. Instead of lodging an amendment calling on the UK Government to devolve all social security powers to Holyrood, it seems that it would rather that those powers stayed with the Tories at Westminster while it tries in vain to attack the Scottish Government. It would rather that the powers on the six-week assessment period for universal credit and on the rape clause, and other powers that mean that children in this country have to use food banks, remained in the clutches of the Tories at Westminster.

Not at the moment, thank you. I need to make progress.

The Scottish Labour Party has absolutely no credibility when it comes to social security. It is little surprise that it was once again rejected at the ballot box. Until its members realise that the only way to truly tackle poverty is for our Parliament to have all the powers of any other independent country, anything that they say in this place about how Scotland should tackle poverty is a token gesture at best.

I want to take a moment to highlight an issue regarding people who have to go for PIP assessments. The UK Government has created a system that makes people have to think of how they are on their worst day, because if they describe anything less than that their money is harshly and unjustifiably taken away from them. How warped is that? Anyone who has ever experienced that, or who has helped someone to fill in the forms or take the assessment, will know that it is a degrading and distressing process.

Scotland is taking a different approach. The roll-out of Scottish social security benefits is proving to be a success, but I remind members that that is despite our having limited powers and despite our having a Tory UK Government that has presided over a benefits system that punishes, degrades and damages those who need support the most. The UK benefits system is renowned for its harshness and degrading nature, and the UN has condemned its callous approach. People in poverty in the United Kingdom in the 21st century have died. That falls at the feet of the UK Government’s welfare system and of an austerity agenda that targets people who are trapped in the cycle of poverty that the system has created.

I am extremely proud of the route that Scotland is taking with our delivery of social security benefits. We have a compassionate and humane system that has dignity, fairness and respect at its core and that sees social security as a human right, not a burden. The minister laid out some detail of the 12 benefits that Scotland has power over, seven of which are brand new and unique to Scotland, such as the Scottish child payment, which is the most ambitious child poverty reduction measure in the whole of the UK.

As well as creating new benefits, we are delivering a new approach in which social security in Scotland is shaped by people with direct experience of the current UK benefit system, in an effort to ensure that people are at the heart of our approach. The very recent Audit Scotland report, which has been mentioned today, found that there has been a “conscious focus” on the needs of claimants and that people have been positive about their experience of engaging with Social Security Scotland.

For example, in commenting on the system, one claimant said:

“My overall experience, I would say, was compassionate”.

Another said:

“No need for improvement as they are doing a 1st class service.”

I have never in my life heard anyone describe the UK welfare state as a “1st class service”; it is more like a misery.

I have sat in this chamber for over a year and listened to the slurs from those on the Conservative benches, telling us that we need to do better and that we need to do more to alleviate poverty. How any Conservative MSP can have the brass neck to say that is beyond me. How long has the UK Government had to make life better for people in this country? How many times do Conservative members have to be told that the UK welfare system is inadequate and failing their constituents?

The Social Justice and Social Security Committee, in gathering evidence in its debt inquiry, has heard that universal credit waiting times are one of the biggest contributors to people falling into debt—universal credit being a policy that was written on the back of a fag packet by an out-of-touch minister in London. The UK welfare state used to give enough money so that people could just about scrape by; now, it does not even do that. The Conservative Party’s response to the cost of living crisis has been deemed to be “woefully inadequate” by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and that is putting it kindly.

Really, it is an absolute riot. For a start, the Prime Minister should resign. Perhaps my Conservative colleagues could grow a spine and stop supporting illegal parties, sleaze and corruption, and they could stop with the complete hypocrisy when it comes to the UK benefits system, as it fools no one.

I will touch briefly on the amendment from the Scottish Labour Party, which, in essence, says that we have not done enough to alleviate poverty. That is confusing, because we have already heard today about all the new measures that Scotland is taking to ensure a more positive and humane system.

Not just now. I really need to make progress. I am sorry.

The Scottish Government has achieved more with its social security system in four years than has been achieved in decades under Labour and Tory Governments down south, and—this bears repeating—we do not have all the powers. The concrete boots of the Westminster Government that we, in Scotland, currently wear must be taken into consideration when discussing our social security system. We are undertaking a complex process the like of which has never been seen before. It is true that there may be challenges and that some aspects can be improved, but we are just at the beginning of creating a wonderful system for all our constituents.

I am confident that the system will only continue to improve, but it is high time that the Scottish Conservatives, and members across the rest of the chamber, got real and addressed the elephant in the room: we will never be able to fully build the truly transformative system that we need in this country without all the powers of independence. If we had all the powers over social security, we would not have to worry about the UK Government undermining, at every step of the way, the good work that is going on in our country.

Good morning, minister. I am looking for clarification on where we are with the discussions that either you or your officials have had with your UK Government counterparts to resolve the concerns that we have highlighted in relation to the LCM. How far along are we? Has there been any progress?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for their contributions so far. On the theme of rent arrears, the importance of early intervention has been highlighted throughout the inquiry. We have already discussed that this morning. How effective have the pre-action requirements that are in place to protect social and private tenants been in avoiding eviction action whenever possible?

In the evidence that you provided, you say that the average cost of an eviction of a family is £24,000 and that

“the total cost of social sector evictions in Scotland for the year 2019-20 was £27.8m.”

Given the financial cost to local authorities and the emotional stress that an eviction can cause a person or a family, eviction does not seem the best way to deal with rent arrears, especially given that somebody will go back into homeless accommodation and will then have to get rehoused—it is a horrible cycle.

What other options do councils have to deal with rent arrears? You have touched on this, but could any further improvements be made to the processes and procedures around the collection of rent arrears in general?

I will focus on international examples, some of which have already been touched on. Cabinet secretary, you referred earlier to Canada and Norway, which are dominated by hydroelectric plants and have the lowest electricity prices in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Other countries, such as Switzerland, Austria and Sweden, also rely on hydro, and consumers pay less in those countries. We have seen Governments across Europe roll out more generous packages of support for households.

We can see limitations through privatisation in network costs and the ability to cap prices. You have also touched on the public energy agency company. As you have already laid out, many of the levers are still reserved to the UK Government, but what lessons do you feel can be learnt from looking at other countries’ energy policies and how they compare with the UK’s response so far?