Chamber and committees

The striking evidence that was taken during the committee’s inquiry and the contributions that have been shared in this afternoon’s debate have been very powerful. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to reflect on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s important report and the wider context of the cost crisis, which is causing significant hardship across Scotland. We have heard substantial contributions from committee colleagues that have served to highlight the stark and, at times, really difficult accounts that we heard from our experts by experience, witnesses and third sector organisations.

I am grateful for the contributions from all members across the chamber, including those from the Government. I am also grateful to the clerks for all their work associated with the inquiry.

As we have heard, our inquiry highlighted a number of specific challenges that are faced by people who struggle with low income and debt. Members’ speeches have covered a lot of areas, such as the wide scope of the inquiry, and I will try to capture some of those points in my closing comments.

As the convener stated, the evidence that we received on public sector and council tax debt was striking. There are examples of councils working holistically and of people working with one another across local authority departments to join the dots in relation to debt that is owed for housing, council tax or school meals, and to put individual support in place.

However, that is not true across all authorities. Some councils are taking proactive steps to write off specific debts and work on debt management with clients, but there is a feeling that others are making up for lost time during the pandemic and are pursuing debt in a proactive and, at times, aggressive way. We know that people can be scared to answer the telephone or a knock on the door and that that can cause worry, anxiety and a deterioration in mental health. A consistent and compassionate approach is needed across all council areas.

A number of contributions have focused on free school meals, and rightly so. Our inquiry shows that, with the current accrual of school meal debt, families are struggling to feed their children now. We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to expand free school meal provision to all primary school children, but we urge it to implement that expansion as soon as possible and to encourage local authorities to finalise the work to allow the expansion to be delivered. By combining the individual write-off of existing school meal debt with the prevention of future accrual of such debt, we can eliminate this public debt, which burdens only low-income families.

I highlight the evidence that was received on the relationship between debt and mental health. Mental ill health can be both a cause and a symptom of debt problems, creating a vicious cycle that can be extremely difficult to break. There are many challenges in providing money advice to people with mental ill health, and the issue should also be an important consideration in service delivery. The majority of our experts by experience noted the impact of debt on their mental health through anxiety and depression, and they felt that mental ill health impacted on their ability to deal with their debt.

As the minister alluded in his closing remarks, people with debt problems in Scotland have the opportunity to enter a moratorium on diligence, which prevents creditors from being able to take debt enforcement action against them. The committee called for the system to be adapted to provide better help for people in mental health crises. We hope that practical proposals will be brought forward as a result of the Scottish Government’s consultation on debt solutions and diligence.

In relation to physical health, the committee received evidence that people living with disabilities face higher living costs and are more likely to live in poverty.

The convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee echoed that, and some of the stories that she shared were sobering and highlighted the extent and outcomes of the increased spending that those with poor physical health and disabilities are currently experiencing. No one should have to fall into debt to keep themselves or their family members alive.

For some people with low incomes, bankruptcy might be the only way to get a clean slate. We looked at the statutory debt solutions that are available to people on low incomes to see whether any changes should be made to the legislative framework. We made recommendations on application fees for bankruptcy and minimum debt thresholds. I note the opportunity for quick action through the Scottish Government’s consultation on debt solutions and diligence.

Digital exclusion is another area that numerous members have picked up on today, and it was highlighted regularly in the committee evidence sessions. We heard that digital exclusion is holding people back from accessing debt advice and applying for jobs and benefits. The committee has asked the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to support access to free internet services and devices in public spaces. We have also asked the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government and stakeholders to consider whether a model similar to that used during the pandemic could be developed to allow free access to trusted money advice websites.

We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to enhance funding for Connecting Scotland, which can, for the remainder of this parliamentary session, provide free internet access for up to two years for those who are most in need. Overall, we urge the Government to consider how it can support low-income households to continue to access an internet connection in the longer term. It is absolutely vital that families that are making difficult budgeting decisions are not forced to sacrifice internet access when online connectivity provides an essential lifeline to many services.

Our inquiry and today’s debate have highlighted a number of key areas where we, as a committee and a Parliament, might wish to undertake more in-depth scrutiny. We thank the Scottish Government for its response to our report and look forward to receiving a response from COSLA and the UK Government to aid our discussions on the next steps. In isolation, some of the committee’s recommendations might seem small but, collectively, they could make a significant improvement for people with low incomes who are trying to manage problem debt. However, change will require co-operation between local authorities as well as the Scottish and UK Governments. Change will require us to listen to people’s experiences on the ground with compassion and empathy. For change, we need to reach out to people and offer support, and not always expect them to know where to go and what to ask.

As one debt adviser told us during our inquiry,

“A lot of people fall into debt due to a change in circumstances like a relationship breakdown, bereavement, losing a job or having a child. People don’t decide to spend, spend, spend and then be in debt. The idea of wilful debt is a myth—certainly in the clients I see.”

That is not fair. There should be no stigma to being in debt. Everyone deserves the opportunity to have a fresh start.

I understand that the consultation, which closes today, asks for views on various social security changes, including changing the legal basis of the Scottish child payment from a top-up benefit to a stand-alone benefit. That would make it easier to address the problem of the cliff edge, because it would be legally possible to pay the Scottish child payment to people who were not getting reserved benefits. What policy options are being considered on that front?

On a more general and less technical note, what overall impact will extending and increasing the Scottish child payment, as well as the other measures that we are speaking about today, have on the Scottish Government’s national mission to tackle child poverty?

Good morning. It is clear from what a number of organisations and individuals have said that the increase to the Scottish child payment is really welcome. We have seen and heard a host of evidence to support that. The Parliament is ambitious in its aim to end poverty, and it is disheartening when that ambition is frustrated by UK Government policy.

It is clear that the assistance offered by the SCP might be limited for some families due to the threshold rules on universal credit. Has there been any discussion with the UK Government or the DWP regarding the impact of the increase to the Scottish child payment and the potential that it could create a cliff edge, as some people might breach the universal credit threshold? If so, what has been the result of those discussions?

Good morning to the panel. We have touched on this issue briefly, and the strategic plan sets out some detail on it, but I am looking for further clarification on your triage process and how ESS will prioritise work and identify which issues should be investigated. That question goes first to Neil Langhorn.

To follow on from that, are there any issues that you consider to be outside the scope of investigation by ESS?

That is helpful; thank you.

I direct my next question to Mark Roberts. I understand that the ESS budget has increased, and ESS has stated that the increase is to cover operating costs and staff. Will you confirm whether ESS has now recruited its full complement of staff and whether it anticipates that it will require any additional budget for operating at full capacity?

Good morning, panel. I have been waiting patiently. My first question is directed to Jo Green and John Kerr. How are reductions in budgets impacting SEPA and NatureScot at a time when they are required to take on additional regulatory and statutory functions resulting from EU exit and the demands of tackling the climate and biodiversity crises?

In August, the National Farmers Union estimated that more than £60 million-worth of food had been wasted because of workforce shortages. Farmers are doubly feeling the effect of Tory policy through not having the workforce available to help them, and now farmers, like most in the country, are suffering from inflationary pressures that have been exacerbated by Brexit, which the Tories forced on Scotland. Does the minister share my view that, unless the UK Government considers Scotland to be beneath its contempt, the very least that it can do is urgently agree to proposals for a rural visa pilot?