Chamber and committees

I want to ask a couple of further questions on debt and potential new models. We know from some of the evidence that you have provided that council tax debt, for example, is sometimes one of the first that starts to build up and non-payment of council tax becomes problematic for people in managing their debt. I would like to hear people’s views on potential changes that could be brought forward to deal effectively with debts like that. I ask Lawrie Morgan-Klein to start, and then others can come in on the specific question of council tax debt.

It is about the concerns that were raised yesterday about energy costs. In one day, gas prices jumped 40 per cent, although the impact will probably be felt next spring. My question is on preventative models. Jon Sparkes touched on what we can do with preventative models for homelessness, but does any of the panel members have suggestions as to preventative models for debt management? Consumer advice is readily available online, but what work should we do in relation to people who do not have access to online services or those who have reading difficulties?

I will follow up on the questions from my colleague Marie McNair. The Scottish Government has pointed towards other potential benefits—just yesterday, we received a letter from the Minister for Social Security and Local Government with regard to the young carers grant. In your evidence, you have said that there could be 70,000 additional successful applicants for ADP. Are you doing any other work on potential future benefits and what those would look like?

How did the figure of 70,000 additional applicants come about?

That was very helpful—thank you. You answered my question about when you expect the uncertainty to be cleared up. Your projection for that is five years, once the benefit is established.

I want to look at some of the drivers for increased costs. You outlined additional successful applications and higher average payments. Are there any other areas that you think that it is important to make the Scottish Government aware of—and, perhaps, for the committee to investigate—with regard to the long-term sustainability of payments?

Thank you for joining us. As my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy said, the briefing that you provided has been really useful in helping us to get into the granular detail of the cost projections for new benefits and the setting up of services.

I have two specific questions, the first of which is about Social Security Scotland’s costs and your original forecasting on those, in which you looked at the Government’s potential costs. I believe that those were set at £307 million, but the figure has now doubled to more than £651 million. Do you have any insight into where the Government’s forecasting on the initial set-up costs may have gone wrong?

My second question is about adult disability payment. From the information that you have given the committee, the scale of uncertainty around that is such that the costs are not clear. What impact might that have on Social Security Scotland and the benefits that it currently administers?

It is on page 31, in the section entitled “Public comment”. The definition seems to me to be very tight, in that councillors are discouraged from making any public comment that could bring the council “into disrepute”. There is a huge difference between, say, someone in the administration and a councillor in the opposition, who might feel that they have not received a satisfactory resolution from the council’s processes and might make some public comment in the press. I wonder how that paragraph was drawn up.

That is fine.

I note that, in the section on public comment, point 24 says:

“Councillors and employees both have a responsibility to project a positive image of the Council and should avoid making any public comments that could bring it into disrepute.”

Reading that, a new councillor might feel that they should not comment on any concern, even if it is to do with bullying or whatever. Indeed—the minister will be aware of such cases here in the capital—such matters are often taken to the press before the council can start to look at them. Do you think that that rule is too tight, with regard to councillors being unable to comment publicly on concerns that they have about the running of the council or other issues to do with it?

I take those points on board, and paragraph 25 captures that view. However, paragraph 24 is specifically about bringing the council as an institution “into disrepute”. I am concerned that a new councillor who reads that might feel that, under the code of conduct guidance, they cannot be critical in the press. It says that they have to

“project a positive image of the Council”,

but in some cases they might not feel that they can do that. Perhaps it is just a matter of looking at the wording to ensure that councillors know that, if they need to, they can make public comment against the organisation, as it were, but not against a particular employee.