Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Subordinate Legislation
- Public Petition
Public Petition
Welfare Cuts (Mitigation) (PE1677)
Item 6 is a public petition. I refer members to paper 3, and the petition, which is by Dr Sarah Glynn. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to make more money available to mitigate the impact of the UK Government welfare cuts by reassessing spending priorities and bringing in more progressive taxation.
At its meeting on 1 November 2018, the committee agreed to consider the petition, following the publication of the Scottish Government budget. As part of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny, the committee wrote to the Scottish Government asking for the Scottish welfare fund to be increased to address growing pressures and need. For now, the Scottish Government has committed to maintain but not increase the funding for the Scottish welfare fund.
I invite the committee to consider the petition again and decide whether it wishes to close the petition on the basis that the policy and expenditure considerations that it raises are embedded in the work of the committee and were considered during its draft budget considerations or, alternatively, to agree on the reasons for keeping the petition open.
Through the work that we have done, we have effectively agreed with the petitioner. We have asked the Scottish Government to make more money available to mitigate the impact of welfare cuts and we have specified that the mechanism for doing that is the welfare fund. I would be content to close the petition on the proviso that we write to the petitioner to set out what we have done and that we flag the petition to the Scottish Government and restate the committee’s view that the welfare fund should be increased to address the growing need.
10:00
Similarly, I think that the committee could close the petition on the ground that we have already commented on the welfare fund. I want to offer one comment, which maybe not all committee members will agree with. Although I think that what we are saying about the welfare fund is reasonable and that what the petitioner is saying about it is reasonable, as a more general point, I do not think that the committee would endorse the idea that all cuts that are made to the social security system or in other reserved areas could be met by this Parliament from devolved resources.
I saw a figure recently that suggested that the amount of money that is coming out of the benefit system in Scotland in this session of Parliament is equivalent to what we spend on Police Scotland in its entirety. I understand the points that are made in the petition, and the point that has just been made about closing it and the reasons for doing so are reasonable. However, I make the observation that, as a general principle, this Parliament cannot offer to make up for everything that Westminster takes away from us.
Does anyone else disagree?
It is not so much disagreement—I suppose that we are closing the petition after we have been unsuccessful. The Parliament has not been able to convince the Government. However, I take on board colleagues’ comments. We have urged the Scottish Government, as the petitioner has requested, to make more money available and it has said no or, certainly, not at the moment.
I agree with the petitioner that we need a more progressive system of taxation and my party has worked hard to alleviate cuts to local budgets. One concern that I have is that universal credit is still being rolled out, so this is a changing picture; it could worsen.
We should certainly write to the petitioner and to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People, but we should ask the cabinet secretary to bear it in mind that this is a changing picture and that things could get worse. We really need to keep an eye on this as a Parliament to make sure that the fund is getting close to meeting the need that is there—obviously, we want it to properly meet the need that is there.
I did not see the petition when it came to committee, as I have only recently joined the committee, but I have a couple of thoughts. First, there is a moral hazard here. If this Parliament and this Government continue to mitigate the bulk of the cuts that come from Westminster, there will be no end to that, plus there is an incentive for Westminster to cut further benefits because it will be confident that devolved Administrations, in some cases, will pick up the slack. That is just not sustainable.
The other point is that we discussed the Scottish welfare fund when it was apparent that there was an underspend on that, so I am not sure about the benefits of putting more money into a budget that is currently underspent—unless, of course, you change the entitlement, which then pushes up the take-up of the fund.
What I am more concerned about is to do with the mitigation that is there just now—I think that it is £70 million for discretionary housing payments, which works out as more than £600 a year on average going to those who have the bedroom tax mitigated. I am much more concerned that those payments stay in place.
In addition to writing to the Scottish Government, we should ask the party leaders whether they are committed to those mitigations staying in place in the long term, because having the comfort that those mitigations will be there is a more pressing concern for people, especially in the next two or three years.
I am comfortable to close the petition. I was on the Public Petitions Committee when the petition was brought to that committee, so I heard it then. There was fairly unanimous agreement in that committee that the petition should be passed on. It is not particularly evidence based; it is quite emotive. Although I understand the reasoning of the petitioner and where they come from, I do not think there is any mileage in the petition at present.
To pick up on Keith Brown’s comments, we have got clear evidence on the current underspend in the welfare fund, so there is no reason to raise the matter at this point. However, I would be content if you want to write and say that we will keep the matter in mind.
I think that we are agreed that we will close the petition.
We need to write to the petitioner. As well as sending a copy of the Official Report, we could reiterate the views around the table. We specifically say in our report “Social Security and In-Work Poverty” that the Scottish Government, whatever its complexion, should not mitigate every single change. We can refer the petitioner to that report.
Like Alison Johnstone, I think that it is a changing picture, so we should not close the door. I also agree with Keith Brown that it is important that the significant arrangements that have been put in place to mitigate the bedroom tax stay in place.
Shall I send round a draft letter to everyone, to confirm that all the points are covered? As Mark Griffin suggested, we can write to the Scottish Government, making the same points. Do members agree to add in Alison Johnstone’s point about it being a changing picture?
I do not mind doing that, but I would also push the point that we must have some idea about how sustainable mitigation is politically. The other parties should say whether they intend to stick to that policy and, if so, we should know what the basis of that commitment is. I agree with all that has been said, but I would add in that bit.
Surely that is for manifestos come 2021. You are almost saying that parties have to commit to things before they have a manifesto. Every political party will produce a programme for government for 2021 and beyond. That would be the appropriate place for people to outline their policies, rather than doing so issue by issue in committee.
For the time being, I want to stick to the content of the letters and what the committee wants to say to the petitioner and the Scottish Government.
That is exactly what I am talking about. People need to know what the position is. If the committee is looking at the sustainability of the mitigation in place, having that information is vital.
I think that it is important for the committee to know what the commitments and the likely threats are to mitigation. That is why I am pushing the point that we should find out which of the other parties are committed to mitigation. If they are not, they can say so.
I think that the committee is agreed that we want to stick to the mitigation that is in place. Is that correct?
I am not sure that that is the case, given what has just been said.
I am very happy with where the situation is at the moment. However, at this stage, it would be difficult for us, or any political party, to say what we will do beyond 2021. All the parties have a position now—
Let me cut to the chase. I do not think that the committee should be writing to party leaders. We are trying to agree what elements should go in the letters. Is it fair to say that the committee supports continuing the level of mitigation that is in the budget now?
Yes.
I do not think that that answers the question. Think about the petitioners. They are concerned about the current level of mitigation. If that level does not go higher, which is what they seek, they are concerned that it does not go lower. That is an important point, and people should be able to express a view on it. Given what Jeremy Balfour has said, I am not sure that it is the case that there is a commitment to alleviate the bedroom tax going forward.
I am fairly new to the committee, so I am happy to take the committee’s view on the matter. I think that it a matter of importance to the petitioners and the committee to flush out who is committed to the mitigation that is in place. I am happy to take other views.
Is there a compromise to be had? A reference could be made somewhere in the letter to the fact that the sustainability of mitigation depends on the commitment made by various parties, not just the Scottish Government. I agree about not writing to party leaders. The wording could be along the lines of how the commitment to continue mitigation is dependent on the commitments of all parties to make that happen.
And, of course, the shape of benefits. Who is to say what will happen to the benefit system in the future? Committing to mitigating something for ever and a day is not necessarily relevant if the whole thing changes anyway.
But it is quite straightforward to say whether you will remain committed to mitigating the bedroom tax if it stays in place in Scotland. That is quite an easy thing to say. If that tax does not stay in place, obviously, you cannot be expected to—
There is no such thing as a bedroom tax, so I would not even go down that route.
If we cannot agree that there is a bedroom tax, we will not agree on anything.
I go along with Shona Robison’s suggestion, as a compromise.
I think that everybody appreciates that, to all intents and purposes, there could be a changing picture in any direction—we just do not know what it will be.
Alison Johnstone suggested that there is a changing picture, whatever that means, and we want the Scottish Government to keep an eye out. I think that we are all agreed—because we said this in our report—that we do not think that the Scottish Government should mitigate every single benefit change, where there is a budget implication, but that we all reserve our positions on what elements might be mitigated, because we might have a slight difference of opinion on that.
We have got the draft outline of a letter, with key points. We will circulate the draft, which will stick to the consensus that I think exists. We can take that forward at another time.
The committee is content to close the petition. I thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us.
Meeting closed at 10:10.Previous
Subordinate Legislation