Plenary, 03 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, February 3, 2005

Official Report 756KB pdf

---

Local Benefits Services

The final item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1916, in the name of Brian Adam, on cuts in local benefits services. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament expresses great concern about the impact of the proposed cuts by the Department of Work and Pensions in local provision of benefits advice; regrets the likely reduction in benefits uptake by many vulnerable people; deplores the unfair geographical spread of the cuts, leaving Grampian, Tayside and Fife without any local offices; recognises the consequential increased workload that will fall on local authority and voluntary sector money advice services, and believes that the Scottish Executive should make representations to protect the interests and incomes of the vulnerable in Scotland.

The reason for the debate is a set of proposals that was produced by the Department for Work and Pensions in October last year. Obviously, benefits and the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions are the responsibility of the Westminster Government, but there are serious implications for our constituents and for organisations that deliver services that are directly or indirectly under the control of the Executive, or which depend on the Executive for financial support.

I suggest that what the Department for Work and Pensions has suggested is a consequence of the silo approach to Government, which is to do with people deciding to look after their department's interests rather than considering all the implications of a proposal. In the situation that we are discussing this evening, a minister or perhaps an ambitious civil servant has determined to shed loads and loads of jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions in an attempt to appeal to Daily Mail readers in middle England. However, the consequences of the action are significant for those who have to go through the process of applying for benefits.

As I understand it, the proposals could well mean that benefits processing will be a black hole between Inverness and Bathgate and that no benefits processing will be done in Department for Work and Pensions premises in Grampian, Tayside and Fife. Direct access to the DWP for advice on benefits matters will be through a telephone call made by the claimant to an 0845 number. Allegedly, that is a low-cost call, but I am sure that Mr Stevenson will explain in his speech exactly why it is not a low-cost call. In the light of submissions that I have received from citizens advice bureaux, which have made representations to me and to other members, the cost could be significant, especially when people are trying to get the details that have been given to the DWP over the phone. That is not a five minute or 10-minute job; the call might take considerably longer, and I stress that its cost is to be borne by the claimant who is applying for benefit.

The potential impact in the north and north-east could well be that—to use Banff and Buchan as an example first—the Banff office, the two offices in Peterhead and the one in Fraserburgh could all go, as far as benefits processing is concerned. The office in Aberdeen, the one in Dundee, the one in Perth and the offices that serve Fife could all lose the same facility.

Many of us will remember the problems that arose—some of which continue—when the DWP decided, in its interests and, allegedly, in those of the country, to move away from the pension arrangements whereby pensioners received payments through benefit books, which means that they have to go to banks. To deal with that, pensioners had to phone a Dundee telephone number, but the system just did not work. Pensioners experienced great difficulty as a result.

On the face of it, the DWP made significant savings, but the department was really only transferring the costs elsewhere in the system, in particular to other agencies that offer advice. That advice may be given through local authorities, and it may well be that Mr McCabe will hear appeals from local authorities for additional finance over the coming years to support welfare rights advice.

Citizens advice bureaux might also be concerned. Information has been given to us that suggests that perhaps a third of the work that is done by Citizens Advice Scotland across the board is related to benefits advice. Staff who work in the citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen tell me that benefits advice accounts for about 20 per cent of their new work. I suspect that that proportion will increase significantly. The bureau is already stretched in delivering its services, and the consequences of the DWP's actions, if they proceed, are that additional burdens will be placed on citizens advice bureaux.

It is not just about citizens advice bureaux and the people who work in them, who are able, articulate and organised—indeed, they have provided us with briefings on this subject. There are also many community-based projects that give welfare rights and benefits advice. The cuts will significantly impact on those services, too. Both the voluntary sector and local government will be approaching the Executive and saying that, as a consequence of the cuts, they need more money to support the advice services that they offer. Claimants will not be able to get the face-to-face response that they currently get, and which they deserve.

I do not know whether it is an intended or unintended consequence of the cuts, but I strongly suspect that fewer people will make claims, especially when they are going in and out of work, which is a particular feature in the Aberdeen area, where people might take on a few weeks of casual work before going back on benefits. Those include indirect benefits as well as direct benefits. The consequences for council tax benefit and housing benefit are significant. If people cannot get their claims sorted out fairly quickly, they lose those benefits. I suspect that one unintended consequence will be a significant drop in the amount of benefits that are claimed and delivered, particularly on the east coast.

I will leave the rest of the time available to the many other members who wish to take part in the debate.

I thank Brian Adam for lodging the motion for debate.

The issue is big in Fife because 180 jobs at social security offices in Leven, Kirkcaldy, Cowdenbeath and Dunfermline are threatened. Recently, Alistair Darling said in Westminster that social security offices need to be in the right places and that they need to be convenient. We have that in Fife—there are social security offices in the right places and they are convenient for centres of population. Claimants need an accessible good-quality service, which means face-to-face interaction with a benefits adviser. How can a personal adviser give personal advice on a sensitive benefits issue over the phone? Advice and referrals work in Fife is being done increasingly in a multi-agency way—there is lots of partnership working, for which social security staff are needed on the ground.

Does the member agree that areas such as Fife and other deprived communities throughout Scotland will potentially lose millions of extra pounds that are generated via one-to-one interviews with social security advisers?

Yes. That is a serious concern. We must keep offices open because one problem with telephone or automated-system advice is that many of the most vulnerable people in society do not feel comfortable using telephones or are simply unable to use them. Many benefits advisers find that automated systems simply do not work. The current system for crisis loans is a helpline that is impossible to use. Serious issues are involved.

One problem is that there is a mismatch between the policy at Westminster and the Scottish Executive's policy. In response to a question from Brian Adam in December, McConnell said that we need to

"redirect resources from the back office to the front line".—[Official Report, 2 December 2004; c 12537.]

There is evidence that the Executive is doing that. It is putting an extra £3 million per annum into money advice services, but Westminster is bringing in cuts to social security offices. The Executive must waken up because it is in effect subsidising Westminster's cuts, which will disadvantage the most vulnerable people in society. In turn, that will increase pressure on the voluntary sector, which the Executive is seeking to help.

I welcome the fact that Brian Adam has raised the issue that we are discussing, as I am sure that we all agree that access to benefits advice is crucial—Mark Ruskell mentioned that. All of us in the north-east want there to be adequate access to such services in our region.

I want to focus on two aspects of the debate. First, I want to discuss what the Executive has done to ensure that benefits take-up is maximised—again, Mark Ruskell touched on that matter. Secondly, the motion strays into reserved areas and I want to tell members about the work that our local members of Parliament have done.

In general terms, the Executive has invested in more money advice services—Mark Ruskell spoke about that, too. An extra £4 million was invested in such services last year and Aberdeen shared in the £2 million of Executive funding for extra services that was announced in October. I am sure that the minister will tell us more about that.

Of course, local MPs at Westminster have been concerned about the matter. I assure members of the Scottish Parliament that MPs have taken their concerns about the reorganisation of services by the Department for Work and Pensions to that department and have successfully negotiated with it to maintain jobs and services in their areas. In Dundee, Iain Luke and Ernie Ross have pressed ministers on the issue. Following that, the Minister of State for Pensions, Malcolm Wicks, announced that Dundee will be the location for one of the 12 pension centres in Britain, which will receive additional investment to provide customers with better and more efficient services by 2008.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to have Government jobs in Dundee, but how exactly will that help to deliver benefits advice in Dundee or, indeed, in any of the other areas in which there are likely to be cuts?

I have mentioned the work that the Executive is doing on front-line advice services. I will move on to the issues that MPs have taken up. I am glad that Brian Adam welcomes what is happening in Dundee, as it is a positive announcement of jobs and services for the area.

There has been progress in Aberdeen, too. As Brian Adam knows, the benefits staff in Aberdeen do a great job, with particular successes for Jobcentre Plus. The dedication of the jobcentre staff was shown in the wake of the closure of Richards of Aberdeen. Brian Adam will know all about that, as the company was in his constituency. When workers were told that they were going to lose their jobs, Frank Doran, the MP for Aberdeen Central, was in touch with the jobcentre to find out what assistance could be given. Members of staff from jobcentres throughout the north-east, not just from Aberdeen, gave up their time at weekends to give jobs advice, arrange crisis loans and organise a jobs fair. Nobody would disagree that we are talking about excellent staff and excellent services.

Aberdeen MPs have been active in liaising with ministers at the DWP on the service reorganisation, relaying some of their concerns. Anne Begg and Frank Doran met Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to discuss employment for staff in the benefits advice service in Aberdeen and maintaining the excellent provision of benefits advice services for people in Aberdeen. At that meeting, Alan Johnson recognised the high quality of work that is carried out by benefits advice staff in the city and agreed that there will be a significant transfer of jobs to front-line benefits advice services in Aberdeen. That will significantly reduce the number of likely redundancies. We should congratulate Frank Doran and Anne Begg on their successful efforts to maintain benefits jobs and services in Aberdeen.

I welcome the opportunity that the debate has given members from all parties to congratulate benefits advice staff on their excellent work and to highlight the great need for those services and for more awareness among people in Scotland of their benefits entitlements.

I listened with considerable interest to Richard Baker's speech. He said many interesting and valuable things. Of course, the Jobcentre Plus staff are committed and engaged. During the recent problems at Richards, they went beyond the narrow brief of their job. That is an example of why the public services, in many instances, have an advantage over the services that are provided by private companies. The problem is that the proposed changes put at risk the public service ideal. I am sad that Richard Baker was unable to sign the motion in Brian Adam's name, but I take it that he is supportive of it. If MPs failed to relay their constituents' concerns, whatever their individual views, they would reap the whirlwind. If those MPs are part of the Administration that is making changes that could potentially disadvantage their constituents, they will be judged not on their ability, but on their achievement.

There are some important general issues around all this. We must consider innovative ways of delivering benefits and ensuring that people in our community are able to access the benefits to which their situation entitles them. In Aberdeen, there are encouraging signs and, in some places, one can go to one address and access a range of services. However, it appears that the changes that are envisaged might well put that at risk and mean that people will have to visit many doors to get the same support as they received before.

We should not underestimate the real difficulties that people have with paperwork. My wife, like me, is a mathematician, who has made a successful business career for herself. However, like many others, faced with her tax form, she kept it right to the end until, finally, on 25 January, she said, "I need your help." By the way, I refused to give her help, on the basis that she is at least as intelligent as I am—and probably more intelligent—and that she might blame me for making a mess of it. The point is that the people who most need the support of a range of benefits are those who are least able to deal with the paperwork.

If we take that further, it is obvious that moving support to the telephone will create more barriers. As my colleague Brian Adam mentioned, it will create an economic barrier because the 0845 dialling code, which was originally introduced as a local-rate call that could be delivered nationally, is now tied to a fictional local rate that no telephone company charges that now exceeds what the telephone companies charge for national calls. The practice has been severely criticised in a recent Office of Communications report, which also criticised the charges for 0870 numbers, so I hope that we will see some change on that.

However, the proposed closures will also remove the essential across-the-desk contact that allows the adviser to see the body language of the person who is seeking help and the recipient to get feedback. Those with the greatest needs are precisely the people who will not get what they need without human access. Like other members, I suspect, I have used the services of DWP staff for many of my constituents who I thought would benefit from the benefits check facility that is available. That service is put at risk by the proposed changes across Scotland.

I say yes to innovation and to delivering services through a single door. However, simply paying off staff and closing offices will contribute nothing to addressing social exclusion.

I will not repeat points that have been made, so my speech will be brief.

I remind members of the problems that people face in accessing public agencies, quangos or companies that were formerly public agencies. If members have recently tried to contact BT, they will know that they need a lot of time and patience and not a bad memory. On eventually getting through to the menu of choices, the caller is told, "You now have six choices." By the time that I was told the sixth option, I had forgotten what the first two were. I had a similar experience recently when I had to contact the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on a number of issues. DVLA has used a similarly complex network of phone messages to try to streamline its business.

Such experiences are bad enough for those who are seeking services from the former public agencies that I have given as examples, but for people who are seeking help with dealing with the complexity of the income on which they must live, it is not good enough that they must press this button and that button. It is not good enough that, if they press the wrong button, they must try and make do with the lesser amount of money with which they will end up every week or for a month or for a year. That is why we need to point out the loss that will result from losing DWP staff's professionalism, skills and compassion. The loss of that human touch must be opposed. Brian Adam should be congratulated on bringing the matter to the Parliament's attention.

We should line up with the citizens advice bureaux, the Public and Commercial Services Union—which is the trade union concerned—and all the pensioners organisations and youth groups. They have made the point that the loss of human contact could lead to millions of pounds each year being lost by people who could rightfully claim that finance but who do not have the communication skills or understanding to be able to access it.

When the Minister for Communities replies to the debate, I hope that he does not simply hide behind the settlement of the Scotland Act 1998. The motion asks him to contact Westminster on our behalf, and that is not barred by the act. Given Malcolm Chisholm's reputation and background, he must recognise the potentially damaging effects that the loss of such services would have. Let us not dress up the proposals as efficiencies or streamlining. They are cuts. We need to oppose them.

I hope that the minister will take the opportunity when he sums up to say that he will contact Westminster on the Parliament's behalf to insist that services should not be lost in the areas that require them.

I, too, thank Brian Adam for the opportunity to speak in the debate, which is on a reserved issue. It would be wrong to assume that the proposals have no impact on the current provision of the service, on the voluntary sector, on other sources of advice and on people who seek benefits advice.

I do not measure the proposals by the number of offices that are to be closed or the number of staff who will, I hope, be redeployed elsewhere in the civil service. Any assessment of the impact of the proposed benefit office closures should relate to the quality of advice that is given and the accessibility of that advice for people, including the many vulnerable people whom the motion mentions. If the consequential increased workload falls on local authorities and voluntary sector money advice services, it will be crucial for the Parliament to acknowledge that and to put such centres on a secure and stable financial footing.

In the interests of fairness, and given that the First Minister cannot participate in the debate, I will quote what his colleague Frank Roy said in a Westminster debate on 26 October 2004—given what Richard Baker, who has left the chamber, said, there may have been an update since then. Frank Roy said:

"the jobcentre roll-out programme in Lanarkshire has been renamed the jobcentre wipeout plan".

As no Liberals are present, I will quote John Thurso, who asked about the office in Wick. He asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to

"explain to those employed there why their jobs are under threat, in an area that is already economically depressed and where, because of the distances involved, that threat will make it more difficult to deliver a good service".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 26 October 2004; Vol 425, c 1276.]

Having done my bit for old Labour and the Liberal aristocracy, I will move on to the fully justified concerns of Citizens Advice Scotland, which says:

"The increased remoteness of the … network will make it more difficult for those in an emergency situation to access … support"

and that more claimants will turn to citizens advice bureaux, which will

"create additional demands on an already under-resourced service."

As Brian Adam said, the organisation asks the Scottish Executive to make representations to Westminster to require the need for additional advice to be taken into consideration as part of the planning process. It also says:

"For many benefits, clients already experience delays of two to three months and many millions of pounds of benefits go unclaimed every year",

as Tommy Sheridan said,

"because people lack the help and advice they need to make a claim."

The plans for reform that the member's party launched last month include the intention to privatise jobcentres. Is she confident that the Conservatives can secure a good service for claimants under a privatised service?

Yes—I am absolutely, totally confident. I would be happy to debate that with the member at any time, but tonight I am addressing Brian Adam's motion.

Citizens advice bureaux provide an excellent service. They give advice on a range of issues, of which benefits are one. More than 30 per cent of those who approach citizens advice bureaux are looking for social security benefits and £35 million in financial gain was won in the past financial year in Scotland alone for people who visited citizens advice bureaux. CAB support for debt management is first class and debt clients can have regular appointments over many years to tackle and manage debt, which is at an all-time high in Scotland. Will local advice bureaux be given the resources to advise those who will be unable to access benefit offices in person or by telephone? Such services are under threat, particularly those that require home visits, as many do in the Highlands, given the time that is required.

I put on record the commitment of the volunteers and salaried staff at citizens advice bureaux, the excellent training that is provided and the fact that their experienced staff give the highest quality of benefits advice. The commitment to invest in and build on that service with consistent long-term funding is crucial to the debate and falls within the responsibilities of the Parliament and the minister who is present.

I congratulate Brian Adam on securing the debate. Although the issue in question is decided at Westminster, we in the Scottish Parliament must have a say because the decision will have a huge impact on the communities that we represent. The Parliament does what it can to promote social justice and economic development in our communities, and it is quite unhelpful for Westminster then to come along and pull the economic rug from under us as the DWP is doing with these closures. We should not be afraid of saying so.

The DWP proposes to close down the local social security office in Perth completely with the loss of 54 jobs. That is a shoddy way to treat people. The staff who are affected by such cuts are not faceless bureaucrats sitting in back offices; they are hard-working front-line staff who are involved in service delivery. Many of them have families and other commitments and will find it extremely difficult to relocate—even if relocation were on offer, which does not look likely.

The announcement of these cuts was made in a written statement in the House of Commons and was listed on the order paper in the middle of 32 other items under the heading "departmental efficiency", which seems to have been given without any obvious appreciation of the irony. However, efficient is something that the DWP certainly is not.

Richard Baker was quite right to mention the work of local MPs on this matter. My colleague Annabelle Ewing MP has also been pursuing the matter. The DWP is so efficient that two different ministers sent her two different letters on the same subject, which were both dated 6 October 2004 and which said two different things. The first, from Maria Eagle MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Work and Pensions said:

"Perth Social Security Office will close and the Benefit Processing Centre in Grampian and Tayside District will be located in Inverness".

The other letter, from Jane Kennedy MP, the Minister of State for Work, said:

"The Benefit Processing Centre taking claims from Grampian and Tayside District will be operational by the end of the 2005/06 financial year and benefit processing in … Perth, will move to Greenock."

Greenock, Inverness, Perth—it is probably all the same to Whitehall. However, it makes a bit of a difference to people who live in Perthshire. It really does not engender much confidence to see what is coming out of the DWP.

As other members have pointed out, the plan is certainly not good for the staff who will be directly affected, nor will it provide a better service for the people who use it: the benefits applicants, who include some of the most needy people in our society. We should not be making it even harder for them to access the benefits to which they are entitled.

Indeed, in a very recent written answer that was published in Hansard on 1 February 2005, Jane Kennedy had the brass neck to say:

"These changes will not impede or hinder access to face-to-face interviews"—[Official Report, House of Commons, 1 February 2005; Vol 430, c 808W.]

How on earth can removing the service from Perth or other areas to Inverness and/or Greenock, whichever it might turn out to be, not in some way impede

"access to face-to-face interviews"?

Who is she kidding? Although claimants might still be able to go into a local office to make a claim, it will be sent away to be processed and it will no longer be possible to have easy access to the individual who processes it. The truth is that the whole system will become more impersonal and inflexible than it already is—and that is not to mention the knock-on effect for advice agencies, which are of course a devolved issue that the minister will have to address.

There is outrage across all parties and at all levels of society in Perth at the proposal and what it will mean for the poorest in our society. I hope that the minister will listen to the anger and frustration that members have expressed today and that he will convey those feelings to the ministers at Westminster who are responsible for making the decision. I also hope that the minister will say to his Westminster counterpart that he, too, agrees with that sense of anger and frustration.

I congratulate Brian Adam on securing this debate and acknowledge his concerns over how the DWP will deliver a progressive and effective service in Scotland. The matter is, of course, reserved and I shall speak only about the intention behind the plans. However, I recognise that there is a distinction between benefits processing and the front-line delivery of face-to-face help and assistance and, from where I am sitting, it appears that those two aspects have become quite confused during the debate.

The DWP plans are intended, for example, to release more staff for front-line delivery, providing face-to-face help and assistance, and to give personal advisers nearly a fifth more time to work with each individual. The plans are also intended to enable those who struggle to reach offices—such as the sick and disabled—to gain help in their homes and local communities and therefore to have improved access. The plans are intended to enable more services to be delivered in local surgeries and to be delivered jointly with local authorities in local communities.

The minister's integrity and commitment are well recognised, especially by me. However, does he acknowledge that, when a person behind a desk is putting data into the computer system—in a complex environment in which advisers themselves sometimes have gaps in their knowledge—immediate feedback about difficulties with the data is lost when the form is sent to a remote office? Only at that point are difficulties with the data identified. That is the core problem—among others.

I do not claim to be an expert in this area; I am merely highlighting the fact that face-to-face help and assistance will be available. That is important to people. I leave it to others who are more immersed in this subject than I am to judge whether that is the whole story.

I was talking about joint services with local authorities. A prime example is West Lothian connected—a multi-agency, one-stop shop in the Almondvale shopping centre that brings together organisations such as Jobcentre Plus, West Lothian Council, Lothian NHS Board, the Inland Revenue and West Lothian College. That illustrates how a wide range of services can be brought together to support our communities.

Brian Adam specifically mentioned Grampian, Tayside and Fife as areas without any DWP local offices. However, there are, and will remain, customer-facing offices in Fife at St Andrews, Cupar, Leven, Glenrothes, Kirkcaldy, Cowdenbeath and Dunfermline. Grampian and Tayside have, and will continue to have, customer-facing offices in Aberdeen, Banff, Arbroath, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Forfar, Montrose, Dundee, Blairgowrie and Perth.

I did not at any point say that there would be no local offices. I said that there would be no benefits processing in those offices and that the direct link between the person doing the processing and the individual seeking benefits would be lost.

I accept that what Mr Adam says has become the point that has been most emphasised in the debate. I am merely trying to redress the balance, because there has been confusion between the benefits processing issue and the wider issues of money advice and assistance, which I shall talk about shortly. Those things will not be lost because of the change. Mr Adam has a point, but some people have strayed rather from that specific point to imply that there would be far wider changes to the availability of face-to-face help and assistance.

The efficient use of resources in delivering front-line services is, of course, for the DWP to manage. However, I want to talk a little about how the changes will work together with our action in Scotland to close the opportunity gap. The motion mentions the provision of money advice by local authorities and the voluntary sector. The Executive acknowledges that money advice is an important part of the strategy to combat financial exclusion. We greatly value the important role that money advisers play in providing impartial advice and support when they are needed most. That helps people to deal with pressing debts and ensures that they are getting all the benefits to which they are entitled and can maximise their disposable income in other ways.

Two weeks ago in the chamber, Johann Lamont and I spoke about our financial inclusion action plan. It outlines the action needed to help the people of Scotland to take control of their own finances. That, of course, is part of the way out of poverty. The plan clearly acknowledges the role that money advice services play. It pledges that we will encourage the provision of advice that addresses all the interlinked difficulties that people face in their financial and legal affairs and in housing, employment and other matters. That is why we continue to support the money advice sector via direct funding.

We have already committed £3 million per annum, resulting in 120 front-line money advisers—half of whom are based in the voluntary sector. Those advisers are now in place. An additional £2 million per annum will be set aside from April 2005 for face-to-face money advice that will be distributed via local authorities. It is expected that that will create a further 70 front-line money advisers in addition to the 120 that I just mentioned.

We want to ensure that money advice is available to everyone, especially the most vulnerable members of our society. We are therefore investing a further £2 million over two years in a range of projects that explore the needs of specific groups such as lone parents and minority ethnic groups in accessing money advice.

Given the wonderful value for money that the CABx provide, will some of that generous allocation be made available to the CABx as well as to local authorities?

Indeed. Of the money that has already been allocated, 44 per cent has gone to the voluntary sector. I am sure that that will continue to be the case with the money that is provided in the new financial year.

A key part of our closing the opportunity gap approach is to break the cycle of poverty by helping people into sustained employment. There are two key examples of how we are working with the DWP to make that aspiration a reality.

I am glad that the minister talks about the need to get people into employment. Does that include those who are about to made unemployed by the DWP?

I am obviously concerned about anyone losing their job. I hope that the process to which the member refers will not result in any compulsory redundancies.

With the DWP, we are committed to delivering our first closing the opportunity gap target, which focuses on reducing the number of workless people who are dependent on DWP benefits in seven key areas of unemployment in Scotland. A number of money advice projects are working in partnership with the DWP to help long-term benefit claimants make the transition to sustained employment. They include the pathways to work projects that are based in Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and Argyll and Bute and the two working neighbourhood pilots in Glasgow.

Demand for money advice grows daily. We want to help to ensure that the infrastructure behind services can adapt to cope with the new demands that are placed on them, so we are investing in second-tier advice and training for money advisers; accreditation for specialist advisers who draw up debt arrangement schemes; and a common information technology structure for the sector.

In his motion, Brian Adam mentioned Grampian, Tayside and Fife. He might be interested to hear that Fife Council, for example, will receive £100,000 of the new money. That will boost its annual funding for money advice to more than £250,000. That is in addition to Executive support for its financial inclusion project, which links with a range of partners, including banks, credit unions and business support agencies, to deliver financial education and advice at a local level. The authorities that cover the areas of Grampian and Tayside will collectively receive almost £700,000 in the next financial year.

I am delighted that the Executive has taken some steps, but it was not against that background that the DWP's announcement was made. Given that concerns have been expressed across the board—even by members of his own party—will the minister make representations on the matter to his colleagues at Westminster?

You should wind up now, minister.

I will do so.

Two things have emerged from the debate. Of course I will pass on the views of members, but the range of speeches that we have heard has made me want to do some further work, even though the area is reserved. Members have expressed concerns but, as I have tried to indicate, I think that there is another side to the story. However, I will investigate the specific issues that have been raised and will convey those concerns to my colleagues at Westminster.

I hope members will appreciate that the Executive is committed to ensuring that the most vulnerable people in Scotland get the advice and support that they need. I assure members that we will continue to work with the UK Government to ensure that that is the case.

Meeting closed at 17:54.