The next item of business is stage 3 of the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list of amendments, and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.
Section 2—Use of welfare funds: assistance for short term need and community care
We start with group 1, naturally. Amendment 2, in the name of Ken Macintosh, is grouped with amendments 3 and 5.
Under the bill, when an individual who is in crisis applies to the Scottish welfare fund because they have run out of money, local authorities are not restricted in any way in how they decide to support the applicant; they can do so through an award of goods, vouchers or whatever type of in-kind payment they choose, rather than in cash. The effect of the three amendments in the group would not be to change or restrict that range of options, but would simply be to give ministers the authority to produce regulations about the circumstances in which councils can make non-cash awards. I would hope to see that power being used to ensure that local authorities treat all applicants with dignity and respect by taking their circumstances, their preferences and their views into account in deciding on the nature of awards.
I have no doubt that in many circumstances—for example, when someone applies for a community care grant or is looking to move into a new flat—an individual may welcome a moving-in pack with all the plates, cutlery, bedding, furniture and everything else to make a home habitable, but they should have some say in that. When it comes to crisis grants as opposed to community care grants, there is strong evidence that applicants would fare much better if they were given money, rather than cards or vouchers.
One of the strongest themes that emerged from the witnesses who gave evidence to the Welfare Reform Committee was that turning to the state for support in times of difficulty made them feel judged and stigmatised. We heard direct evidence that the experience of using vouchers or tokens in local shops could be embarrassing, and it can make people feel small and undermine their sense of dignity. Is that really what we are trying to achieve? Are we trying to make people feel worse, or to give them a hand up in their time of need?
If anyone in the chamber received their salary in furniture or tokens, in all probability they would feel offended or patronised, so why should we be surprised if applicants for welfare feel similarly? Surely our intention through our approach to welfare in the bill is to build up resilience by, at the very least, putting as much choice as possible in the hands of the recipient.
Two years ago, a back-bench Conservative tried to introduce a bill in the House of Commons that would have seen all benefit recipients being paid using a card system through which the purchase of goods such as alcohol, cigarettes or Sky television would be prohibited. He justified that approach by talking about the “idleness of the shirkers”. I suspect that most liberal-minded members here would be horrified by such a judgmental approach, but how far away is that proposal from what happens day to day in Scotland? How easy would it be for some future Administration to head in that direction?
The anti-poverty organisations are clear that in-kind awards from the interim welfare fund have already become the default position. Only half of all crisis grants and less than 20 per cent of community grant awards are made by way of cash, cheque or direct bank transfer. In committee, some Scottish National Party members tried to defend that practice by suggesting that it is more cost effective. However, we heard evidence that such awards often do not produce best value for the recipient; indeed, they reduce independence and have proved to be problematic and difficult. We heard, for example, that issuing vouchers instead of cash undermines a family’s ability to get the best deals or the cheapest bargains by budgeting, spreading payments or shopping around for goods.
We also heard that items that are currently awarded do not always meet the identified needs of the applicant and their household; in fact, disabled applicants and other people who have very specific needs suggested that they are far better placed than the local authority to identify and purchase items that meet their needs.
In rural areas, the process is not only stigmatising, but families are likely to be limited in their ability to find a shop that takes vouchers.
In health and social care, we are moving to self-directed support specifically because we recognise that the personalisation agenda is very good for people’s health and wellbeing. We have recognised that it is good for people’s health to have more control over the carers that they employ; why cannot we apply exactly the same principle to welfare? A briefing from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations put it well:
“For many, having cash to buy what they need is by far the best option—not least because it gives people some semblance of control and dignity at a time when they cannot control the factors which have led them into hardship.”
To my mind, whatever our fine words about the principles of respect and dignity that we wish to underpin our approach to welfare in Scotland, the real test comes in the practice. I was reminded at the weekend of the motto of the poverty truth commission:
“Nothing about us, without us, is for us.”
The commission knows that poverty will never be truly addressed until those who experience it first hand are at the heart of the process. The SNP’s approach to the subject can at best be described as paternalistic. This is the first in a number of new powers over welfare. Let us get the foundations right from the start.
I move amendment 2.
I enjoyed hearing Ken Macintosh speak in support of his proposals because much of his argument was exactly the same as arguments that Conservatives are currently using for universal credit. We say, for example, that housing benefit should be paid directly to tenants rather than to their landlords in order to allow them to make choices about their priorities and what they do with their money. However, I observe that inconsistency without influence on the broader argument.
What choice do recipients of housing benefit have when all of it has to go on rent?
Let us carry on that argument at another time. I would be delighted to do so.
Let us talk about the arguments for cash versus kind. During the course of evidence taking, at a time when I was a member of the committee, it was obvious that Ken Mackintosh has an agenda. I understand that agenda. Ken Macintosh is keen to ensure that, wherever possible, cash rather than kind is the means by which support is given to individuals who apply to local authorities for it.
I take the view that, in certain circumstances, giving benefits or support in kind is quite often the correct approach. If someone requires a washing machine or a fridge, and one can be delivered to them at short notice, that approach is entirely desirable.
Similarly, if—as Ken Macintosh suggested as an example—someone lives in a rural community, they may well be unable to source the relevant product or device locally. If they live in an island community, it is doubly difficult. It is therefore essential that local authorities be left with discretion about how they provide support. No two local authorities are the same and no two circumstances are the same. As a consequence, many people may prefer to be supported in kind, while others may prefer to be supported in cash. However, the decision about what can best be delivered locally is best left to local authorities. For that reason, it is essential that we do not constrain local authorities in their decision-making process and that we ensure that the best decisions are made locally, for local people, based on local circumstances.
I therefore oppose the amendments in group 1.
We must remember that we are discussing today a £38 million fund that is having to mitigate £6 billion of benefit cuts. I believe that we should treat everybody with dignity and respect; I lodged an amendment in that vein at stage 2, and it was agreed to.
However, we must be realistic in considering how far £38 million of funding can actually go, and how many people out there require help because of the £6 billion of benefit cuts. I for one want that £38 million to be stretched as far as possible so that we can help as many as possible of the people who are facing the cuts.
I believe that we should not constrain councils, and I hope that common sense and compassion would apply with regard to payment of money or giving of goods to help individuals and families. In my experience, when folks on the front line are administrating the welfare fund, common sense and compassion do come into play.
During evidence, the Welfare Reform Committee heard from many folks about how happy they had been to receive goods rather than cash; we heard from folks who had left care and had received furniture packages from the local authority in the area where they lived, and they were quite happy with that situation. Again, I think that common sense should apply.
There are good aspects of payment being made in kind. In its briefing, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities notes that there are, in providing goods, benefits that extend beyond the individuals and families concerned. Again, provision of goods has probably enabled us to do more within the constraints of the £38 million fund.
COSLA also highlights the creation of more than 140 full-time jobs that are a direct result of the Scotland Excel framework, and the fact that more than 8,420 hours of work experience has been afforded to individuals throughout Scotland. COSLA mentions donations of furniture and flooring that have come in free of charge along with free person hours to allow installers and carpet fitters to help charitable organisations in assisting vulnerable young adults to set up home. It also mentions the opening of satellite stores in order to service councils, which has provided substantial efficiency benefits through enabling deliveries from local premises. That has led to significant reductions in carbon footprints, and has resulted in savings of approximately 170 tonnes of C02 emissions. COSLA also mentions recycling and reductions in landfill.
Those are particularly good things. The picture that Mr Macintosh painted suggests that nobody wants goods, but that is not what has come out in evidence. The key, quite simply, is the fact that we have a duty to help as many folk as we can within the constraints of that £38 million fund’s having, as I said, to mitigate £6 billion of benefit cuts.
If Mr Macintosh was truly serious about resolving some of those problems, his Labour colleagues would not have walked through the lobby at Westminster with the Tories the other week to vote for £30 billion more of austerity cuts.
I make it clear at the start that the guidance on the Scottish welfare fund states that local authorities must ensure that items awarded meet applicants’ needs. For example, if people need specific items because of a medical condition or their family make-up, that is a question not of choice but of need. I wish that we did not need a welfare fund and that applicants did not need the support that they do. However, the Scottish welfare fund is the safety net for people in need, and in most cases it is their last resort.
The minister will be aware that, according to the quarterly report to 30 September, £1 million was provided to applicants for food. That is a disgrace in our society. Is there not a degree of urgency about feeding the weans and feeding families who are hungry through the welfare fund, and is it not the case that we should do nothing to make the process any lengthier, because urgent action is needed in those circumstances?
I absolutely agree with Stewart Stevenson. The fund deals with people in emergency and crisis situations.
The welfare fund is a budget-limited fund that is operating in a time of increasing need, so it has to help as many people as it can in the most efficient way possible. Local authorities have found, particularly with community care grants, that that means awarding goods rather than cash grants. COSLA estimates that local authorities save about 20 per cent by using bulk buy versus cash payments.
That is not to say that there is no choice. Local authorities provide choice where they can. In the majority of local authority areas, applicants have choices about a range of goods. They also have a choice of fabrics and colour for curtains and towels.
Examples of where customers with specific needs have received different items to ensure that what is awarded meets their needs include a family with three children being offered a 10kg washing machine as opposed to a standard 5kg washing machine. Large families can choose bunk beds instead of single divans to allow more floor space for children to play in. Disabled customers who request hard flooring to allow ease of use for wheelchairs receive laminate flooring, not carpets, which could be unsuitable.
As Kevin Stewart said, many applicants appreciate the service provided by local authorities. The delivery and installation of goods can relieve a lot of stress and anxiety that come with people having to arrange that for themselves, particularly at times of vulnerability. Many simply cannot access shops to choose goods.
To sum up, I would rather that local authorities were able to provide community care grants to 1,200 households by providing goods.
I am grateful to the minister for allowing me to make a technical intervention. I note that the bill introduces the affirmative procedure for new secondary legislation. Given that that implies a 40-day delay before legislation can become effective, should the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have had the opportunity to consider what form of secondary legislation should apply?
I do not know how helpful Mr Stevenson’s technical intervention was, but we certainly took on every recommendation that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made about regulations and the affirmative procedure and we introduced changes accordingly at stage 2.
As I was saying, I would rather help 1,200 households by providing goods than have 1,000 choosing how they are helped while 200 people are left with no help at all. We are talking about helping as many people as we can from the funds available.
However, in respect of crisis grants, I consider cash or cash equivalent to be the most appropriate method of payment, and I have committed to ensuring in regulations that cash is the default position for crisis grant payments, unless it suits the applicant to have an award fulfilled in another manner. I therefore ask Ken Macintosh not to press amendment 2.
A number of comments have been made. Alex Johnstone suggested that I have an agenda; I do have an agenda, but it is nothing to do with cash payments versus payments in kind. It is simply to empower individuals to make the most of their own abilities, and to move away from a welfare system and a welfare reform programme that are punitive and undermine people’s sense of their own self-worth.
Alex Johnstone suggested that he is more concerned about local authorities being constrained than about helping individuals. Bizarrely, Kevin Stewart agreed that he does not want to constrain local authorities. The issue is not about local authorities.
The member fails to miss the point. The folks on the front line have a real recognition of the difficulties that people are going through; I said that we should not constrain them and that common sense should apply.
One of the key questions that Mr Macintosh must answer is why he pontificates here about the issue when his colleagues in Westminster go through the lobbies with the Tories to vote for more benefit cuts and more austerity in this country. That does not match up.
I am not sure, from what Mr Stewart said, whether he thinks that I failed or did not fail to miss the point in his opening remarks. I clarify that Mr Stewart suggested that he was concerned about the constraint that the amendments would place on local authorities—not on individuals. He said that we have to be realistic and stretch the money as far as possible. There is no evidence—I say this to the minister as well—to suggest that my proposal would be less cost effective or more expensive or that it would draw more on public resources than the current system.
As we heard in evidence, if I give someone the money to buy a washing machine, they can buy a washing machine. If I am a local authority and VAT registered, I can give someone a washing machine and claim the 20 per cent VAT back. How is that not more efficient?
I do not know whether Mr Johnstone bought his own washing machine or does his own shopping, but what if I were to suggest to him that he was to leave his spending decisions on washing machines—or on any other purchase that he wants to make—to his local authority? Does he believe that the local authority is better placed than he is to make purchases on his behalf?
I do not believe that there is one person in the chamber who would trust a council or any other body, no matter how much they might admire it, to purchase goods on their behalf, so why do we apply that double standard to local authorities and benefit recipients? There is no logic behind it and it is not cost effective. The amendments would not draw extra from the public purse and there is no evidence whatsoever for the idea that somehow, by refusing the amendments, we would help 1,000 people rather than 200. That is a paternalistic, producer-led mentality.
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I take an intervention, Presiding Officer?
Yes, but briefly, please, because we need to make progress.
I did not say that we would help 1,000 people rather than 200; I said that we could help 200 more people through councils buying goods in bulk. If we did not buy goods in bulk, we could help only 1,000 people instead of 1,200; 200 more people could be helped, which is important. The fund has to stretch as much as possible.
Mr Macintosh, can you please come to a conclusion?
I suggest that the minister has presented no evidence to back up her statement. I refer to the evidence that I gave in committee just a few weeks ago about a local authority no longer using the Instant Neighbour organisation in Aberdeen, which is in Kevin Stewart’s neighbourhood. Bulk purchasing of cheap, shoddily produced goods is not necessarily the sustainable solution that people wish for.
Will the member take an intervention?
I think that we have heard quite enough from Mr Stewart on this point—
Please wind up now, Mr Macintosh.
The Presiding Officer seems to agree with me. If Mr Stewart wants to side with the Tories yet again—as the SNP so often does to get amendments through or to defeat amendments—that is his choice.
To strike a slightly different note to conclude, I have no doubt that the minister wishes to do her best by welfare recipients. I have no doubt about her intentions. However, if we do not allow ourselves to put the individual—the benefit claimant—at the heart of our thinking, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the current welfare system. I take encouragement from her last remark that she will try to encourage local authorities to deliver cash, not in-kind, payments. However, I urge members to put that in legislation.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division, I will suspend the meeting for five minutes.
14:54 Meeting suspended.
We now proceed with the division on amendment 2.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Ken Macintosh].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Before we move to group 2, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 9.8.5A of standing orders, to propose that the time limit for debate be extended by 10 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit for debate on amendments be extended by 10 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]
Motion agreed to.
We move to group 2. Amendment 4, in the name of Ken Macintosh, is the only amendment in the group.
The effect of accepting amendment 4 would be to add families facing exceptional pressure to the legislative list of those who qualify for a community care grant.
To clarify what that means, the Child Poverty Action Group suggests that families in the kind of situations that we are talking about include lone parents with young children who need household items
“following the violent breakdown of a relationship”
or, in another example, families in which
“the sudden deterioration in the condition of a disabled child justifies an award for a washing-machine”.
For members who did not follow our discussion of the matter at stage 2, I point out that the interim Scottish welfare fund lists five qualifying criteria. Four of those categories are explicitly described in the bill and the only group that is omitted—the only group that is not mentioned at all in the bill—is families facing exceptional pressure. In other words, under the bill, someone who faces the possibility of prison would qualify for support but someone who is looking after their disabled husband or child would not. Someone who is at risk of becoming homeless would qualify but someone who is fleeing domestic violence would not.
At stage 2, the minister presented two arguments. She seemed to suggest that, as an alternative to accepting our amendment, she could include families facing exceptional pressure in guidance but not in the bill. I ask her what authority she draws on to be able to name that group in regulations but not in statute. If she believes that the section 30 order that was passed two years ago does not give her the power to name families facing exceptional pressure as a qualifying category in the bill, she has no authority to direct or guide local authorities through regulations. Conversely, if she believes that she can use guidance to help that group of people, she should do so clearly in legislation and give families equal status and equal priority with other vulnerable groups.
The minister presented a second argument at stage 2. She suggested that what data there was indicated that the interim scheme was currently successful in targeting families that face exceptional pressure. The trouble with that argument is that the interim scheme specifically includes that category on an equal footing with the other four categories of people who qualify for assistance.
We do not have an issue with the interim scheme. It is only the bill before us today that demotes vulnerable families and clearly indicates to those who will have to interpret the law that they are not on a par with others who need assistance. In fact, we are in a bizarre situation in which the needs of vulnerable families were recognised under the old Department for Work and Pensions social fund system and continue to be recognised under the interim system but are omitted in the new legislation that is before us today.
Whatever the minister’s intentions, as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has clearly stated:
“Such a situation would give rise to a risk that local authorities—or future governments—might deprioritise applications from such families in order to protect their budgets or increase the share of community care grants that are applicable to other categories of applicants”.
I would like the minister to clarify one other point in her reply. At committee, she highlighted her concerns about the competence of the amendment. One of the committee members then suggested that the whole bill could fall if we were to indicate our support for the amendment. Could the minister clarify that that is not the case and that it does not do our discussion any favours to hyperbolise the potential impact of one disputed section?
The Poverty Alliance has highlighted that the minimum cost of raising a child rose by 4 per cent in 2013, while the minimum wage rose by less than 2 per cent and, for those needing support, benefits were capped at 1 per cent. Quite simply, families are under ever-increasing pressure. They have little or nothing in the way of savings to call on and they are relying on us. They need to know that they can turn to the Scottish welfare fund for support in a crisis or an emergency.
This amendment has the support of the SCVO, the Poverty Alliance, Inclusion Scotland, CPAG, One Parent Families Scotland and Carers Scotland. I urge the chamber to support it.
I move amendment 4.
Given the constraints on time, I am afraid that I am going to have to limit speakers to one minute in this debate.
Something that really frustrates me is when this Parliament is not given the competence to do something. Obviously, I think that the Parliament should have competence over everything that affects the people of Scotland. However, what we have clearly been told is that this amendment would take section 2 beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and could put the bill at risk of not receiving royal assent.
I want there to be protection for families who are facing exceptional pressure, and I hope to hear from the minister how we will be able to do that. However, what I do not want to do is to risk this bill not becoming law.
Mr Macintosh mentions things such as the minimum wage, which we do not control. He also mentioned the benefit cap that affects families, so it is rather strange that his party voted for that benefit cap in Westminster. What we are hearing today from the Labour benches is hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
I want to put two questions to the minister in line with Ken Macintosh’s remarks. The first concerns the legal question of placing something in guidance versus placing it in statute. There seems to be a fundamental point there about the consistency of the bill, and I am sure that the minister will want to clarify for Parliament the approach that she wants to take on all of the issues that the Parliament is debating this afternoon.
Secondly, as Ken Macintosh also mentioned, CPAG and other groups have sought clarity on the Government’s position that the amendment could be considered by some lawyers to be outwith the powers of the Parliament. If that is the case, is this not a case in which the sensible and constructive arrangements that are being put in place under the Smith agreement to ensure that Governments can resolve these kinds of issues should be brought to bear?
We talk a lot about welfare issues in this Parliament but today, in talking about the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Bill, we are talking about the safety net that lies below the safety net. It is the last line of defence and, therefore, it is essential that no one should be allowed to fall through it. Ken Macintosh has identified a group of people who he believes were covered by previous provisions and the interim Scottish welfare fund but are not covered by the proposals in the bill.
Kevin Stewart is concerned that the Queen might somehow be offended by the amendment and not grant royal assent. By stage 3 we should have had more clarity from the Scottish Government about exactly what it means, and not more dithering about whether or not the amendment is competent. Therefore, unless the minister can come up with a very good answer, it would be sensible for this Parliament to proceed by supporting the amendment.
The intention behind the amendment has been the subject of much discussion throughout the passage of the bill, and I know that many stakeholders and MSPs would like to add explicitly to the bill families under exceptional pressure. Although I might have liked to have been able to include in the bill a specific reference to families under exceptional pressure, as with many decisions about welfare, it is not within the gift of the Scottish Parliament to legislate without having regard to the limits on its competence, as Kevin Stewart alluded to.
The qualifying groups in the bill mirror what is in the section 30 order, and we must stay within that to keep the competence of the bill. To accept the amendment would take the bill outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The risk of the bill not gaining royal assent—which is not about the Queen—is just too great. It would result in the funds having no statutory basis and applicants having no right to an independent review by the ombudsman.
That is not to say that we will not try to amend the terms of the bill in future. The Smith commission agreed that this Parliament should have new powers to make discretionary payments in any area of welfare, and clause 18 of the draft clauses published by the United Kingdom Government goes some way towards delivering that. However, we do not think that it goes far enough and I have asked my officials to start discussions with the Scotland Office about widening its scope appropriately, so that this Parliament can revisit the terms of the act that this bill will become, in light of the required widened competence.
In the meantime, my officials are already working with CPAG to ensure that families under exceptional pressure get due regard in the welfare funds guidance. As I said at stage 2, I intend to make an explicit reference to families under pressure, as a subsection of the wider group covered in the bill, in the regulations that will follow the bill.
Having said all that, I take the opportunity to put beyond doubt the capacity of welfare funds to support low-income families who face exceptional pressures. As I said at stage 2:
“there is no barrier now, nor under the permanent arrangements by virtue of the bill’s wording, to prevent families under exceptional pressure from accessing welfare funds. Regulations and guidance will ensure that applications from that group continue to be given priority.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 27 January 2015; c 19.]
That means that families under exceptional pressure will continue to be able to access welfare funds in the same way as they do now.
Indeed, Scottish welfare fund statistics show that under the interim scheme 38 per cent of households receiving community care grants contain children, in comparison with 32 per cent of households under the social fund, and 30 per cent of households receiving crisis grants contain children, compared with 16 per cent of households that received social fund crisis loans.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask Ken Macintosh not to press his amendment.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the questions about competence, it would be helpful to members who have not been part of the committee’s scrutiny of the bill if you could indicate whether the amendment’s presence on the marshalled list indicates that the Presiding Officer has ruled that it is competent.
As members will be aware, whether or not the subject matter of an amendment is within the legislative competence of the Parliament is not one of the criteria that determine an amendment’s admissibility. I hope that that is helpful.
I call Ken Macintosh to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment, as briefly as possible.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Those comments were slightly helpful. Perhaps it would be more helpful for Patrick Harvie to know that the amendment was drawn up by the Parliament’s own lawyers, so its competence is in no doubt.
I do not know whether Mr Harvie has ever served on what used to be known as the Subordinate Legislation Committee, but every single week a number of instruments that go through this Parliament are challenged by the Scottish Parliament’s lawyers as incompetent and ultra vires, and the Government blithely ignores those ultra vires claims and says that they will not be challenged. It presents that particular argument: it says that they will not be challenged. I say to the minister, who will challenge this?
15:15
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you please confirm to me that we are dealing with two completely different matters here? There is an absolute difference between something that is competently put down in an amendment and something that is competent under the Scotland Act. Will you confirm that those two things are completely different and that Ken Macintosh is talking a lot of nonsense?
As you will be aware, the competence in this set of circumstances is a matter of debate and the Presiding Officer has made her ruling on it.
Mr Macintosh, please resume.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I ask the minister yet again, who exactly is going to challenge the competence or otherwise of this particular measure? We are trying to include families under exceptional pressure on the face of the bill. Does the minister believe that families will challenge this? Does the minister believe that benefit claimants will challenge this?
Will the member take an intervention? [Interruption.]
Can we have order, please, to allow Mr Macintosh to make his points?
Does the minister believe Mr Stewart’s far-fetched claim that the Queen will challenge this?
Mr Macintosh is asking whether families are going to challenge this. Of course I do not think that, but what we are saying is that the amendment is outwith the competence of what we are able to do just now. I do not want to put the bill under threat because of that. Families under exceptional pressure are not excluded from help through the permanent welfare fund bill that we are putting through today.
Mr Macintosh, you must come to your conclusion very quickly now please.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will the Presiding Officer please confirm that it is actually the Advocate General who would decide upon whether a matter contravenes the Scotland Act or not; that the power and responsibility lie in that office; and that it is highly likely that if a body of legislation that was passed here did not meet his particular rules, he would rule against that act?
Once a bill has been passed, there are various processes in place, as set out in the Scotland Act 1998, that may be initiated if someone views a bill or any of its provisions as being outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence.
Mr Macintosh, please wind up now.
Somebody who might use the bill might offer a challenge. Well, I put it to Mr Crawford, exactly who? Perhaps Mr Crawford will get on his feet again and tell me who is going to challenge the competence. Mr Crawford seems to suggest that his Government’s own Advocate General is going to challenge the competence of a measure passed by this Parliament to help families under exceptional pressure. [Interruption.] I will take an intervention from Mr Salmond, if that is all right.
I would have thought that a parliamentarian of Ken Macintosh’s long experience would know that the Advocate General is a post of the Westminster Government.
That is not a point of order, but thank you.
Mr Macintosh, you must close within the next 20 seconds.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was quite pleased to hear Mr Salmond making a contribution to the debate, given that he supports the welfare cap that Mr Stewart talked about just a few minutes earlier. I was delighted to see him come into the debate. [Interruption.]
Order! Are you pressing or withdrawing your amendment, Mr Macintosh?
I see that the back benches seem very comfortable to sit on for Mr Salmond when he is challenged.
I suggest to the minister that she did not answer any of my questions.
Press or withdraw your amendment, Mr Macintosh.
Very well, Presiding Officer. I will press the amendment.
Thank you.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a one-minute division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 54, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Ken Macintosh].
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Section 5—Further provision
As we have passed the agreed time limit under rule 9.8.4A(a), I consider it necessary to allow the debate on group 3 to continue beyond the limit in order to allow those with a right to speak on the amendment in the group to do so. In this case, that will be only the minister and Mr Macintosh.
We now move to group 3. Amendment 6 is the only amendment in the group.
I hope that amendment 6 is slightly less contentious or that it will provoke slightly less reaction than the other two amendments seem to have. I say to Mr Johnstone that I may be being too optimistic.
The effect of amendment 6 would be to ensure that decisions on applications for crisis grants should be made immediately when possible and, if not immediately, by the end of the next working day in any event.
As some members will know from evidence to the Welfare Reform Committee, under the interim Scottish welfare fund local authorities have 48 hours in which to process a claim. However, under the previous DWP scheme, the deadline was 24 hours.
The issue first came to light when figures were presented to the committee that revealed that the interim fund was not meeting applicants’ needs as timeously as the previous scheme. For example, the figures for the old DWP crisis loan system show that payments were made in two days in 98.5 per cent of cases. That compares with a figure of just 94 per cent for the Scottish welfare fund.
The point was picked up by a number of voluntary and anti-poverty organisations. For example, Quarriers highlighted its concern that, if a 48-hour deadline is to be applied,
“an application that is made on a Friday or a Thursday ... may not be processed until late on Monday.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform Committee, 7 October 2014; c 4.]
That would be after the weekend.
The strongest evidence probably came from the Child Poverty Action Group, which said:
“In the experience of our advisors, applications for crisis loans made over the phone were processed very quickly by the DWP. Delay was sometimes caused by difficulties getting through on the phone in the first place but, once connected, the process was generally very quick. Decisions were often made at the end of the initial phone call, with the claimant given an office from which an award could be collected on the same day. This also happens with some (though not all) SWF crisis grant applications.”
CPAG concluded:
“there is no implicit reason that processing times should be longer in relation to crisis grants”—
that is, under the new system—
“than they were for crisis loans. We are also concerned that the reference to a 48 hour time limit once all relevant information is received may lead some decision makers to request evidence when it is not needed.”
In other words, although this is clearly not the minister’s intention, the 48-hour backstop will become a target that will inadvertently have the effect of slowing down the process rather than speeding it up.
In her remarks to the Welfare Reform Committee, the minister suggested that she was going to consult actively on the area and that she intended to think carefully about the issue before including it in regulations. Has the minister had time to think about the matter further? Can she share any of those thoughts with members? If not, I urge members to support my amendment 6, which would replace the current 48-hour backstop with the original 24-hour timescale.
I move amendment 6.
We have made it clear, from the start of the interim fund, that the speed of processing is key because of the risk of harm to applicants. The guidance on the interim fund requires local authorities to process crisis grants as soon as possible, and it requires that urgent applications for living expenses be prioritised. The maximum processing time of two working days is to make it clear that long processing times are not acceptable—it is in no way a target or a waiting time.
Under the interim fund, 64 per cent of crisis grants are processed on the same working day and a further 24 per cent are processed the next day. Only yesterday, I visited a Scottish welfare fund team and spoke to the staff, who demonstrated their dedication and commitment in aiming to process all the crisis grant applications within a day, especially on Fridays, so that applicants are not left in crisis for extended periods.
As Ken Macintosh said, I indicated at stage 2 that I would consult on putting a 24-hour processing time for crisis grants in regulations. I have considered the matter further and have looked at the amendment again. The amendment supports the approach that we have taken in our current guidance, and it also fits with the performances of local authorities in processing crisis grants. Given the level of support for the amendment among stakeholders and across the chamber, I am happy to accept the amendment.
Thank you very much, minister—it turns out that I was not too optimistic.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Section 5A—Respect for, and dignity of, applicants for assistance
We move to group 4. Amendment 7, in the name of Margaret McDougall, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 7 seeks to amend the provision inserted by Kevin Stewart’s amendment that was passed at stage 2 on respect for, and the dignity of, applicants for assistance. It adds that the particular needs and choices of applicants are to be considered by the local authority.
The amendment ensures that local authorities can make awards in cash rather than in kind, so that recipients can have some responsibility over choice and control in their lives. At stage 2, it was argued that introducing choice would put pressure on local authority budgets, but I argue that treating people with dignity and respect is about allowing them to exercise their right of choice. The amendment ensures that a payment can be made either in kind or in money. There is no reason why a crisis grant would cost the local authority any more if the award was in money rather than in kind, so the policy would be cost neutral.
The amendment is supported by the Poverty Alliance, which has stated:
“The refusal to trust applicants with monetary grants increases stigma and can make the applicant feel like they are receiving hand-outs rather than accessing legitimate support from the state social security system. We believe it is important that all decisions are made around what is best for the individual and the applicant’s voice should be heard throughout the decision making process.”
In evidence, the Welfare Reform Committee heard of many incidents in which lack of choice resulted in increased stigma for the individual living in poverty. SCVO argued that the argument against choice focused primarily on administrative convenience. The bill will be the benchmark for any future benefits legislation in the Scottish Parliament, so it should be an exemplar for welfare legislation in Scotland. As such, it needs to show that the needs and choice of the individual are at the centre of the legislation. Being allowed choice and how people are supported must drive the fund and the supporting legislation.
I hope that the Scottish Government sees fit to support the amendment at stage 3, to remove the stigma and to support the applicants’ right to choice. I would argue that cost is not an issue, as this amendment to include choice is cost neutral.
I move amendment 7.
I seek clarification on the amendment. If the purpose is merely to ensure that flexibility exists in the system, I can understand why we would want to pursue that. However, is it the intention of the amendment to bring in a guaranteed right of an applicant to have payment in cash from a local authority if they make that choice, or am I misreading it?
15:30
I echo the point that this is about getting the principles behind the bill right. This is the first of a series of bills implementing a new welfare system in Scotland, so it is important that we get the principles right.
The minister accepted a stage 2 amendment on dignity and respect, which was lodged by Kevin Stewart. However, she left out the needs and the choices of the individual, yet that is very much in keeping with Scottish Government policy.
The Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 talks about individuals being able to “make an informed choice”. The Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, through integration principles, encourages integrated health and social care services to take account
“of the particular needs ... and circumstances”
of individuals. The NHS quality strategy mentions “improved patient choice”. What is wrong with having the word “choice” as a principle in the bill?
It has always been a priority that welfare funds should be delivered in such a way that preserves the dignity of welfare fund users. That is why I was happy to accept the stage 2 amendment lodged by Kevin Stewart at the Welfare Reform Committee. That amendment accorded with my view that, regardless of the funds available, welfare services should be delivered with respect and dignity. That is now clearly established in the bill.
The issues that are relevant to the amendment have been covered in the debate on the group 1 amendments that were lodged by Ken Macintosh. As I said then, it is simply not the case that allowing increased choice for applicants would not lead to increased costs for local authorities.
Local authorities would have higher administrative costs if they had to discuss choices with applicants and had to deal with queries and people changing their minds. Even getting out the cash in some instances—I am talking here about community care grants—at the levels required would result in additional administrative charges.
The Scottish welfare fund is a budget-limited fund operating in a time of increasing need. It needs to help as many people in the most efficient way possible. As I have said, local authorities have found that—this applies to community care grants in particular—they can help more people by awarding goods rather than cash grants. I have also made it clear that, when it comes to crisis grants, we will introduce in regulation that the default position should be cash.
COSLA estimates that local authorities broadly save 20 per cent by using bulk buy versus cash payments. We cannot discount that. Furthermore, that cannot be done unless local authorities can guarantee certain volumes. It was also clear that local authorities should be providing specific items when they are required. That is in the current guidance, and it will also be included in the statutory guidance that we will issue under the bill.
I do not want to go over all the ground again—
Indeed, I would be happy if you would come to a close.
I am happy to restate that we will look again at the guidance for the permanent arrangements to see whether we can do more to ensure that, when applicants have a genuine need for a particular product, there is a clear understanding about what should happen.
I was happy to support Kevin Stewart’s stage 2 amendment. It captured the essence of what stakeholders have been calling for without bringing additional pressure to bear on local authority budgets. Amendment 7 does not achieve that aim, so I urge Margaret McDougall to withdraw it.
I ask Margaret McDougall to wind up and indicate whether she wants to press or withdraw her amendment.
In answer to Alex Johnstone’s question, the gist of which was whether a local authority must provide a monetary crisis loan if that is what an individual chooses, I point out that the amendment allows for choice to best suit the needs of the individual in discussion with the local authority. There will be circumstances when the individual’s choice will be overruled by the local authority—for example, if that individual has a history of losing their purse, which is often why a crisis loan is given, or they have a health issue—but the choice would at least be discussed.
There has been wide support for amendment 7 from the third sector. As I said, there is no reason why a crisis grant would cost the local authority any more as a result of the award being made in monetary terms rather than in kind. The proposal would be cost neutral, so there would be no additional cost to the local authority.
I am afraid that I must rush you.
I heard nothing in the minister’s arguments that makes me want to reconsider, so I press amendment 7.
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 37, Against 79, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Before section 6F
We move to group 5. Amendment 8, in the name of Margaret McDougall, is the only amendment in the group.
I call Margaret McDougall to speak to and move amendment 8. As we are now extraordinarily tight for time, I ask you to be brief, please.
Amendment 8 relates to annual reporting. It would require the Scottish Government to prepare an initial report, giving information about the delivery of the welfare funds, that would be laid before Parliament on or before 30 June 2016. Subsequent reports would be laid before Parliament on or before the same date every year.
The initial report should include information on the amount that was paid out of the welfare funds; the number of applications that were received for assistance in pursuance of section 2; and the number of applications that resulted in financial assistance being provided, the number that resulted in assistance in kind being provided and the number that were rejected. That information is the bare minimum that the report should include. The Scottish Government could include additional information if it considered that appropriate.
Given that the bill will be the first real piece of welfare legislation that the Scottish Parliament has created, it is correct that we set procedures for proper review. Parliament should be able to scrutinise how the welfare funds are performing and their effectiveness, and annual reporting would allow that to happen.
Amendment 8 is in line with the principles of the Scottish Parliament, as it promotes openness and transparency. It is a matter of good practice to ensure that the statistics in question are kept on record and reported to the Parliament annually.
Such an amendment has been called for by the SCVO, which stated:
“Given the critical nature of the Fund and the concerns outlined above, both Government and parliamentary review is vital. We support proposed amendments for review submitted by Scottish Labour. At the very least, we seek a strong assurance from Ministers that the Fund will be comprehensively reviewed and can be scrutinised by the Parliament under the provisions of the Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland Act) 2012.”
The amendment was voted down at stage 2, but I hope that the Scottish Government will reconsider its position, especially given its recent announcements on the reporting of national health service statistics.
I move amendment 8.
The information that amendment 8 requests be provided is information that should be easily available to the Government and which it is not onerous to record. The publication deadline and timetable that are set out would give the Government plenty of time to achieve what is sought. The provision of the information in question would foster and underpin discussion and policy development on the scheme by the Government and other parties, so it would be valuable if it were published annually as set out in amendment 8.
Tavish Scott—as briefly as possible, please.
I support Margaret McDougall’s amendment 8 for two reasons. First, the Smith agreement will create more opportunity in this area for new developments that the Scottish Parliament will wish to take forward, so it will be in the Government’s interests to introduce a new form of transparency to its policy making and, indeed, to parliamentary scrutiny of that. Secondly, if we do not do what amendment 8 proposes, Audit Scotland will recommend it in three years’ time and we will end up having to do it.
Ken Macintosh, briefly.
We are putting in place a new system for welfare, and I believe that we should have the information to be able to scrutinise and hold the system to account; the Parliament in particular should have a formal role to play in that. I remind the minister that, despite the heated exchanges so far, there is generally broad agreement about the bill but there are concerns about, for example, the underspend of resources in certain areas, gatekeeping by some local authorities and whether information about protected characteristics has been gathered. I urge the minister to accept the idea of a process of review and to give Parliament a role in that. I support amendment 8.
I said at stage 2 that I agreed with the views in the Welfare Reform Committee’s stage 1 report, which said that on-going monitoring was preferable to a review clause. My view on the issue remains the same. Our statistical monitoring framework already captures the information that amendment 8 suggests we lay in a report before the Scottish Parliament. The statistical monitoring that we publish on a quarterly basis will provide an excellent mechanism for highlighting any issues that arise in the operation of the Scottish welfare funds, including those that Ken Macintosh outlined.
Many of the Welfare Reform Committee’s discussions since the welfare funds were launched have come directly from analysis of the statistical reports. Alongside the case observation work that we have been doing with COSLA, the statistical publications have allowed local authorities and the Scottish Government to respond to issues as they arise.
At stage 2, I also highlighted the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the independent reviews of disputed local authority decisions that he will undertake. Those independent reviews will provide a mechanism for scrutiny of the operation of individual local authorities and any patterns in complaints and reviews that indicate unintended consequences of regulations and guidance.
I fully expect that the workings of the permanent arrangements will be subject to on-going parliamentary scrutiny through the committee process and future consideration of Scottish Government budgets. It would be very surprising if the permanent arrangements were not to be subject to scrutiny as the Scottish Parliament considers Scottish Government plans for implementing the new welfare-related powers that will flow from the Smith commission process.
I believe that sufficient mechanisms exist through the Parliament, Scottish Government statistical publications and the input that we all have from the third sector in Scotland to mean that an on-going requirement to lay an annual review before Parliament would not add significantly to the knowledge that we have on how welfare funds are operating; in fact, such a requirement could even divert scarce resources from the established continuous improvement that is taking place. On that basis, I ask Margaret McDougall to withdraw amendment 8.
I am afraid that I must ask Margaret McDougall just to press or withdraw amendment 8.
Oh. May I just thank Alex Johnstone and Tavish Scott for their support? I had hoped that the minister would support having a specific report, given the importance of the welfare funds and the bill. I press amendment 8.
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
Section 6G—Consequential modifications
15:45
We move to group 6. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 1 is a technical amendment that removes a provision that related to a section of the bill that was proposed as a stage 2 amendment. The amendment in question was withdrawn, so there is no requirement for the provision in proposed new section 19(2C)(d) of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, which the amendment removes.
I move amendment 1.
We support the amendment. The minister recognised the disproportionate nature of the powers to be granted to the ombudsman, and amendment 1 arose as a consequence. I welcome it on behalf of the Labour Party.
Minister, do you wish to wind up?
No.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.
Previous
Topical Question Time